British American Security Information Council

ISSUE AREAS:

BEYOND TRIDENT

Will the current Labour Government commit its successors to the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons?

Nigel Chamberlain, Ian Davis and Paul Ingram

Influencing the Trident Replacement Decision: "Delay for a Purpose"

BASIC is seeking to raise awareness and foster public and parliamentary debate on whether or not Britain should retain nuclear weapons and replace the Trident nuclear weapons system.

The current rush to decide on Trident replacement is unnecessary, reduces military flexibility and interoperability with the United States, further undermines the NPT at its most vulnerable point, and stymies an open debate. The June 2006 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. We support that conclusion (although the 2014 deadline is a conservative estimate and an even longer delay may be possible). We also suggest that the purpose of the delay should be to:

Have a proper public and parliamentary debate informed by a defence and foreign policy review;
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
Enable the UK Government to mount a high-profile leadership initiative in the international arena to strengthen the NPT in the run up to the next Review Conference in 2010 and move towards multilateral disarmament (much as the UK has led on climate change and Make Poverty History).

Key Resources:

The UK Trident Vote Explained, by Dr Ian Davis, BASIC Notes, 15 March 2007. Also available as a pdf file at: http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN070315.pdf
Don’t Rush: Premature replacement of Trident could be costly. The choice is clear: invest the money proposed for an early decision on Trident replacement in better equipment, pay and conditions for our troops. BASIC Trident Briefing Number 3, March 2007.
Don’t Rush: The benefits of not replacing Trident could be considerable. On March 14 Parliament will decide whether the UK commits now to building a new generation of nuclear-armed submarines. But what kind of relationship do we want to have with the rest of the world? BASIC Trident Briefing Number 2, March 2007.
BASIC Report Oceans of Work: Arms Conversion Revisited, by Dr Steven Schofield, 24 January 2007. The government launched its White Paper on Trident replacement on 4th December and announced a debate and vote in the Commons for March. This report puts the alternative case for arms conversion as integral to a 'national needs' programme of civil R&D and manufacture, including major investment in off-shore renewable energy, both for security of supply and to help tackle the growing international threat for climate change. It reevaluates a 1987 study, Oceans of Work, which outlined alternative civil work to the construction of VSEL Trident submarines at Barrow. It was an ambitious proposal to utilise the shipbuilding and engineering skills of the workforce, with particular emphasis on offshore renewable energy, including wave and wind power systems.
BASIC Report BASIC Briefing: UK Trident Replacement, too important to rush into, 14 December 2006. In a White Paper published on 4 December 2006 the Government decided to maintain the current Trident based nuclear deterrent by procuring a new class of submarines. There are several reasons for believing that this decision is premature and can be delayed for a further 8-10 years. There are also significant military, strategic, procurement and diplomatic benefits to holding off a decision for another parliament. Given these advantages, the onus was on the Government to justify such an early decision. The White Paper fails to do this. See BASIC press release, 14 December 2006.
BASIC Green Paper on Trident replacement, 1 December 2006. The government has announced that it intends to publish its White Paper on Monday 4 December 2006, with an announcement to the House soon after an emergency Cabinet meeting. BASIC's Green Paper highlights a number of reasons why it is unnecessary, and undesirable, to rush into a decision at this point. It also raises an alternative option that has so far been largely ignored within the debate, namely the strategy of Britain becoming a virtual nuclear weapon state. See BASIC press release, 1 December 2006.
Does Britain need to replace Trident: You Decide, briefing paper, September 2006. Tony Blair has put the question of a replacement for Britain’s nuclear weapon system, Trident, onto the agenda for this parliament. A White Paper has been promised for later this year, which will outline the government’s preferred options. Britain’s choice will not only have national implications; it will also have ramifications for the course of nuclear non-proliferation and international security for generations to come.
ANTHROPOLOGY 101, The Beyond Trident Group have produced a stunning new film to show the dangers of a civilisation unwilling to heed the warning signs of climate change, the widening ‘Rich/Poor Gap’ and nuclear proliferation.
Beyond Trident: Debating Britain's Nuclear Future, leaflet (this is a large, 1MB pdf file and may be slow to download). To order hard copies of this leaflet, contact the BASIC UK office on 020 7324 4680.

Introduction
In Parliament - Ante 5 May 2005
The General Election
In Parliament - Post 5 May 2005
In Parliament from March 2007
Latest Updates, March 2007
Special Update on the Chancellor's Mansion House Speech and the
Defence Committee Report, June 2006
Further comment
Further reading

This project plans to conduct new and in-depth research, foster debate in Parliament and among stakeholders, raise public awareness at all levels, and create pressure for a high level, non partisan investigation and inquiry into UK nuclear policy in the context of actual security needs and objectives. The project's underlying aim is to move Britain towards recognising that it does not need nuclear weapons as envisaged "for the foreseeable future", and that national and international security will be better served by demonstrating good faith towards full implementation of the agreed "practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI".

This section of the BASIC website will contain project information and outputs as well as additional background material on the decision.

Does Britain need to replace Trident: You Decide, briefing paper, September 2006. Tony Blair has put the question of a replacement for Britain’s nuclear weapon system, Trident, onto the agenda for this parliament. A White Paper has been promised for later this year, which will outline the government’s preferred options. Britain’s choice will not only have national implications; it will also have ramifications for the course of nuclear non-proliferation and international security for generations to come.
ANTHROPOLOGY 101, The Beyond Trident Group have produced a stunning new film to show the dangers of a civilisation unwilling to heed the warning signs of climate change, the widening ‘Rich/Poor Gap’ and nuclear proliferation.
Beyond Trident: Debating Britain's Nuclear Future, leaflet (this is a large, 1MB pdf file and may be slow to download). To order hard copies of this leaflet, contact the BASIC UK office on 020 7324 4680.

Introduction

We have a once-in-our-lifetime opportunity to convince the UK Government to join the majority world as a non-nuclear weapon state, and play an important role in turning the course of global nuclear history. (There are presently eight or nine states with nuclear weapons, including Britain, and 184 non-nuclear weapon states.)

The global nuclear non-proliferation regime is currently in the balance. North Korea has withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and recently tested a nuclear weapon; Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop a nuclear weapon; and the United States and other P5 states (including Britain) are on course to upgrade their existing arsenals. If current trends continue nuclear weapons could spread rapidly as a tipping point is reached, greatly increasingly the likelihood of a city or several cities being devastated by a nuclear explosion in the near future, either by accident or design.

There is a widespread belief within the British establishment that UK nuclear weapons have no influence on the calculations of other countries, since the UK is regarded as a non-threatening state. This conviction is misplaced; Britain's continued possession of nuclear weapons, along with possession by others, undermines the viability of the non-proliferation regime, even with states that do not feel directly threatened.

If the Government says yes to replacement, it will send a signal to others that the UK (a nuclear weapon state with a good record of promoting multilateral disarmament initiatives) intends to keep nuclear weapons for the indefinite future. Weaker military powers with greater security threats are likely to conclude they need them as well. If the Government chooses not to replace Trident it strengthens the UK's hand in arms control and disarmament negotiations, and Britain could take the lead in international efforts to ban such weapons.

Our objectives:

There is a bizarre dichotomy. The rational case that UK nuclear weapons are "worse than irrelevant" (the late Robin Cook) is clearer than ever - with a number of former proponents questioning their value in the Post Cold War situation - and the need for positive initiatives on disarmament from the Nuclear Weapons States is greater than ever.

The UK Government published a 40-page Defence White Paper on 'The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent' on 4 December. The White Paper, which commits Britain to a new generation of nuclear-armed submarines, was presented as a fait accompli to the cabinet and is predicted to command a parliamentary majority, with Conservative support, when it is put to a vote in March 2007. BASIC published a 'mock' Green Paper on Trident replacement http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/beyondtrident/greenpaper.pdf on 1 December in advance of the Government's White Paper. The Green Paper was sent to all 659 MPs in the House of Commons and 675 Peers in the House of Lords. It highlights a number of reasons why it is unnecessary, and undesirable, to rush into a decision at this point, and raises an alternative option that has so far been largely ignored within the debate: namely the strategy of Britain becoming a virtual nuclear weapon state after the Trident system is decommissioned.

We believe it is critical that Parliament considers these two factors fully in the coming debate. BASIC has already been central to a major shift in the debate. Our evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee in February 2006 focused upon a delay to the decision, a position developed in subsequent BASIC Notes. Our lobbying and media briefing, and in particular our evidence to the Liberal Democrat group considering Trident, appears to have had significant impact. Rather than traditional polarised positioning, most media and parliamentary debates following publication of the White Paper focused on the timing of the decision, including critical editorial comments in at least five leading British newspapers (Daily Mail, Observer, Financial Times, Independent and Guardian).

Our strategy is to continue to raise (in a series of hard hitting briefings for MPs and journalists - the first on the timing of the decision is available at: http://www.basicint.org/pubs/SB060725.pdf) the many questions convincingly unanswered by the White Paper. We are also pushing for a cross-party amendment that the many concerned and undecided MPs can support as an alternative to the simple upgrade motion that the Government is likely to table in March. We are working with several MPs and partner NGOs on this initiative.

Defence White Paper and Parliamentary Discussion - Ante 5 May 2005

The Labour Government first announced that a decision whether to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system would be made in this Parliament (i.e. before the next General Election in May 2010 at the latest) in the Defence White Paper of December 2003:

The Strategic Deterrent

However, the continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of other countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, mean that our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security.

Decisions on whether to replace Trident are not needed this Parliament but are likely to be required in the next one. We will therefore continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that the range of options for maintaining a nuclear deterrent capability is kept open until that decision point.

'Delivering Security in a Changing World'. http://www.mod.uk/publications/whitepaper2003/

Commenting on the White Paper, BASIC wrote:

While the renewed commitment to the strategic nuclear deterrence was predictable, the justification for its retention as the "guarantor of the UK's national security" indicates a permanent policy commitment contrary to our international commitments and treaty obligations, none of which are mentioned in the White Paper.

Although the White Paper states that the UK faces no major conventional military threat, the question that must be answered is: to what threat could nuclear weapons possibly offer a credible response and would such a response be legal under international law? If the threat focuses on proliferation and international terrorism, responses must be relevant to these.

The strategic deterrent is of no relevance in the war on terror, undermines our diplomatic non-proliferation efforts and magnifies the danger of technology and fissile-material leakage. Promotion of the efforts, primarily US driven and funded, for securing WMD material in the former Soviet Union is advisable.

This is clearest indication of a Trident replacement decision timetable. With such an important decision to be made in the near future, now is the time for the government to outline the principles and process behind the decision and to initiate a public and parliamentary debate on its advisability and appropriateness - unlike all former procurement decisions vis-à-vis nuclear weapons.

Initial comment on 'Delivering Security in a Changing World': UK Defence White Paper - December 2003. http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN031212b.htm.

The White Paper and its implications were picked up during a Defence Committee meeting the following March:

Q182 Mike Gapes: We have in-service Tridents from 1998 and we have an understanding that it is intended to remain an effective deterrent for up to 30 years. The White Paper says that decisions on Trident's replacement are not needed this Parliament, but are likely to be required in the next one and that a "range of options" is being kept open until that decision point. Could you say something about what those options are and when the decision is likely to be taken on which of those options, if any?

Mr Hoon: No.

Q183 Mike Gapes: You do not know what the options are?

Mr Hoon: Yes, I do.

Q184 Mike Gapes: You do know what the options are. At this point is there anything you would like to say about what those options are?

Mr Hoon: No.

Hansard - Defence Committee - Minutes of Evidence. 31 March, 2004. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/ cmselect/cmdfence/465/4033107.htm.

Geoff Hoon was more forthcoming in a parliamentary answer on 30 June in response to a request for specific details about design studies by Paul Keetch MP:

As stated in my previous answer, decisions on whether to replace Trident are likely to be needed in the next Parliament. We have also made clear that appropriate steps to keep options open will continue to be taken, and that we routinely undertake studies into the optimum operational life of key defence capabilities, including the Trident system. These included concept studies on options for platforms to carry the Trident missile in the longer term, which began in May 2002 and finished in May 2003, and involved extra-mural costs of around £560,000.

Admiral Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord, told a Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) that a decision on replacing the Vanguard SSBNs is expected in the "next two or three years" ('U.K. Debates Trident Sub Replacement', Defense News, 31 May, 2004). In November, he said the following during a Defence Committee inquiry:

There will be an interesting debate about the future deterrent within this country which will have to happen. I would be surprised if it did not happen in the next Parliament, after the election, because when one looks at time-lines for replacing, as was said in the SDR, we expected the current deterrent, the Trident Force, to last 30 years-that takes you up to the mid 2020s. If you think about the timescales to replace that, then people have got to start talking about that in the next Parliament. In the context of that, I am sure people will also talk about what protection is needed. First of all, there has got to be a decision made, an absolutely political decision: do we want to keep nuclear weapons? Then, what is the best way of doing it, and then on from there. So that is all going to have to happen in the future, and that will all have an impact, I am sure, on nuclear submarine numbers.

Hansard, Oral Evidence to the Defence Committee, 'Future Capabilities' Q548, 24 November 2004.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/
cmselect/cmdfence/45/4112404.htm

The General Election

In its 2005 Election Manifesto, the Labour Party indicated that it was "committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent".
http://www.labour.org.uk/fileadmin/manifesto_13042005_a3/
flash/manifesto_2005.swf

During a pre-election BBC interview with Jeremy Paxman, Tony Blair seemingly committed the UK to retaining an independent nuclear deterrent indefinitely:

PAXMAN: While we're on defence Prime Minister, the British independent nuclear deterrent is going to need replacing, probably a decision that has to be taken in the next government that takes office after May 5th. Will you replace it?

BLAIR: Well we've got to retain our nuclear deterrent, and we've had an independent nuclear deterrent for a long time. Now that decision is for another time, but in principle, I believe it's important to retain our own

PAXMAN: You're committed to

BLAIR: independent deterrent.

PAXMAN: continuing independent nuclear deterrent.

BLAIR: I believe that is the right thing for the country, I think it's important that however we look at all the different aspects of it, any decision hasn't yet been taken.

PAXMAN: And the billions of pounds that involved, you're prepared to make available.

BLAIR: Well we have to see. Cost is, is one aspect to it. But I think it's important this country retains a strong defence at all times.

PAXMAN: Would cost convince you not to go ahead with it?

BLAIR: You just, look, there's no point in speculating about that at the moment, cos we're a long way off taking the decision.

Paxman interview with Blair, BBC 20 April, 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/
newsnight_election_2005/4489487.stm

In an Independent article just prior to the General Election, Deputy Political Editor Colin Brown wrote:

Tony Blair has secretly decided that Britain will build a new generation of nuclear deterrent to replace the ageing Trident submarine fleet at a cost of more than £10bn - a move certain to dismay thousands of Labour Party loyalists in the approach to polling day. The disclosure that the decision has already been taken will expose Mr Blair - who has struggled throughout the election campaign to fend off accusations that he lied over the Iraq war - to fresh allegations of deception. He said last week that the decision would be taken after 5 May.

'Revealed: Blair to upgrade Britain's nuclear weapons. PM secretly signs up to new deterrent as UN tries to cut global threat.' Independent, 2 May 2005.
http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=883

In a letter of response, BASIC analyst Nigel Chamberlain wrote:

I seriously doubt that Tony Blair has already decided to replace Trident with a new generation of nuclear deterrent, but that does not detract from the distinct possibility that he is minded to do so.

The Defence White Paper of December 2003 first flagged up the suggestion that a decision to replace Trident would be needed in the next parliament and indicated that a range of options was being considered. Giving oral evidence before the Defence Committee in March 2004, Defence Secretary Hoon declined to say what they were.

Is it Whitehall's intention to proceed with feasibility studies for new platforms, delivery systems and nuclear warheads and then announce a decision as a fait accompli? Surely a decision of this magnitude needs a wide-ranging debate that examines the options in the light of the current and future security environment, Britain's treaty and legal obligations and the opportunity costs. In short, the decision-making needs to be open, informed, transparent and accountable.

The opening statement from the UK delegation at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations on 5 May re-affirmed "our unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear arsenals". This welcome restatement of a British commitment to nuclear disarmament on the conference floor sits uneasily with the unstated assumption of the indefinite retention of a post-Trident nuclear deterrent.

'After Trident: a frank debate is needed.' Published Independent letter, 7 May 2005.

In Parliament - Post 5 May 2005

During a Foreign Affairs and Defence Debate shortly after the election, Chris Mullin MP recalled previous government's secret decision-making over nuclear weapons procurement and said he hoped "we will not go down that road again. It is a very serious decision and I hope that it will be brought to Parliament for discussion before any irrevocable decisions are taken". The new Defence Secretary, John Reid, confirmed that no decision had been taken "on any replacement...in principle or otherwise" but it "will have to be taken during the course of this Parliament". He added that "the Government will listen to hon. Members on both sides of the House before taking the decision that we are elected to make in the course of discharging our responsibilities". Under further questioning from Sir Menzies Campbell MP, he went on to say:

Let me say two things. First, the idea that a decision of that nature could be taken in all contexts without an open and continual discussion in this House and elsewhere, including the United States, is not realistic. I think that it will be open and continual. Of course, when it comes to nuclear deterrence and other matters relating to this country's security, it is not possible to put everything into the public domain. We have found from our experience over the past few years that when we try to do that and ensure that the sanctity of some of the information is retained, it is easy for people to accuse us of misrepresenting the information that is in the public domain. It is a continual challenge, but I think that the process will be much more open than people perhaps think.

Hansard - Foreign Affairs and Defence Debate.18 May, 2005 : Column 196.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/
cmhansrd/cm050518/debtext/50518-13.htm

A few weeks later, the Defence Secretary indicated that one of the possible options for the extended provision of deterrence might be "extending the life of elements of the existing system". He declined, under questioning to clarify if the commitment to retain an independent nuclear deterrent could be augmented with a statement of retention 'so long as others do so'.

Hansard - Defence Debate - Nuclear Deterrence - 6 June 2005.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/
cm050606/debtext/50606-04.htm#50606-04_sbhd0

Chris Mullin MP sought assurances from the Prime Minister on 29 June that, "before any irrevocable decisions are made, he will take Parliament into his confidence". The Prime Minster said, "I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already made it clear that the Government will listen to hon. Members before making any decisions on replacing Trident".

Hansard - Prime Minister's Question 3 [7768], 29 June 2005.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/
cm050629/debtext/50629-02.htm#50629-02_wqn4

On 4 July, Chris Mullin tried again to ask the Defence Secretary for "a little transparency" as "official pronouncements on the subject so far have been remarkably vague". Claiming to have been "pretty transparent", John Reid added that "we have not started even considering, far less taking decisions on, the details of that". Robin Cook then asked, "in the event that he intends not only to retain the deterrent but to replace it, would he expect the defence budget to be increased?" and suggested that such funds might be more effectively used elsewhere within the defence budget. The Defence Secretary declined to be drawn on this nor by Julian Lewis's repeated question about continued possession of nuclear weapons "as long as other countries have them". In a response to Gordon Prentice MP asking how Members views will be discerned and whether a vote might be taken, Dr Reid indicated he would listen to views but no necessarily accept them and avoided saying whether the House would be given an opportunity to vote on the issue.

Hansard - Oral Questions and Answers on Defence - 4 July 2005.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/
cm050704/debtext/50704-02.htm#50704-02_sbhd0

The House of Commons Library published Trident and the future of the British Nuclear Deterrent on 5 July.

This note summarises the evolution of the British nuclear deterrent since the 1950s and looks at the various components of the Trident system. It then considers the possible options available, such as upgrading the existing system, procuring a direct replacement, or developing a new capability.

Trident and the future of the British Nuclear Deterrent by Tim Youngs and Claire Taylor, International Affairs and Defence Section, House of Commons Library, 5 July 2004 .

Just before the Parliamentary recess, the Secretary of state for Defence made the following statement:

The Government made clear last year on 21 July 2004, Official Report, column 348 of their commitment to maintaining the effectiveness and safety of the nuclear deterrent including making the necessary investment in the facilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and Burghfield. To that end agreement has been reached with AWE Management Ltd. (AWE ML) to take forward a programme of investment in sustaining key skills and facilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. This will include the provision of necessary extra supporting infrastructure. Local planning authorities will be consulted on this work in the normal way, under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2005.

The purpose of this investment of some £350 million over each of the next three years is to ensure that we can maintain the existing Trident warhead stockpile throughout its intended in-service life. In the absence of the ability to undertake live nuclear testing given that the UK has signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it is necessary to invest in the facilities at AWE which will provide assurance that the existing Trident warhead stockpile is reliable and safe.

Hansard - Ministerial Statement
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/
cm050719/wmstext/50719m03.htm#50719m03.html_sbhd0

Submarines and Trident replacement

Hansard 24 Apr 2006: Column 851W

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of upgrading and extending the life-cycle of Vanguard class submarines to accommodate Trident II D5 (A) missiles.

John Reid: Initial preparatory work is being undertaken by officials on possible options for the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent. However, Ministers have not yet begun to consider the position on this issue in any detail and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the range of options that might be available and their potential costs. Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his strategy is for ensuring the fullest possible debate on the replacement for Trident; and if he will make a statement. John Reid: The House of Commons Defence Committee has published a detailed memorandum, which was provided by my Department, and the issue has been raised on other occasions in the House of Commons. But Ministers have not yet engaged in this issue in any detail and it therefore remains the case that it is too early to say what further formal or informal procedures might be used to underpin future decision making by the Government in this area. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/
cmhansrd/cm060424/text/60424w11.htm#column_850

Astute Class submarines

Hansard 19 Apr 2006: Column 674W

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of converting Astute class submarines to accommodate Trident II D5 (A) missiles. John Reid: Work has been undertaken to keep options open in considering platforms to carry the Trident D5 missile in the longer term pending future decisions on any replacement for Trident. However, while decisions on any replacement for the Trident system are likely to be required in the current Parliament, they are still some way off. Initial preparatory work is being undertaken by officials on possible options for the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent. However, Ministers have not yet begun to consider the position on this issue in any detail and it is therefore too early to speculate, among other things, on the range of options that might be available and their potential costs.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/
cmhansrd/cm060419/text/60419w06.htm#column_674

Defence Committee

On 30 June 2006, the Defence Committee published its report The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (eighth report of Session 2005-06, HC 986). (See: BASIC welcomes Defence Committee call for UK Government to deliver on its promise of a "free and open public debate" on the future of Trident: But has Elvis already left the building?, BASIC Press Release, 30 June 2006.)

The Report welcomed the Government's promise of a full and open debate, but MPs were "surprised and disappointed that the Ministry of Defence has refused to participate in our inquiry".

The Report made a number of important recommendations including that:

the UK will need to examine whether the concept of nuclear deterrence remains useful in the current strategic environment and in the context of the existing and emerging threats to the security of the country.
the MoD should explain its understanding of the purpose and continuing relevance of nuclear deterrence now and over the lifetime of any potential Trident successor system
before any decisions on the future of the deterrent are made, it will be important to consider whether the possession of nuclear weapons enhances the UK's international influence and status and whether this contributes to the justification for retention of a strategic nuclear capability.

On 26 July 2006, the Government published its response to the Report. Responding to questions raised in the report concerning the dependence of the UK on the United States, the Ministry of Defence insisted that "the UK Trident system is fully operationally independent of the US" and that "decision-making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK". Full text of the Government's response (House of Commons Defence Committee, Nineth Special Report, The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the Strategic Context: Government Response to the Committee's Eighth Report of 2005-06, HC 1558 of 2005-2006), is available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/
cmselect/cmdfence/1558/155802.htm

For media coverage of the report, see the Special Update below.

During March 2006, the Defence Committee, chaired by the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, heard evidence on 'The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: The Strategic Context'. The links to uncorrected witness evidence and the uncorrected transcript of oral evidence given to the committee are as follows:

UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Defence, 20 January 2006.
UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: Uncorrected Oral Evidence, with accompanying Memoranda from Dan Plesch, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Dr Rebecca Johnson, Sir Michael Quinlan and Dr Lee Willett, 14 March 2006.
UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: Uncorrected Oral Evidence, with accompanying Memoranda from Professor John Simpson and Dr Colin S Gray, 21March 2006.
UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: Uncorrected Oral Evidence, with accompanying Memoranda from Bruno Tertrais, Greenpeace, Andrew Dorman, and the Oxford Research Group, 28 March 2006.

In Parliament, March 2007

Trident Replacement, 14 Mar 2007 at 18:53, Commons Division No.78. The Ayes won by 408 to 160 (majority 248) with 4 tellers, making a turnout of 573.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?
date=2007-03-14&number=78&house=commons

Trident Replacement, Amendment, 14 Mar 2007 at 18:53, Commons Division No. 77. The Noes won by 413 to 167 (majority 246) with 4 tellers, making a turnout of 584.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?
date=2007-03-14&number=77

Trident - 14 Mar 2007 : Column 298
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, 'That this House supports the Government's decisions, as set out in the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994), to take the steps necessary to maintain the UK's minimum strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system and to take further steps towards meeting the UK's disarmament responsibilities under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.'
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/
cmhansrd/cm070314/debtext/
70314-0004.htm#07031475000005

Nuclear Weapons - 12 Mar 2007 : Column 55W
Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will delay a decision to replace Trident to allow time for a more thorough strategic analysis of the issues and for a wider public debate.
Des Browne: The White Paper concerns decisions on the replacement of the submarine delivery platform not the Trident missiles or warheads.
The White Paper set out fully why we believe it is necessary for the UK to retain a minimum independent nuclear deterrent, and why decisions are needed now if we are to maintain deterrent capability at the end of the lives of the Vanguard class submarines. I also covered these issues in detail in my evidence to the Defence Committee on 6 February.
In setting out the Government's position on 4 December 2006, Official Report, columns 21-24, the Prime Minister also set out a timetable for a process of public and parliamentary debate. As part of this process, my ministerial colleagues and I have been discussing the future deterrent in a wide range of fora. For example, there has been a full debate in the House of Lords; I have given a speech at King's College, London; provided the Defence Committee with wide-ranging evidence; taken part in a televised debate with CND; and discussed the future deterrent with a panel of experts at RUSI. On 14 March, at the conclusion of this process, there will be a full debate and vote in the House of Commons.
This has given plenty of opportunity for all to consider and debate the issues.
Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the replacement of Trident on the nuclear weapons proliferation regime.
Des Browne: The Government are strongly committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The White Paper on the Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent published on 4 December 2006 (Cm 6994) makes clear that renewing our minimum nuclear deterrent capability is fully consistent with all our international obligations, including those under the NPT.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/
cmhansrd/cm070312/text/70312w0012.htm
#column_54W

Trident: Legal Opinion - 12 Mar 2007 : Column 57W
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has requested the legal services of his Department to provide him with an assessment of whether any decision to replace (a) the Trident launch platform, (b) Trident missiles or (c) Trident nuclear warheads with new components would be compatible with the United Kingdom's legal obligations under Articles 1 and 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [126301]
Des Browne: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by hon. Friend, the Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South on 6 March 2007, Official Report, columns 1843-4W. The Government set out its position on the international law position in paragraphs 2-9 and 2-10 of the White Paper "The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent" (Cm 6994, published December 2006).
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/
cmhansrd/cm070312/text/70312w0013.htm

Trident - 9 Mar 2007 : Column 2313W
Colin Challen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the responses he has received to the consultation on the proposed replacement for Trident. [120887] Des Browne [holding answer 19 February 2007]: Between 4 December 2006 and 1 March 2007, the Department received 838 cards and letters that related in whole or in part to renewing the nuclear deterrent. Examples of the cards received, copies of the representations from organisations and groups, and a statistical analysis of the content of individually written letters will be placed in the Library of the House. We are also making this material available on the Ministry of Defence website at: www.mod.uk
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/
cmhansrd/cm070309/text/70309w0012.htm#column_2312W

Future of the UK's Nuclear Deterrent
Government's interim response to the Committee's Ninth Report dated 9 March 2007. A fuller response is expected to follow in due course.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/
DefCtteeNuclearDeterrentLetter.pdf

The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the White Paper
The Defence Committee published its Ninth Report of Session 2006-07, The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the White Paper, HC 225-I, on Wednesday 7 March. Report: Volume I PDF Document:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/
cmselect/cmdfence/225/225i.pdf
Report: Volume II PDF Document:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/
cmselect/cmdfence/225/225ii.pdf

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - 6 Mar 2007 : Column 1844W
Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will seek legal opinion on whether the proposals to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system is compatible with article 1 of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Dr. Howells: As noted in the ministerial code, the fact and substance of legal advice to the Government remains confidential. This enables Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence.

Trident - 1 Mar 2007 : Column 1485W
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will publish the legal advice the Prime Minister received which allowed her to state that the upgrading of Trident is compatible with the UK's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.
Dr. Howells: As noted in the ministerial code, the fact and substance of legal advice to the Government remains confidential. This enables Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/
cmhansrd/cm070301/text/70301w0007.htm#column_1485W

Government statement

'Trident Debate-Vote', Downing Street briefing, 1 March 2007
The Leader said he had answered a question earlier in the House about whether there would be any Government statements in advance which could constrain the time available for debate. He had indicated that he hoped there would not be any except in the case of an emergency. If there were, there would be discussion about an extension of time.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11133.asp

'Business of the House', Hansard - 1 March 2007
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Jack Straw): Before I announce business for the next two weeks, may I wish all my Welsh colleagues and the people of Wales a happy St. David's day? …
Wednesday 14 March-A debate on Trident on a Government motion.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/
cmhansrd/cm070301/debtext/70301-0004.htm
#column_1065

For developments in parliament during 2007, go to: http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/beyondtrident/parl07.htm.

For developments in parliament during 2006, go to: http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/beyondtrident/parl06.htm.

Latest Updates, March 2007

'Counting the cost of the UK's next nuclear deterrent' in PublicFinance.co.uk, 23 March 2007
It wasn't quite a throwback to the Cold War era of rowdy Commons debates and campaigners chained to the gates of Greenham Common. But last week's rebellion over the UK's nuclear arsenal was still sizeable. It also drew a major parallel with the past: ministers, officials and the public have little idea how much the controversial nuclear deterrent will cost.
http://www.cipfa.org.uk/publicfinance/news_details.cfm?
News_id=30203

'My week' by Max Hastings in the Observer, 18 March 2007
I am less sure, however, whether we need to replace Trident. The manner in which Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have hustled this decision through parliament, without serious debate on options and costing, is quite as shameful as the Labour rebels claim. The other day at a military gathering, I asked for a show of hands on the issue. Only about a quarter of those present, warriors all, endorsed a replacement.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/
0,,2036561,00.html

'10 Things You Need To Know About Trident' by James Cusick in the Sunday Herald, 18 March 2007
The House of Commons last week approved the government's plans to begin the process of replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system. But beyond the vote - which left the government needing support from the Conservatives and having to deal with a large backbench rebellion after being embarrassed by resignations - what was really decided?
http://www.sundayherald.com/analysis/analysis/
display.var.1267717.0.0.php

'The Trident Dispatches No. 6: Reaction to the Vote' by Rebecca Johnson in the Bulletin Online,16 March 2007
After Prime Minister Tony Blair relied on Conservative leader David Cameron to force through the white paper on renewing Trident, MPs from several parties joined protesters outside the Houses of Parliament and vowed to continue the campaign to persuade the government to implement its treaty obligations and eliminate Britain's nuclear arsenal.
http://www.thebulletin.org//columns/rebecca-johnson/20070315.html

'Suitors line up to bid for nuclear submarine facility' by David Robertson in The Times, 16 March 2007
Four companies are preparing to bid for the nuclear submarine maintenance facility at Devonport in a move that could see BAE Systems wrap up the entire £25 billion Trident replacement contract, The Times has learnt. BAE, Babcock, Carlyle Group and General Dynamics are all understood to have asked UBS, which is handling the sale of Devonport, for a prospectus.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/
engineering/article1522567.ece

'Despite Labour revolt, Blair wins vote on nuclear deterrent' by Alan Cowell in the International Herald Tribune, 15 March 2007
Struggling with a restive Labour Party in his final months in power, Prime Minister Tony Blair faced down a significant mutiny in Parliament, winning a vote to renew Britain's nuclear deterrent only with the support of opposition lawmakers. But the vote Wednesday raised a broader issue for some in and outside Parliament who questioned how Britain could press for nuclear nonproliferation, particularly in Iran and North Korea, if it was planning to spend £20 billion, about $40 billion, on a new generation of nuclear submarines to carry American-supplied Trident missiles.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/15/news/britain.php

'The Notion of an Independent Nuclear Deterrent' in STRATFOR, 15 March 2007
The British Parliament gave the go-ahead March 14 for a successor to the Royal Navy's nuclear deterrent, a submarine-launched ballistic missile. The best bet might be for the United Kingdom to design and produce its own missile -- something it has never done before.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?
id=285836

'This is nuclear madness' by Caroline Lucas in Guardian Comment is Free, 15 March 2007
Yesterday's decision to replace the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system is illegal, immoral, obscenely expensive and utterly irrelevant to the real security threats we face today. These are just the headlines: in fact it gets even worse. Replacing Trident won't just violate the UK's commitments under the UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty (of which we are, supposedly, a proud signatory) - it will undermine it by persuading other countries to breach it too.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/caroline_lucas/2007/03/
replacing_trident_illegal_immo.html

'Rebels with a cause' in the Economist, 15 March 2007
The Labour Party has always been an unruly creature, but it is at its most truculent when called to vote on buying guns and fighting wars. The first Labour rebellion in the House of Commons took place in 1924, when Herbert Dunnico voted against Trident, a programme to build fast, light warships. On March 14th Labour MPs followed in his footsteps, voting against Trident in its latest incarnation as Britain's strategic nuclear-weapons system.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?
story_id=8867888

'When would Gordon push the button?' by Stephen Pullinger in Guardian Comment is Free, 15 March 2007
When Gordon Brown becomes prime minister he will be handed the launch codes that will enable him to unleash Britain's own version of Armageddon. The main debating point in parliament yesterday was whether or not Britain should replace Trident. But serious focus should now be trained upon Britain's nuclear doctrine - particularly the circumstances in which Trident might actually be used.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/stephen_pullinger/2007/03/
when_would_gordon_push_the_but.html

'Have we the skills to replace Trident?' by Alun Chalfont in the Telegraph, 14 March 2007
Although it was undoubtedly right to take the major decision now, Tony Blair was probably ultra-conservative when he wrote in his foreword to the White Paper that, "the present submarines will start to leave service in early 2020s". In fact, there is no reason why the Vanguard submarine should not have a life expectancy of 45 years."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?
xml=/opinion/2007/03/14/do1402.xml

'Trident: the virtue of delaying a decision', Editorial in the Financial Times, 14 March 2007
MPs vote on Tuesday to replace Britain's submarine-based nuclear deterrent and extend its life until the middle of the century. They are being rushed into a decision that need not be taken now. Unfortunately, all this purported urgency appears to owe more to political timetables - prime minister Tony Blair's desire for his legacy and chancellor Gordon Brown's need to burnish his security credentials - than any operational necessity.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/
679b5ca8-d1d0-11db-b921-000b5df10621.html

'There is another way' by Ian Davis in Guardian Comment is Free, 13 March 2007
In a November comment I argued that, rather than replace Trident, Britain could revert to a threshold nuclear weapon status, sometimes described as a virtual nuclear arsenal. I offered this not out of personal conviction for the idea (I believe that there is much to gain from Britain showing true leadership by becoming the first of the nuclear club to disarm), but as a compromise solution that goes some way to meeting the core concerns of both opponents and proponents of Trident renewal.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian_davis/2007/03/
a_cheaper_trident_alternative.html

'Barrow holds its breath as Trident decision nears' in the North West Evening Mail, 13 March 2007
Shipyard bosses and defence experts used two reports to warn Tony Blair that delaying a Trident decision could threaten Britain's submarine building capabilities. Councillor Terry Waiting, chairman of the Barrow-based Keep Our Future Afloat Campaign, was quoted in the Defence Committee's December report into the UK's manufacturing and skills base for building strategic weapon subs. He said: "If we do not have this nuclear deterrent based on a submarine platform . . . the future for Barrow is bleak."
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=476081

'Press briefing from the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman on Trident', 13 March 2007
Asked if the Prime Minister would be meeting Labour MPs today to urge them to vote for Trident, the PMOS said he was not aware of any plans at this stage. Asked if the Prime Minister would be taking part in the vote, the PMOS said he was sure the Prime Minister would, but he would check.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11237.asp

'Kinnock joins rebel MPs in campaign to scupper Trident vote' by Greg Hurst in The Times, 13 March 2007
Lord Kinnock stoked a looming Labour rebellion on Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent last night by becoming the most prominent party figure to oppose replacing Trident. Lord Kinnock said the case for replacing Trident had not been made either on grounds of strategic threat or cost, and said he was against going ahead with a new deterrent system. Speaking at a meeting in Westminster before tomorrow's crucial Commons vote, he predicted a big Labour rebellion, saying the Government should "expect to get hit".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1506040.ece

'How can anyone justify Trident as patriotic?' by Ian Bell in The Herald, 13 March 2007
When, tomorrow, Labour MPs rebel, and when Liberals and Nationalists dissent, they will have no shortage of arguments on their side. Certainly, they will have several more points to hand than the government in the debate over Trident renewal.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/
display.var.1253883.0.0.php

'Trident revolt grows as minister resigns' by Colin Brown in The Independent, 13 March 2007
Government whips have mobilised to stop more Labour MPs joining the revolt against the replacement of the £65bn Trident missile system - after the Deputy Leader of the Commons announced yesterday he was quitting in protest. Nigel Griffiths, a long-term ally of Gordon Brown, said he was resigning " with a heavy heart but a clear conscience".
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2352814.ece

'McConnell claims vote on Trident is not final' by James Kirkup in The Scotsman, 13 March 2007
Jack McConnell has infuriated Labour colleagues in London by suggesting that tomorrow's Commons vote on replacing the Trident weapons system will not be Britain's final decision on keeping nuclear weapons.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=393752007

'Anti Nuke Protestors Scale Commons', Sky News, 13 March 2007
Four peace activists have scaled a crane next to the Houses of Parliament as part of a protest against Government plans to update the Trident nuclear weapons system. The Greenpeace campaigners clambered up the crane next to Big Ben and unfurled a 50ft banner suggesting the Prime Minister "loved" weapons of mass destruction.

'The Trident Dispatches No. 5: Voting Day' by Rebecca Johnson in The Bulletin Online, 12 March 2007
On March 9, later than expected, the British government published the motion that it wants the House of Commons to vote on March 14: "This House supports the government's decision as set out in the white paper, 'The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent' (CM6994), to take the steps necessary to maintain the U.K. minimum strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system and to take further steps towards meeting the U.K.'s disarmament responsibilities under Article VI of the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty."
http://www.thebulletin.org/weekly-highlight/20070313.html

'Minister quits over Trident' by Matthew Tempest in the Guardian, 12 March 2007
Nigel Griffiths, the deputy leader of the Commons, said he was quitting "with a heavy heart... but a clear conscience". Later a second member of the government, Stephen Pound, confirmed he would also vote against the government on Wednesday. He will meet whips tomorrow to discuss his position.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2032069,00.html

'Labour rebels prepare to oppose Trident' by Jimmy Burns in the Financial Times, 12 March 2007
A politically damaging Labour rebellion is gathering pace over the government's decision to renew Britain's nuclear weapons system. According to a BBC survey of Labour backbenchers published on Sunday, 61 out of 102 who responded plan to vote later this week against the £20bn plans, agreed by the cabinet, to replace the Trident system. Only 22 of those contacted backed the government.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/
e8e2b3d0-d03e-11db-94cb-000b5df10621.html

'Blair braced for huge revolt over Trident renewal' by James Kirkup in the Scotsman, 12 March 2007
It is set to be one of parliament's most tumultuous weeks since Labour came to power in 1997, with a Commons vote that will determine whether Britain retains a nuclear arsenal until 2050 and beyond.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=387932007

'For 45 years the word has been 'No' by Stephen McGinty in The Scotsman 12 March 2007
Nuclear weapons, those instruments of Armageddon, were introduced to Scotland by the words: "Dear Harold". After all, the Cold War threat of mutually assured destruction was no reason to dispense with a little courtesy. So, on 27 October, 1960 president Eisenhower, wrote a charming letter to Harold Macmillan, the prime minister, thanking him for the generous use of the Holy Loch as an extension of US territory and a safe berth for nuclear bombs.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=386792007

'Senior minister will defy Blair over Trident' by Rob Edwards and Torcuil Crichton in the Sunday Herald, 11 March 2007
The senior Labour MP, Nigel Griffiths, is preparing to quit his job as deputy leader of the House of Commons because he is opposed to the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/
display.var.1251109.0.0.php

'After 50 years of protest, is it too late to beat Trident?' by Torcuil Crichton in the Sunday Herald, 11 March 2007
There were polite ripples of applause from the bankside residents and diners as the coda of Damon Albarn's Five minutesTo Midnight drifted across the cold water of theThames. Albarn, the former Blur frontman, and the musical legend Brian Eno, ably assisted by a 50-strong gospel choir, premiered their anti-nuclear song aboard the Greenpeace icebreaker Arctic Sunrise, anchored off Tower Bridge in London.
http://www.sundayherald.com/analysis/analysis/
display.var.1251097.0.0.php

'Ministers face Trident rebellion', BBC News, 11 March 2007
Ministers are facing a possible Labour rebellion over plans to renew the UK's nuclear weapons system. A BBC survey of Labour backbenchers found 64 out of 101 MPs opposed renewal. One ministerial aide has said he will resign over the issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438793.stm

'We don't need Trident, we need a whole new plan' by Martin Kettle in the Guardian, 10 March 2007
Next week's Commons debate about Trident ought to be a great existential political moment - and in some respects it cannot avoid being one. In the past, the government kept an exclusive grip on nuclear weapons policy decisions. Next week, rather remarkably, the Blair government has ceded that power to parliament. It would be churlish not to acknowledge the change - and foolish for MPs not to make something of it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2030760,00.html

'Scotland could go nuclear over the retention of Trident' by William Walker in the Financial Times, 9 March 2007
In its white paper 'The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent', the government envisages new Trident submarines being introduced in the late 2020s and operating into the 2050s. Over the same period, it is likely either that Scotland will become an independent state or that the Union will survive through a more extensive devolution of powers to the Scottish parliament. This is a safe prediction given the strength of forces impelling greater political autonomy north and south of the border. Nowhere does the white paper consider these changes and their implications.
Text available here.

'Government faces high court challenge over Trident' by Hélène Mulholland in the Guardian, 9 March 2007
Lawyers for the government have 14 days to reply to a legal challenge over the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system before a campaign group seeks a judicial review, according to the group's solicitor. If the Nuclear Information Service does seek a review, the case could reach the high court within six weeks.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2030390,00.html

'Activists mount Trident legal bid', Press Association, March 9, 2007
Peace activists say they are launching a legal challenge against the Government's plans to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system. Lawyers are set to seek a judicial review over the Government's White Paper on the issue, claiming that parts of it are "incorrect in law". Peacerights said it had obtained legal opinion from two barristers that the Government was wrong to state that keeping a nuclear deterrent was "fully consistent" with Britain's international obligations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6467066,00.html

'Weapons face High Court showdown' by Robert Verkaik and Jon Robins in the Independent, 9 March 2007
Lawyers for the anti-nuclear campaign group the Nuclear Information Service (NIS) have warned ministers that a new nuclear weapons facility would contravene international law. Backed by a legal opinion from the international law expert Michael Fordham QC, the NIS also claims the Government is in breach of its legal duty to adequately consult on its proposals.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2341376.ece

'The gospel of Damon: Trident demo takes to the water' by Jonathan Brown in the Independent, 9 March 2007
There was a time when pop stars employed the Thames as a place to bring mayhem and chaos. But last night, the Blur frontman Damon Albarn and music legend Brian Eno used the river to attempt to end mayhem.The two rock stars, with the assistance of a 50-strong gospel choir, staged a serious bid to convince MPs downstream at Westminster to oppose plans to update Britain's nuclear deterrent.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2341375.ece

'Gorbachev attacks Labour's 'rush to deploy nuclear missiles' until 2050' in The Times, 8 March 2007
"I want to express my concern over the intention of Tony Blair's Government to replace the British nuclear arsenal with a new generation of nuclear weapons."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/
letters/article1485002.ece

'MPs warn over 'nuclear threshold', BBC News, 7 March 2007
Ministers should not reduce the conditions under which the UK would launch a nuclear strike, MPs have said. A report from the Commons defence committee warned against "lowering the nuclear threshold".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6424045.stm

'Trident questions must be answered, say MPs' by Richard Norton-Taylor in the Guardian, 7 March 2007
Ministers have failed to answer fundamental questions about plans to renew the Trident nuclear missile system, including its true cost, why a decision must be taken now, and who it is meant to deter, a crossparty group of senior backbench MPs says in a hard-hitting report published today.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2028187,00.html

'Blair faces Labour revolt by 100 MPs over Trident' by Colin Brown in the Independent, 7 March 2007
More than 100 Labour MPs are ready to vote against the Government over the replacement of the £65bn Trident nuclear weapon system, leaving Tony Blair with the humiliation of relying on Conservative votes to get it through the Commons.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2334919.ece

'Ministers warned on threshold for nuclear strike' by Ian Bruce in the Herald, 6 March 2007
The government was warned today not to use the excuse of "deliberate strategic ambiguity" as a cover for lowering the threshold on launching nuclear weapons in a crisis. The Commons defence committee also challenged the operational significance of Downing Street's promise to cut Britain's military nuclear stockpile by up to 20%, when a new generation of missile submarines would carry the same number of warheads as their predecessors.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/westminster/
display.var.1240001.0.0.php

'A hard position to defend', Editorial Comment in the Herald, 6 March 2007
The government can be assured of a comfortable majority in next week's vote on the acquisition of a new generation of submarines to maintain Britain's independent nuclear deterrent after 2022. Though perhaps 50 Labour back benchers could rebel on the issue, the Prime Minister can count on the support of the Conservatives. That, and Tony Blair's anxiety to leave his mark on history, are both poor reasons for rushing such an important decision.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/editorial/
display.var.1239974.0.0.php

'The Trident Dispatches No. 4: The Run-Up to the Vote' by Rebecca Johnson in The Bulletin Online, 6 March 2007
On February 23, Greenpeace made waves when it joined Faslane 365 and blockaded the entrance to the Trident submarine base at Faslane, Scotland, with seven boats, including its climate-change research ship, Arctic Sunrise. As one activist clambered onto the pontoon close to the Trident shiplift and waved a banner reading "No New Nukes," the Greenpeace flotilla prevented Vigilant from leaving the base to take its load of fully armed Trident missiles out on patrol.
http://www.thebulletin.org/columns/rebecca-johnson/20070306.html

'My unilateral conversion' by Roy Hattersley in the Guardian, 5 March 2007
The nuclear deterrent changed my life. In the early 60s - having been rejected by a dozen safe Labour constituencies - I decided that London and parliament were not for me. Then Hugh Gaitskill promised to "fight and fight again to save the party we love". Suddenly, all I wanted was to be a foot soldier in the battle against the forces of unreason demanding unilateral nuclear disarmament.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2026691,00.html

'Blair stifling Trident debate, say key MPs' by Ned Temko in the Observer, 4 March 2007
The Government will face mounting criticism from MPs this week for avoiding 'open debate' on its determination to retain Britain's nuclear missile force, as a crucial vote in the Commons draws near.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2026183,00.html

'I believe in Trident, and using it if necessary' by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali in the Sunday Telegraph, 4 March 2007
Once again the General Synod of the Church of England has been wrong-footed by passing a last-minute motion declaring the renewal of Trident to be unethical. The original motion had been carefully thought-out and was supported by documents setting out the situation facing the United Kingdom and asking probing and intelligent questions about the Government's intentions. Instead, the Church has now been left in a position which can be seen as mere moralising and trying to dictate defence policy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?
xml=/opinion/2007/03/04/do0404.xml

'Last-ditch Campbell in Trident win', Press Association, 3 March 2007
A last-ditch personal appeal by Sir Menzies Campbell has helped him secure a narrow victory over Trident rebels in his party. Activists bidding to commit the party to an immediate decision not to renew Britain's nuclear deterrent were defeated by just 40 votes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6454764,00.html

'Blair relying on Tories to pass Trident bill' by George Jones in the Telegraph, 2 March 2007
Tony Blair is increasingly likely to have to rely on Conservative votes to secure parliamentary backing to replace the Trident nuclear missile system. The Prime Minister is facing a growing revolt by Labour backbenchers over his attempt to rush through a decision on updating Trident before he leaves Downing Street this summer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2007/03/01/ntrident101.xml

'Revolt looms over Trident replacement' by Christopher Adams in the Financial Times, 1 March 2007
Tony Blair could face a substantial backbench revolt over his decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, it has emerged, with moderate Labour MPs joining forces with leftwingers to try to delay approving up to £20bn of government spending on the project.
http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=
%E2%80%98Revolt+looms+over+Trident+replacement%E2%80
%99+&y=4&aje=true&x=11&id=070301000786

'Trident tested', Channel 4, 1 March 2007
Should Britain remain a nuclear power? Tony Blair certainly thinks so: he hopes to invest £20bn in replacing the Trident nuclear weapons programme, and MPs are due to vote on the proposal on March 14. But a poll carried out for More 4 News now indicates 51 per cent of people want the question decided by a referendum, and that the prime minister's plans face opposition from almost three quarters of the country.
http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=550

For further media coverage of Trident replacement see: