Executive summary
This report discusses the successor to Britain's Trident nuclear
missile system. It examines British dependence on the
United States
and concludes that most of the discussion on the replacement is
based on the false premise that the UK has an independent nuclear
weapon. To support this conclusion, the re port reviews the history of
Britain's involvement with nuclear weapons from 1940 to the present
day to show a sixty-year-old pattern of British dependence on the US
for Weapons of Mass Destruction (W MD).
The report also concludes that Trident should not be replaced and
should be phased out now, as neither Trident nor any US-supported
successor would meet the 1940 requirement' for a system that the
nation can rely on if it stands alone as in 1940. Back in the Second
World War, the British government concluded it could not be a
nuclear power without US support. Half a century later, the
dependence remains decisive: President George Bush Snr ordered
his officials to produce additional nuclear weapons parts as
necessary for transfer to the United Kingdom' (page 14). For fifty
years, successive governments have concluded that Britain cannot
afford an independent nuclear deterrent. An independent system is
not an option.
The nuclear relationship will continue to tie the UK to US policy
according to Admiral Raymond Lygo, former Chairman of British
Aerospace and director of strategic systems modernisation for the
Royal Navy (Page 26). Not replacing Trident is essential for Britain
to reclaim freedom of action for the twenty first century, for a Trident
replacement may be expected to last until 2060.
The UK should renew the multilateral disarmament agenda which
achieved so much in the 1980s and 1990s. It is unrealistic to
consider that the world can continue indefinitely with uncontrolled
nuclear armaments and not see a nuclear war.
The government should also address a number of technical
questions on Britain's WMD and associated technologies:
- How can the W MD operated by Britain be used should the
United States withdraw its support or act preventively?
- Were any reassurances required by the Bush Administration
before it renewed the US-UK Mutual Defence
Agreement in 2004 concerning the direction of British defence and civil
nuclear policy?
- How near to production is the US-assisted nuclear weapon
the Conservative government tested and developed after
Trident and cancelled in October 1993?
- How much of the spending at Aldermaston is on equipment
and services from US companies
Click here for the full report (PDF,
194Kb)
