tridentreplacement.net

Paul Ingram
Summary
The current rush to decide on Trident replacement is unnecessary, reduces military flexibility and interoperability with the United States, further undermines the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and stymies an open debate. It also entails commitment to spending when the public finances are likely to come under increasing pressure. There are technical reasons for believing the life expectancy of the existing submarines could be greater than currently estimated, and that the replacement costs could be reduced by avoiding a full replacement programme.

The recent Defence Committee Report called for a full and properly informed debate. It also highlighted that a final decision need not be taken before 2014, provided any delay was for a purpose. This briefing supports that conclusion, while making the case that the 2014 deadline is a conservative estimate and that a longer delay is possible. We also suggest that the purpose of the delay should be:

• To have a proper debate informed by a Green Paper;
• To maximise military flexibility with regard to future uncertain threats, and to avoid premature redundancy of follow-on systems caused by the UK being out-of-step in its procurement timelines with the United States, upon whom we rely for the missile systems; and
• To enable the UK Government to mount a high-profile UK leadership initiative in the international arena to strengthen the NPT and move towards multilateral disarmament (much as the UK has led on climate change and Make Poverty History).
  http://www.basicint.org/pubs/SB060725.htm