So what's the deal?
We have a nuclear missile system that is designed by, manufactured by
the US. Aldermaston, which produces the warheads, is co-managed by
Lockheed. The submarine maintenance base at Plymouth is 51% owned by
Halliburton. So we're hardly talking an independent deterrent here.
The capital cost for replacing trident will be £20 billion, with annual
running costs of £1.5 billion. Over its 30yr lifetime, that's only
about 3% of military spending – but still, that says more about how
much we spend on the military.
Has nuclear deterrence worked against Saddam? In Bosnia, Afghanistan,
Iraq? The major threat to Britain at present is terrorism, against
which nuclear weapons have no part to play.
The submarines are based at Faslane on the Clyde. The base accounts for
nearly 10 000 jobs, directly and indirectly. Although defence is not a
devolved issue, the Scottish parliament could cause Westminister
serious problems if it chose to oppose Trident. A majority of Scottish
MPs voted against replacing Trident, only by getting Tory votes did the
motion carry. A final approval for the warheads will be required in
2012 or thereabouts, a headache for another government.
Is it legal? The Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty says that parties
must pursue negotiations relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race
and on general disarmament under international control.