Global Security Newswire

The United Kingdom's new defense secretary is viewed by some issue experts as less generally supportive than his predeessor of an expensive program to replace the nation's Trident-missile based nuclear deterrent, the London Sunday Express reported on Sunday (see GSN, July 8).

Philip Hammond, who took over as British defense chief after Liam Fox resigned earlier this month following accusations of an improper relationship with a lobbyist, has been characterized by some as a budget hawk rather than a defense hawk.

"I have always supported Britain retaining its nuclear deterrent as the ultimate insurance against the most extreme threats and wholeheartedly believe in maintaining a continuous, ­submarine-based deterrent," Hammond said in a statement released by the Defense Ministry.

The Conservative Party, which leads the current British coalition government, has thrown its support behind a Labor-era initiative to build four new ballistic missile submarines to replace Vanguard-class vessels slated for retirement in the 2020s. Cost estimates for the plan have risen in the last year to as much as $40 billion. The government has said it would delay a final decision to construct the submarines until after the 2015 election, though approximately $4.8 billion has already been spent to advance the project (see GSN, May 25).

The United Kingdom's deterrent is premised on having at least one nuclear-armed submarine deployed at all times.

IHS Jane's Defense & Security Intelligence and Analysis lead researcher Guy Anderson said, "Dr. Fox argued hard to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent and expended much political capital on the issue. While Dr. Fox hinted he would have been willing to resign over it, Hammond is unlikely to share his strong feelings."

While noting Hammond's stated public support of maintaining a British strategic force, Anderson told the Sunday Express "this may well be his position but it is not clear how far he would push if ­funding started to bite. His record is causing concern among military figures."

In past Parliament votes, Hammond, a Conservative lawmaker, failed to participate from all votes having to do with Trident modernization despite his party's strong support for renewal.

Hammond can choose one of three principal paths, including pursuing the one-for-one submarine replacement backed by the Conservative leadership, according to the newspaper.

Alternately, he could take up Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey's call to either decrease the size of the nation's nuclear forces or do away with the deterrent. Supporters of this path argue the security challenges of the 21st century no longer demand a continuous sea-based nuclear deterrent when a less costly force potentially premised on land-based weapons would suffice.

A land-based deterrent, unlike a submarine-based system, could be more easily monitored by foreign nations. "However, most nations do not have the sophistication to do this," one analyst said.

The third alternative would be to deepen the integration of the British and French nuclear forces. Paris is reportedly interested in a joint effort to maintain "continuous-at-sea-deterrence," with each European power swapping turns at deploying ballistic missile submarines.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy two years ago stated, "There can be no situation in which the vital interests of either of our two nations could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened."

The idea of relinquishing any measure of control over the nation's nuclear posture is strongly opposed by some in the British defense establishment.

"I would much rather see closer ties with the U.S. since our interests are more often than not more aligned," said former First Sea Lord Adm. Alan West.

Washington, though, is in the middle of its own assessment of its nuclear requirements. President Obama is well-known for his desire to realize a world free of all nuclear weapons and senior military officials have speculated that budgetary constraints might necessitate at some future point eliminating one leg of the nation's strategic triad (see GSN, Oct. 18).

"France is ­increasingly worried that the U.S. is slowly in withdrawal, as was shown in Libya, and that this might also influence the U.K.’s ultimate resolve to maintain its nuclear deterrent," French Institute of International Relations researcher Etienne de Durand said. "France does not want to be the only nuclear power in Europe" (Marco Giannangeli, London Sunday Express, Oct. 23).

In a Friday interview with the BBC, Hammond said, "I am absolutely committed to the Trident program and always have been," the Press Association reported.

He brushed aside questions of missed decisions on Trident renewal, saying other duties had kept him away from Parliament when a vote was held.

"Had I been there I would have voted in favor," Hammond said (Sam Lister, Press Association/Google News, Oct. 21).