ISSUE AREAS:

BEYOND TRIDENT

Archive of Press Coverage 2006

For the latest coverage go to: http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/beyondtrident.

For press coverage in 2004-05 go to: http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/beyondtrident/press05.htm.

'Quitting may be Chisholm's gain' by Ian Swanson in the Scotsman, 28 December 2006
Malcolm Chisholm quit as Communities Minister over the government's position on Trident replacement on the last day before parliament stopped for Christmas. While most of his colleagues seemed ready to acquiesce in Tony Blair's determination to spend billions on a new arsenal of nuclear weapons, Mr Chisholm says he was encouraged in his stance by Jack McConnell's own comment that there should be full discussion on the issue.
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1922612006

'Nuclear weapons: the oxygen of debate' by Paul Rogers in openDemocracy, 22 December 2006
The government of Tony Blair made clear in June 2006 its intention that Britain's Trident nuclear-weapon system would be replaced in due course. But this only became a formal recommendation with the publication in December 2006 of an official white paper, The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent (Command 6994). A parliamentary vote to ratify the decision is scheduled for March 2007. Thus, the government is allowing only three months for a debate about a momentous aspect of British defence policy, one with many implications for national and international security in the 21st century. But this document and this timeframe does at least provide some basis for a discussion - one that is badly needed.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/nuclear_weapons_4217.jsp

'SNP attack Trident renewal' on ePolitics.com, 21 December 2006
SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon led the opposition day debate on 21 December, saying she spoke on behalf of the "vast majority of people in Scotland" when she opposed the replacement of the nuclear system.
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200612/
fee859f3-1b02-4979-9517-ec131d1f5877.htm

'US to discuss UK Trident lifespan' on BBC News website, 20 December 2006
In an exchange of letters Mr Bush has agreed to Tony Blair's request to discuss "a further life extension for UK purposes" of the Trident missiles. This would mean that they could last to the 2050s, matching the lifetime of the UK's proposed £20bn submarine fleet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6197711.stm

'Committee warns sub industry could be sunk' in the North West Evening Mail, 19 December 2006
The Defence Committee warned the government that failing to order new Trident submarines for the 2020s could destroy the UK submarine industry, in its report on "The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the Manufacturing and Skills Base" published today.
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=447346

'Skills shortage threatens UK nuclear deterrent' by Thomas Harding in the Daily Telegraph, 19 December 2006
Britain's ability to build an independent nuclear deterrent is being threatened by a "critical shortage" of skilled craftsmen to make submarines, MPs say in a report published today. The Commons Defence Committee said the skills base in Britain had fallen to the "minimum level" necessary to maintain a submarine industry. It also expressed concern that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) lacked the capacity to effectively manage a large and complex project.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2006/12/19/unuclear119.xml

Trident 'demands skilled workers' on BBC News website, 19 December 2006
Ministers have been warned by MPs that the skills base for building a new generation of nuclear submarines in the UK is at a "critical level". The Commons defence select committee said the shortage of engineers was a "cause of serious concern".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6190853.stm

'Scots Labour MPs oppose Trident' by Peter Macmahon in the Scotsman, 16 December 2006
A majority of Scottish Labour MPs are opposed to Tony Blair's plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system. A total of 30 of the 59 MPs from all parties north of the Border are either "definitely" or "probably" against plans to retain the submarine-based system, located at the Faslane base on the Clyde. According to a survey by the BBC, 25 of all of Scotland's representatives at Westminster were definitely against Tony Blair's plans. A further five said they were probably against. Of these, 11 Labour MPs were definitely against and four were probably against the plan.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1868202006

'Poll shows gender gap over renewal of nuclear deterrent' by Peter Riddell in The Times, 13 December 2006
Men and women are deeply divided about the Government's decision to order new submarines to extend the life of Britain's submarine-based Trident nuclear deterrent until 2050. A new Populus poll for The Times, undertaken over the weekend, shows majority support for the retention of a British nuclear deterrent as long as other countries have nuclear weapons. The replacement of the current system is backed by 52 per cent and opposed by 43 per cent.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2501218,00.html

'See where Britain designs and builds its nuclear bombs' by Edward Heathcoat Amory in the Daily Mail, 13 December 2006
Most people, if they were going to pick a spot to build the instruments of Armageddon, probably wouldn't choose suburban west Berkshire. But that is where Britain designs and builds its nuclear bombs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?
in_article_id=422489&in_page_id=1770

'The debate that never was', by Iain Macwhirter Guardian Comment is Free, 13 December 2006
Now, this great debate on Trident ... I'm not hearing it. Those conscientious cabinet ministers - the Hains, Becketts, Benns - who argued so hard to get a debate on renewal of our "independent deterrent" seem to have lost their tongues. Seems they didn't want to debate anything after all. They have all declared themselves content to allow Tony Blair to conduct it on their behalf - and conclude that Trident should be renewed. Will no one in the Labour party speak out against this nuclear abomination? Are they so supine they will allow even this most discredited of prime ministers to walk all over them? Again; just as they did over Iraq.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/iain_macwhirter/
2006/12/what_debate_on_trident.html

'US Trident tests cast doubt over UK design claims' by Ian Bruce in The Herald, 12 December 2006
Almost half of the tests carried out on nuclear warheads by US laboratories between 1999 and 2001 involved verifying Britain's "independent" nuclear deterrent. A US Freedom of Information (FoI) inquiry shows five of 13 simulations and experiments at the strategic Sandia laboratories in New Mexico were done in support of the UK's Trident missile system. The tests involved shock, vibration and blast evaluations of the warheads fitted to the D5 missiles carried by the Vanguard submarines based at Faslane on the Clyde.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/76531.html

'How to start an arms race' by Dan Plesch in the New Statesman, 11 December 2006
No one, it seems, will be impressed if Britain fails to renew Trident. With Tony Blair leading the arguments, backed by his cabinet and David Cameron's Tories, the accepted view in the Westminster village is that nuclear proliferation is occurring because of the interests of the states that want the bomb, not because we and the other nuclear powers have them.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200612110012

'Trident - it's not too late to stop Blair's latest military blunder', New Statesman Leader, 11 December 2006
It was the not so late, and not so great, Donald Rumsfeld who said: "There are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know." We know there is an enemy out there somewhere who might one day, over the next few decades, launch a dirty bomb at us. We're not quite sure, but let's suppose there is. It is on these terms that Britain's future military security and diplomatic legitimacy are now based.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200612110002

'Trident protesters blockade base' on BBC News website, 11 December 2006
Anti-nuclear protesters are blocking the main road outside the Faslane naval base on the Clyde. Campaign group Faslane 365 are engaged in a year of civil resistance to Britain's nuclear weapons programme. They were joined by members of Trident Ploughshares at the blockade of the base. A spokesman said: "We intend to cause as much peaceful disruption as we can."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6168131.stm

'Nuclear weapons? Yes please' by Kenny Farquharson in The Sunday Times - Scotland, 10 December 2006
Opinion polls suggest that four out of five Scots disagree with Blair and believe Trident should not be replaced. But this consensus is not shared by those who live on the shores of Gare Loch and Loch Long. Here, the Royal Navy's bases provide a livelihood for 3,000 service personnel, 800 members of their families and 4,000 civilian workers. Nuclear weapons are a way of life and a way to secure a living. Inevitably, this means a tense relationship with the peace protesters who have been camped at Faslane for the past 24 years.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2493650.html

'Trident's Footprint' by Torcuil Crichton in the Sunday Herald, 10 December 2006
Stand on the pink-white beach of Sandwood Bay, with its eerie sea stack on one side and the cliffs running to Cape Wrath on the other, and you can feel quite lonely. Of course, you are never alone, even on this remote northwestern shore. Stare straight out into the teeth of the inevitable north Atlantic gale and you are looking at Trident's backyard.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/specialreports/
display.var.1066493.0.tridents_footprint.php

'Trident Replacement' on Arms Control Wonk.com, 9 December 2006
The debate over Trident is somewhat surreal because, frankly, the UK's nuclear weapons are irrelevant: they don't deter anyone, confer any status or, frankly, threaten anyone. They are not particularly good or bad. It isn't even clear to me that you could get a really passionate argument going among people from Aldermaston and CND, unless you got them talking about football.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1317/trident-replacement

'Nuclear submarines - the ultimate insurance?' in New Scientist, 9 December 2006
Every minute of every day a British submarine armed with up to 48 nuclear warheads, each capable of destroying a city, is on patrol somewhere under the world's oceans. And that's how Tony Blair wants it to stay.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19225813.500
-nuclear-submarines--the-ultimate-insurance.html

'Dare to be disobedient' by Hilary Wainwright in Guardian Comment, 9 December 2006
We don't do pillows ... but I could get you an extra blanket." Kind though she was, the night officer at Clydebank police station couldn't turn a stone-floored police cell into a cosy bed and breakfast. I'd been driven back to Glasgow after my arrest during a protest at the Faslane nuclear base. The officer did stretch the rules: by the end of my 24-hour stay the satirically labelled "Fastasleep" prison mat was strewn with books, despite the regulation about one item of reading matter.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1968207,00.html

'Britain's Next Nuclear Era' on Federation of American Scientists website, 8 December 2006
After having spent the last several years sending diplomats to Teheran to try to persuade Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, the British government announced Monday that it plans to renew its own nuclear arsenal. If approved by the parliament, Monday's decision means that the United Kingdom will extend its nuclear deterrent beyond 2050, essentially doubling the timeline of its own nuclear era.
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2006/12/britains_next_nuclear_era_1.php

'Britain's nukes', International Herald Tribune Editorial, 7 December 2006
When Tony Blair asked Parliament on Monday to approve a new generation of nuclear-armed submarines, he was asking the lawmakers to reaffirm Britain as a nuclear power far into the 21st century. The prime minister argued that Britain needs its nuclear weapons to deter new threats from terrorists and rogue states. We suspect that what is really driving Blair and his military planners is concern about old threats - the thousands of nuclear weapons still in the arsenals of Russia and China (although saying so in the post-Cold War world would not be polite). The fact that France is holding on to its nukes and its seat at the table of "world powers" might have encouraged Blair as well.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/07/opinion/edblair.php

'Trident tested' in the Ecomonist, 7 December 2006
Like a wise householder protecting his home against remote but catastrophic risks, Tony Blair says his decision on December 4th to build a new generation of submarine-based nuclear weapons was just "insurance" in a turbulent world.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?
story_id=E1_RPRNNJG

'Nuclear nightmare', Letter to The Times, 7 December 2006
Today Medact publishes a damning report on the devastating health effects of the nuclear weapons which may be part of a new Trident system, outlined in the government White Paper on Monday. Britain's New Nuclear Weapons - Illegal, Indiscriminate and Catastrophic for Health details the health effects from blast, heat and radiation of a one-kilotonne nuclear bomb and challenges any notion that "sub-strategic" warheads could be "discriminate" or have "surgical" use.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2490211,00.html

'Our safest insurance policy is a nuclear one' by Oliver Kamm in The Times, 6 December 2006
"Cock your ear to how tentative and apologetic the argument for a new generation of British nuclear missiles is becoming," wrote Matthew Parris on Saturday. Not so. The tentativeness comes from opponents of a British nuclear deterrent.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2488765,00.html

'Blair's secret nightmare' by John Palmer in Guardian Comment is Free, 6 December 2006
Tony Blair has been coy about identifying the states whose possession or potential possession of nuclear weapons justifies his decision to build a new fleet of Trident submarines. He has acknowledged that it is "very improbable" that Britain will ever face a threat from a nuclear state, which would require the threatened use of Trident as a "deterrent".
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_palmer/
2006/12/france_blairs_dirty_trident_se.html

'We do not need these nuclear weapons' by Michael Ancram in the Independent, 6 December 2006
There seemed to be an assumption abroad that, while Labour is divided on this issue, the Conservatives are unanimous in supporting the next generation of the Trident deterrent. There were already signs on Monday that this would be an unwise misapprehension. There is in the Conservative Party a significant and growing group - of whom I am one - who have a healthy scepticism about Trident in today's and, more importantly, tomorrow's world.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2042937.ece

'Condemned to a nuclear future' by Michael Clarke in Guardian Comment is Free, 5 December 2006
The government's white paper on the future of Britain's nuclear forces is a curious document. It takes a series of difficult arguments head on and presents its position eloquently and clearly. Its recommendations are incisive. It knows what it thinks and is intended to offer leadership on the issue. But it achieves this incisiveness on the basis of some simplistic logic.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_clarke/2006/12/post_747.html

'Forking out for Trident' by Robert Fox in Guardian Comment is Free, 5 December 2006
Tony Blair has stretched the term "deterrent" to breaking point in announcing that Britain is to go ahead with the replacement to the Trident submarine-launched strategic nuclear weapon system, at a cost of something over £20bn. Both Roy Hattersley and Polly Toynbee are right to say that the argument for the new weapon is meaningless in terms of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence of the cold war embraced by the happily absurd acronym Mad (Mutually Assured Destruction).
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/robert_fox/2006/12/forking_out_for_trident.html

'The high price of nuclear prestige' by Philip Stephens in the Financial Times, 5 December 2006
We have it; prudence dictates we keep it. There lies the core of the government's case for updating Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system. Tony Blair says we live in a dangerous world. Who could quarrel with that? The decision to maintain a strategic nuclear capability until 2050 and beyond has another, unspoken aim. It seeks to sustain Britain in the front ranks of world powers.
(Available on the FT.com website. Registration needed)

'Unanswered questions surrounding Trident', Financial Times Editorial Comment, 5 December 2006
Tony Blair's decision to commit now to a new generation of nuclear-armed submarines - an extension of the Trident deterrent after 2025 - was presented as a fait accompli to the cabinet and looks as though it will easily command a parliamentary majority, with Conservative support, when it is put to a vote next year. It will, nevertheless, puzzle a large proportion of the public and, at the moment, leaves a lot of questions unconvincingly answered.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e282bdda-8405-11db-9e95-0000779e2340.html

'A foolish decision, made in haste', Independent Leader, 5 December 2006
The Prime Minister's announcement that Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent is to be renewed was as disappointing as it was unsurprising. Whatever arguments Mr Blair marshalled yesterday to justify the spending of £20bn or so on new submarines, we find the arguments on the other side a good deal more compelling.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2040131.ece

'This is about the defence of Labour, not the country' by Polly Toynbee in the Guardian, 5 December 2006
Nuclear weapons are terrifyingly dangerous. The very thought of them sends tremors through the upper ranks of Labour. Let's get one thing straight. The question of whether to spend £25bn on a new Trident system has nothing to do with defence - and they know it. When I ring round a few cabinet ministers, it is mildly amusing to hear them rolling out the reason why we need a replacement with as sincere a voice as they can manage. "Iran and North Korea," they say firmly, not sounding remotely plausible.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1964039,00.html

'Low fallout' by Michael White in the Guardian, 5 December 2006
At least Michael Meacher was being consistent when he spoke in the Commons yesterday against renewal of Britain's submarine-based Trident nuclear deterrent. When MPs voted on Trident's introduction in 1981 Mr Meacher was joined in the No lobby by such pro-defence Labour heavies as John Prescott, Denis Healey and Roy Hattersley. Wannabe candidate Anthony Blair, as he then was, would have joined them. But that was then.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1964142,00.html

'Trident and a threat to our democracy', Daily Mail Comment, 5 December 2006
Let's be clear from the outset: in this uncertain world, the Mail believes instinctively that Britain should retain her independent nuclear deterrent. But why is the nation being bulldozed into a decision without a proper debate?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?
in_article_id=420544&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source=

'Trident decision has international impact' by Paul Reynolds, BBC News website, 4 December 2006
The British government's decision to replace its Trident nuclear system will have international repercussions, with arguments centred on whether this will help or hinder the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. Critics argue that it is incompatible with British obligations under the NPT - an argument rejected by the British government.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6206052.stm

'Replace or not? Experts speak on eve of Trident paper', Guardian Opinion, 4 December 2006
As nuclear deterrent plans are unveiled today, specialists and politicians discuss path UK should take.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1963362,00.html

'A complete fantasy' by Roy Hattersley in the Guardian, 4 December 2006
Strange that so many members of the cabinet who were passionate opponents of nuclear weapons when they were necessary to the country's security should support their retention with equal fervour now that they are irrelevant to Britain's defence.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/comment/0,,1963212,00.html

'Revealed: UK's new nuclear force' by Brian Brady in Scotland on Sunday, 3 December 2006
Tony Blair will commit the UK to maintaining its submarine-based Trident missile system for decades to come when he outlines plans for the next generation of nuclear deterrence tomorrow. But the Cabinet is poised to rubber-stamp a proposed reduction in the number of submarines to give Britain a more flexible nuclear armoury, potentially including smaller 'bunker-busting' weapons that can be launched from jets.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1792162006

'There is no defence for renewing Trident', Observer Leader, 3 December 2006
Tomorrow the government publishes a white paper advocating that Britain renew Trident, its submarine-based nuclear deterrent. Unlike earlier commitments on Britain's military nuclear capacity, there are to be three months of consultation and debate. That is to be welcomed. It means that it is not too late for the government to realise it has got its argument wrong. It has misdiagnosed Britain's strategic threat.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/comment/0,,1962848,00.html

'Trident is a weapon of mass deception' by Mary Riddell in the Observer, 3 December 2006
Blair's legacy could be that Britain led the world in non-proliferation; instead, he wants to spend billions on a new generation of missiles. The Prime Minister will tomorrow deliver a White Paper ushering in a replacement for the Trident missile system. The timetable for this Quixotic move was always rushed; now it looks frantic.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/comment/0,,1962772,00.html

'Trident fleet could be built abroad' by David Cracknell and Michael Smith in The Sunday Times, 3 December 2006
New Trident submarines might not be built in Britain, the government's long-awaited white paper on replacing the country's nuclear deterrent will say tomorrow. The document will also acknowledge that the current fleet of four craft might be cut to three. Both options would threaten thousands of jobs in Britain, as the UK has always relied on its nuclear arsenal being manufactured domestically.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2484033,00.html

'Give me one good argument for replacing Trident. Go on' by Matthew Parris, Times Comment, 2 December 2006
The first thing to say about the replacement for our existing Trident defence system is that Tony Blair's claim that it has to be decided this winter, before he goes, is ludicrous. You know that. The defence White Paper, which he will unveil on Monday, is all about cutting a dash as he departs and sucking up to an arms industry at present in a state of hyperventilation. The second thing to say is that the price tag he will quote at the dispatch box will be purely notional: plucked from the air and doomed to prove a grotesque underestimate. You know that, too. The third is that almost nobody really, really thinks we need it. If you are honest with yourself, you know that as well.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2482607,00.html

'MP urging Labour Trident debate' on BBC News website, 2 December 2006
A candidate to become Labour's deputy leader has said he is not convinced of the need to replace Britain's ageing nuclear weapons. Jon Cruddas said he was prepared to use his campaign for the deputy leadership to press for much more consultation on whether Trident should be replaced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6201140.stm

'Rebellion brewing as MPs face Trident vote within three months' by Patrick Wintour and Richard Norton-Taylor in the Guardian, 1 December 2006
Tony Blair is personally to launch a white paper backing an expensive replacement for Britain's Trident nuclear submarine in a Commons statement on Monday. The cabinet will endorse the white paper hours earlier at a special morning session. However, some cabinet ministers have protested they were not aware until yesterday that Monday's discussion would be followed by immediate publication of the white paper, meaning in effect they will have no chance to alter the detail of a paper that will already be printed.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1961398,00.html

'Nuclear stockpiles cut to placate Trident opponents' by Ben Russell in the Independent, 1 December 2006
Tony Blair is preparing to cut stockpiles of nuclear weapons when the Government presses ahead with plans to replace Britain's Trident missile system. Ministers are expected to indicate that Britain will reduce its nuclear arsenal to reaffirm its commitment to the arms control process despite ordering a new generation of atomic weapons. Ministers believe they can set an example by reducing Britain's arsenal and demonstrate that the country is "going in the right direction" on arms control, while justifying retaining a "minimum" nuclear deterrent on long-term security grounds.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2029290.ece

'Nuclear deterrence may still have role' by Lawrence Freedman in the Financial Times, 1 December 2006
A striking feature of the debate on the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent - in which the government is to announce proposals on Monday - is continuity with past debates.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/bafb0fbe-80a5-11db-9096-0000779e2340.html

'Clarke sceptical about Trident', BBC News website, 30 November 2006.
Ex-Home Secretary Charles Clarke says he is currently "extremely sceptical" about the need to replace the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system. Mr Clarke, the most senior Labour MP to speak out on the issue, said Trident had been designed for the Cold War era.Things had changed since then and the UK should focus on future threats rather than building weapons to "fight the last war", he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6159035.stm

'In an uncertain world, unilateral disarmament would be folly' by Dr Lee Willet, Guardian letter, 30 November 2006.
Article VI of the NPT does not commit individual nations to make unilateral reductions. The UK government's stated policy is to pursue a dual-track policy of global disarmament, while maintaining a minimum independent deterrent. It is likely that maintaining a minimum deterrent will be the policy recommendation that the government will put forward in the white paper, and perhaps it will be this policy which parliament will discuss and vote upon. http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1960393,00.html

'Wise words, but the die is cast', Editorial Comment, Independent, 27 November 2006.
The news that Hans Blix is lecturing today in Britain on nuclear weapons must surely raise at least a few hackles on the back of the Prime Minister's neck. Mr Blair will say he knows better. Prepare for grandiose talk about how an updated Trident enables us to keep "punching above our weight", maintain "a seat at the top table", and all the other tired old phrases. But once again it is Mr Blix who is right and Mr Blair who is wrong on the subject of weapons of mass destruction.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2018687.ece

'Blix vs Blair (but this time it is over our weapons of mass destruction)' by Colin Brown in the Independent, 27 November 2006.
Dr Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, will launch a new attack on Tony Blair today, warning that the decision to press ahead with a full replacement for Trident will make it more difficult to stop Iran acquiring the bomb. He will say that modernising Britain's arsenal puts the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) under "strain" and increases the feeling among non-nuclear states, such as Iran, that they are being "cheated" by the nuclear states.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2018719.ece

'Nuclear fissions over Trident', Guardian Letters, 27 November 2006.
Jack Straw states "only a simpleton could think replacing Trident would breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty". We would remind Mr Straw of the United Kingdom's obligations under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which states: "Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective control."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1957647,00.html

'Why a new Trident can only make the world a more dangerous place' by Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald, 26 November 2006.
You'll have had your debate. It took about an hour on Thursday for the decision to be taken by the UK Cabinet to replace Trident. The consultation will be an empty one, taking place over the Christmas holiday season, and the vote in the new year will be a formality.
http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1042209.0.
why_a_new_trident_can_only_make_the_world_a_more_
dangerous_place.php

'Brown warns against unilateral disarmament', Reuters, 25 November 2006.
Gordon Brown reiterated on Saturday his support for maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent as the government launches what is sure to be a heated debate on the future of its nuclear arsenal. Speaking at Labour's Scottish conference in Oban, the man seen as Prime Minister Tony Blair's most likely successor warned against unilateral disarmament, given the stand-offs with North Korea and Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews
&storyID=2006-11-25T205243Z_01_L25547376_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-
BRITAIN.xml&WTmodLoc=HP-C2-Business-3

The union forever? By Iain Macwhirter, Guardian Comment, 25 November 2006.
A system as controversial as Trident should not be imposed on a country without the consent of the people - and Scotland doesn't want it. It used to be called the division of powers. Questions like defence, foreign affairs, nuclear power and economic policy are supposed to be "reserved" to Westminster. At least that's the theory. But the divisions are becoming increasingly blurred.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/iain_macwhirter/2006/11/
scotland_doesnt_want_trident.html

'Great minds think alike' by Kate Hudson, Guardian Comment, 25 November 2006.
It is good to know that the debate on the future of Britain's nuclear weapons system, Trident, is generating top quality political discussion in the Cabinet. Jack Straw's remark, for example, that only a simpleton could think replacing Trident would breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Hardly an intellectual angle, Jack.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/kate_hudson/2006/11/
kate_hudson_simpletons.html

'Trident: revise it or reject it?', Times Letters, 25 November 2006.
If the UK decides to retain nuclear arms, it will be a signal to every country that may soon acquire nuclear weapons that we consider them worth the political and economic cost. It will be a step towards a world ruled forever by mutual threat and fear. If the UK were to forgo nuclear weapons, it would indicate that one of the original nuclear states had decided that they were no longer necessary for its security; a step towards a world ruled by law and mutual understanding.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2470113,00.html

'Trident replacement edges closer' by Neil Welch in Newbury Today, 24 November 2006.
Plans to replace Trident, Britain's nuclear deterrent, have taken another step forward. MPs will vote early next year on whether it should be replaced, with Aldermaston's Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in the frame to host construction of the system should it be given the green light. AWE's Orion laser project could play a key role in the development of a new deterrent.
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=3355

'Time to talk' by Robert Fox, Guardian Comment, 23 November 2006.
The cabinet is to discuss a replacement to the UK's Trident D5 strategic nuclear weapon system. A full-blooded row is not expected, so we are told, but this is a first canter round the paddock of the arguments for and against. So when are parliament and we the great unwashed public, who would have to pay for the darned thing in the end, going to get a say? Later, rather than sooner, if the boss in Downing Street has his way, by all accounts
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/robert_fox/2006/11/foxtrident.html

'2007 vote on Trident replacement' by the Press Association, 23 November 2006.
Parliament will vote on the possibility of a replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent systems early next year, it has been announced. The Government will bring forward a White Paper on the issue before Christmas, which will then be followed by a "period of debate", the Prime Minister's official spokesman said. Asked whether the Commons would be presented with a range of options concerning the deterrent strategy, the spokesman added: "The Government will put forward its views and the House will vote on that view."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6234927,00.html

'Beware of Trident-lite' by Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian Comment, 23 November 2006.
The cabinet is expected to have its first discussion today on a decision that will have momentous consequences, of the kind that surfaces once in a generation. We could be forgiven for assuming it is a forgone conclusion. But is it? In the Commons yesterday Tony Blair repeated his well-worn, indeed predictable, view that Britain should retain an "independent" nuclear deterrent, a position echoed by Gordon Brown in the summer as he began to dress up in prime ministerial clothes.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1954781,00.html

'Beckett backs keeping nuclear deterrent' by Patrick Wintour in the Guardian, 23 November 2006.
As the cabinet prepares to discuss a white paper on Trident replacement, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who had been cited in the press as a sceptic, yesterday in the Commons insisted she was a supporter of retention.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1954640,00.html

'Blair overriding Cabinet on renewal of Trident' by Andrew Grice in the Independent, 23 November 2006.
Cabinet ministers who will today demand a public debate on the various options for replacing Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system but believe the Prime Minister will railroad through the scheme without a proper discussion. Mr Blair will also brush aside legal doubts about renewing Trident.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2007495.ece

'Brown ready to pay price for new Trident' by Neil Tweedie in the Telegraph, 23 November 2006.
Gordon Brown is backing the most expensive option for a new British nuclear deterrent - a "top end" fleet of ballistic missile-firing submarines costing tens of billions of pounds. Despite the Chancellor's traditional caution over spending, sources say he has no intention of compromising on a replacement for the current Trident submarine force.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2006/11/23/nammo123.xml

'Blair fudges Trident vote' by Nick Assinder, BBC News website, 22 November 2006.
Sir Menzies Campbell's decision to challenge the Prime Minister over the possible replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent went to the heart of it. The PM confirmed the white paper on Trident would come before Christmas but he failed to pledge a vote on all the options.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6172934.stm

'Worse than Irrelevant? British Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century' by the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, 22 November 2006.
The report presents the information the government should be providing as part of the public and parliamentary debate on the future of UK nuclear policy that needs to take place before any decision is taken on Trident replacement and urges the government to seize this historic chance to marginalise nuclear weapons and promote more effective strategies to strengthen the multilateral non-proliferation regime.
http://www.acronym.org.uk/uk/Worse_than_Irrelevant.pdf

'Beckett leads Cabinet split on replacement for nuclear deterrent' by Greg Hurst and Philip Webster in The Times, 22 November 2006.
Margaret Beckett is one of three Cabinet ministers with concerns about the Government's imminent decision on whether to replace Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent, The Times has been told. Amid signs of a widening Cabinet split, the Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn and Peter Hain have all expressed private reservations about extending or replacing the Trident missile system and a lack of consultation with the wider Labour Party.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2465226,00.html

'Talks on nuclear deterrent' by Thomas Harding in the Telegraph, 22 November 2006.
The future of Britain's nuclear deterrent will be discussed for the first time by the Cabinet tomorrow after the Defence Secretary, Des Brown, outlines the threat posed by the spread of the weapons. Ministers will decide in the next few weeks whether they should agree to a new nuclear submarine ballistic missile system needed to replace the ageing Trident by 2024.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2006/11/22/nnuke22.xml

'Call to debate 'illegal' plan to replace Trident' by Richard Norton-Taylor in the Guardian, 22 November 2006.
Government plans to upgrade or replace the Trident nuclear missile system are in breach of Britain's obligations under international law, disarmament campaigners said yesterday. As ministers prepare to put the final touches to a white paper on Trident's future, Greenpeace, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and the Acronym Institute, an independent thinktank, demanded a full debate on the legality of the plans, and on alternative defence policies, before the promised Commons vote on the issue.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1953908,00.html

'Submarine system of nuclear weapons most likely' in the Scotsman, 22 November 2006.
Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, told MPs that Britain's current use of Vanguard submarines to carry the Trident weapons system was likely to make the naval option cheapest. "Those [other] options are being looked at, but we have to recognise that we have significant experience with submarines," Lord Drayson said.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1727042006

'Trident decision not yet taken', BBC website, 21 November 2006. A decision has not yet been taken on whether to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, Lord Drayson has said. But the defence minister promised a "preferred option" in a white paper to come by the end of the year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6168090.stm

'Trident replacement date set' by Julian Rush, C4 News website, 21 November 2006.
The government has announced will decide whether to replace Trident or not at the end of the year. A decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system will be taken at the end of the year it emerged today, the Minister for Defence Procurement Lord Drayson telling a Commons committee "we have to take decisions now".
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-
storypage.jsp?id=3956

'Trident conspiracy theory' by Nick Assinder, BBC News website, 21 November 2006.
It started as a debate over the likely impact on jobs of the replacement, or otherwise, of the Trident nuclear system. But, with CND and Greenpeace giving evidence to the defence committee of MPs, it soon turned into a row over whether there was a government "conspiracy" over the issue which had already seen Tony Blair giving the go-ahead for a new generation of warheads.

'MPs probe Trident 'middle way', BBC News website 21 November 2006.
Speaking ahead of the committee hearings Mr Kevan Jones told the BBC that the MPs could recommend overhauling the submarine fleet carrying the US-made Trident missiles in their final report. "The Americans have got a programme at the moment extending the life of their submarines up to 2042," he said. That meant the US does not have to take a decision on their replacement system until the mid 2020s.

'Nuclear anxiety over Trident', Guardian Letters, 21 November 2006.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1952886,00.html

'Hopes rise at yard on new sub order' in the North West Evening Mail, 20 November 2006.
Barrow shipyard could get a pre-Christmas boost from the government over new generation Trident missile submarines. Speculation is growing that the government will signal its support for a submarine-based Trident missiles system continuing to be Britain's nuclear deterrent in the future.
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=436876

'Trident replacement debate in Parliament', BBC News website, 19 November 2006.
Speaking on the Politics Show this Sunday, Northern Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain, called for a full consultation with the Labour Party about a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system. Peter Hain said: "We'll need to make a decision quite soon as to what replaces it, but the way in which we make that decision, and this is really the basis upon which I'm standing for the Deputy Leadership in respect of other policies, is there should not be bouncing the party or the public from on high. In my view there should be a debate in parliament and the vote in parliament."

'New Trident to go ahead' by Michael Smith in the Sunday Times, 19 November 2006.
The government will signal within the next two to three weeks that it wants to continue with the submarine-based Trident missile system as the UK's nuclear deterrent, according to Whitehall sources. Tony Blair has promised MPs a full debate on the issue and reportedly told a cabinet meeting last week that he wants the debate to begin quickly "because a decision needs to be made".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2460264,00.html

'A Trident alternative. There is a middle way: a virtual nuclear arsenal' by Ian Davis in Comment is Free (Guardian online), 17 November 2006.
The phony war is over. The great Trident replacement debate is up and running in earnest. And already the issue is being distorted and the options narrowed. Three examples of this can be found in the front-page report in the Guardian today.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian_davis/2006/11/
an_end_to_the_phony_war_on_tri.html

'Blair begins push for Trident replacement' by Patrick Wintour in the Guardian, 17 November 2006.
Tony Blair told the cabinet yesterday that he plans to launch a controversial debate on the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile programme as early as next week, in a sign that he wants to secure agreement on a multibillion replacement before he leaves Downing Street. He told ministers that a decision had to be taken quickly. Cabinet members admitted yesterday that the debate would have to be carefully managed to avoid deep fissures opening up inside the party at the time of leadership and deputy leadership elections.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1950247,00.html

'Depressing politics as usual on submarine replacement' by Prof Norman Dombey, FT Letter, 13 November 2006
James Boxell's article "BAE warns against delay in replacing Trident" (November 8) helps to explain why the government is in such a rush to reach a decision on Trident's replacement. According to the official calculations the first of the Vanguard class of Trident missile submarines was launched in 1994; it has a 25-year life so needs to be replaced in 2019, while it took 14 years from the Thatcher government decision in 1980 to replace Polaris to the 1994 launch. Hence a decision to replace should have been made last year.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/eb76b794-72bb-11db-a5f5-0000779e2340.html

'Brown may be left with Trident dilemma when Blair leaves office' by Colin Brown in the Independent, 10 November 2006.
Ministers have revealed that the decision on the £25bn replacement of Britain's Trident nuclear missile system is likely to be delayed until next year. There are growing suspicions among ministers that the Prime Minister is seeking to leave the decision to Gordon Brown, after his departure.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1963016.ece

'BAE Official: U.K. Discussing Cooperation on Sub Building With U.S., France' by Andrew Chuter in Defense News, 8 November 2006.
Britain is in talks with the United States and France over possible collaboration in the design and supply of nuclear submarines and systems, according to the senior executive running BAE Systems' submarine-building yard in the Britain. Giving evidence to the Parliamentary Defence Committee here Nov 7, Murray Easton, BAE's submarines managing director, said there is ongoing dialogue with the United States at the industrial level over collaboration. He indicated there is also significant work under way between the two governments.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2339692&C=europe

'Industry warns against Trident delay' by Paul Owen in the Guardian, 7 November 2006.
Any delay in ordering a replacement for Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent could have a "catastrophic" impact on industry's ability to build a new generation of nuclear submarines, ministers were warned today. Murray Easton, the head of BAE Systems' submarines division, said that maintaining the essential skills base needed to build such complex vessels depended upon a regular flow of orders.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1941617,00.html

'Could scrapping Trident save the planet?' by John Vidal, Tania Branigan and James Randerson in the Guardian, 4 November 2006.
After the apocalyptic vision of global catastrophe presented in the Stern report on climate change, by midweek there was broad political agreement that countries need to start committing to dramatic cuts in greenhouse gases. But no one has yet tried to estimate exactly how much it will cost or where the money will come from to get emissions down by the 60% minimum scientists say is needed by 2030. Intriguingly, calculations by economic and environmental researchers as well as the Guardian suggest a striking parallel between the amount needed to cut emissions, and one of the most controversial areas of government spending - the cost of renewing and maintaining Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1939431,00.html

'Party calls on PM to scuttle new sub fleet' by Ian Swanson in the Scotsman, 2 November 2006.
LABOUR politicians in the Lothians have added to mounting pressure on the Government to abandon controversial plans to spend up to £25 billion replacing Britain's nuclear submarines. The latest sign of the increasing unease is a decision by Labour-run West Lothian Council to write to Tony Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne urging them to scrap the ageing Trident fleet.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1624012006

'Beckett: we may not need nuclear missiles' by David Cracknell in the Sunday Times, 29 October 2006
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has reopened the controversy over Britain's nuclear deterrent by calling for a public debate on whether the country still needs Trident missiles. In an interview with The Sunday Times she points out that the "security situation today is very, very different" from the end of the cold war. She says that "all of us as a country", not just the government, should be able to question the policy."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2426973_2,00.html

'So, minister, are we developing new nuclear weapons or not?' by Marie Woolf in the Independent on Sunday, 29 October 2006
The Government was accused of covertly beginning work on a new nuclear warhead, despite ministers' assurances that no decision on replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent had been made. The chief scientist at Aldermaston, the UK's top-secret atomic weapons facility, has told potential recruits that "most of our research" is devoted to "the ability to provide a new warhead". In a video link, aimed at recruiting top scientists, Dr Clive Marsh lets slip that scientists at Aldermaston are busy working on the development of "our overall warhead design and assurance capabilities". http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1938370.ece

'MOD rubbish bomb claims' by Robert Rowlands in the Newbury Weekly News, 26 October 2006
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has rubbished a Greenpeace report that claims a new nuclear bomb is being developed at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), at Aldermaston. The MOD says the recruitment of 25 extra scientists with expertise in hydrodynamics has nothing to do with a plan to develop a replacement for the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system, as Greenpeace claimed last week. http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=3178

'We are in a new and disturbing atomic age' by Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald, 22 October 2006
We can expect Gordon Brown, for example, to start talking about how, in a dangerous world, it would be irresponsible to give up or fail to renew Trident.
On the other hand, Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, made his contrary view abundantly clear at the SNP conference in Perth. "We will never abandon the policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament," he said, ensuring that this will be a defining issue in May's Scottish election. Electorally, Scotland could well find itself voting for a nuclear-free zone after May. For the first time in 20 years unilateralism is a key issue in British politics. The other big question is: what will the Americans do if Salmond wins?
http://www.sundayherald.com/58643

Aldermaston recruits scientists 'to work on nuclear warheads' by Colin Brown in the Independent, 20 October 2006
Fresh evidence that work on testing a nuclear warhead is being planned at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston has been uncovered by anti-nuclear campaigners. Greenpeace said they had identified the recruitment of 25 extra scientists at Aldermaston for work on a new warhead. They are being recruited as part of a massive expansion at Aldermaston, costing £350m a year over the next three years to build powerful lasers capable of testing nuclear technology in the laboratory.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1904974.ece
See the Greenpeace's report 'Britain's New Bomb Programme Exposed':
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/
8030.pdf?CFID=5999762&CFTOKEN=12819352

'Pressure mounts for decision on nuclear deterrent' by Greg Hurst in The Times, 17 October 2006
Tony Blair faces growing pressure from all sides among Labour MPs to spell out the choices for replacing Britain's nuclear deterrent in his final months in office. Mounting frustration is being voiced by both supporters and opponents of a next generation nuclear weapon system to succeed Trident amid fears that MPs will be bounced into a decision. Despite being promised a debate and vote in the Commons on replacing Trident, many Labour MPs are furious that a host of motions on the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent were blocked at their party conference in Manchester last month.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2407044,00.html

'Threat to £600m Clyde ship orders' by Ian Bruce in The Herald, 12 October 2006
Plans for two Clyde-built Type 45 destroyers could be scrapped by the Ministry of Defence as part of a long-term £12bn budget cut demanded by the Treasury ahead of next year's Whitehall departmental spending review.
"The question of extending Trident's lifespan as the nuclear deterrent or investing in something hugely expensive to replace it will be on the fiscal radar by then. Something has to give." A BAe source added: "Affordability is a challenge to the entire defence industry. There's only so much money to go around. But there's also a new pragmatism. No amount of bleating is going to change reality. People in the business are planning accordingly."
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/71927.shtml

'North Korea demonstrates need for British nuclear deterrent' on Conservative Party website, 11 October 2006
Senior Conservatives have condemned North Korea's "provocative" nuclear weapons test, and stressed the importance of maintaining Britain nuclear deterrent. Dr Fox stated: "No one can predict the erratic actions of rogue states and what irrational actions totalitarian leaders may take. That is why the onus is on the nuclear abolitionists to tell us why they believe the threat to Britain will disappear between now and 2050, the lifespan of Trident and it's replacement.
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=132851

'Trident tyranny' by Vivian Clark in Letter to the Times, 10 October 2006
Most of the UK population seems to thinks that we have control over Trident (letters, October 5). We have not. Before Trident can be fired it has to receive a code from the US sanctioning such action. The only reason we are permitted to have US-produced nuclear weapons is because the US wishes to use the UK as a forward outpost for its own defence purposes. John Stanning writes: "It would be very foolish to bet our future on US protection." Regrettably, that is exactly the situation we are in.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2395860,00.html

'Protest and survive' by Aida Edemariam in the Guardian, 9 October 2006
When police arrested 13 women at the Faslane nuclear submarine base last week, among them was one of the leading veterans of Greenham Common. Rebecca Johnson tells Aida Edemariam about 25 years of civil disobedience.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1890901,00.html

'Trident protester heckles Brown'' on BBC website, 9 October 2006 Gordon Brown has been heckled by an anti-nuclear protestor during a book signing event in Edinburgh. A woman walked up to the stage as the Chancellor answered a question about replacing the UK's Trident weapons. She tried to personally hand him a letter, but was prevented from doing so by police and security staff.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6032457.stm

'Are we safer with Trident?' by David Sellick and John Stanning in Letters to the Times, 5 October 2006
Keith Chapman's observation that it would be cheaper to scrap the Trident completely and rely on US capabilities as it would "at a stroke save colossal sums of money for the taxpayer and the Armed Forces alike" (letter Oct 3) doesn't quite add up. With a nuclear capability we still have teeth and should (the present Government excepted) remain independent of the US. As a British citizen and taxpayer the independence is something I treasure as particularly valuable, irrespective of cost.

Giving up our nuclear weapons and relying "on US capabilities" to defend us would be gambling with our children's lives. Moreover, the US and the UK do not always agree on foreign policy. It would be very foolish to bet our future on US protection. But there is surely no foreseeable need for wildly expensive stealth missile submarines. Let us scrap Trident and its replacement and maintain a relatively simple deterrent using weapons carried by manned bombers or cruise missiles.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2388691,00.html

'Arms and the Women' by Claire L Smith in the Scotsman, 5 October 2006
'Lesbian Feminists Say No To Trident," "We're Not Having It!," "Stating the Bleeding Obvious Again!" shout the banners hanging on the solemn grey fence surrounding Faslane, Britain's nuclear submarine base on the shores of Gare Loch. Alongside it a group of women are drinking coffee, waving occasionally at a Ministry of Defence policeman who is video recording their al fresco tea party.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1471462006

'Anti-Trident protesters arrested' on BBC website, 2 October 2006
Twelve women have been arrested outside the home of Scotland's Trident nuclear submarine fleet, at the start of a year-long blockade. About 60 female demonstrators took part in the protest at the main gate of the naval base at Faslane on the Clyde. Strathclyde Police said the women were expected to appear at Dumbarton Sheriff Court on Tuesday. The activists said they had staged a non-violent blockade to disrupt workers entering the facility. The arrests come at the start of Faslane 365 - a year of civil resistance to Britain's nuclear weapons programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5399492.stm

'Air forces have vital role' by Group Captain Keith Chapman (RAF, retd) in Letter to the Times, 3 October 2006
As for the need to save money in the defence budget, there is an obvious solution. Scrap Trident and its replacement! For far too long, successive governments have maintained, at enormous cost, the charade of deploying a so-called independent strategic nuclear deterrent. No politician or military commander has ever come up with a convincing scenario in which the UK would use strategic nuclear weapons independently of its Nato allies. In the highly unlikely event that nuclear weapons had to be used, the UK, like all other Nato members (except France), should rely on US capabilities. This would, at a stroke, save colossal sums of money for the benefit of the taxpayer and Armed Forces alike.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2385221,00.html

‘Cruddas launches deputy campaign with Trident attack’ by Colin Brown in the Independent, 28 September 2006
Jon Cruddas launched his bid for the deputy leadership last night with a sideswipe at Gordon Brown for pre-empting the party's debate about the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapon system. Mr Cruddas, 44, said the Chancellor's decision to commit himself to a full replacement for Trident before the party or the Cabinet had properly discussed it symbolised the authoritarian leadership that his campaign is designed to challenge.
"You can't just slam-dunk the party into this," he said. "The lack of a Trident debate is symptomatic of a general malaise in the party about policy development, and the role of the party."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1768848.ece

‘Nuclear deterrent not the solution, says Clarke’ by Will Woodward in the Guardian 26 September 2006
The government has failed to make the case for renewing Britain's nuclear deterrent, the former cabinet minister Charles Clarke said yesterday. Speaking at a Guardian debate at the conference, Mr Clarke, who was sacked as home secretary in May, fuelled the argument about Trident which some members have accused the party leadership of trying to curb.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1881116,00.html

‘40 Labour MPs demand trident debate’ by Press Association in the Guardian, 26 September 2006
Dozens of Labour MPs have signed an open letter to the party chairman calling for a debate at the annual conference on the future of the Trident nuclear weapons system.
A total of 40 MPs signed the letter to Hazel Blears following a decision by organisers of the Manchester conference to rule out of order a series of resolutions opposed to Trident.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6105227,00.html

‘Ministers urge leadership to open up Trident debate’ by Tania Branigan and Will Woodward in the Guardian, 25 September 2006
Cabinet ministers yesterday urged the Labour leadership to open up the debate on renewing Britain's nuclear deterrent as delegates protested that they were being denied a vote on the issue. Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, called for a debate "both in conference, in the party, in the country and in parliament". He added: "The threat that we face in the world has changed but there's a real debate to be had over how we put that commitment into effect." His remarks were backed by Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland secretary, and Harriet Harman, the constitutional affairs minister, at a fringe meeting organised by the New Statesman.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1880132,00.html

‘Leadership tries to veto debate on new generation of Trident’ by Barrie Clement in the Independent, 25 September 2006
The conference committee ruled there could be no debate on the replacement of the £25bn weapons system because it had been the subject of a full discussion at the national policy forum, which had produced a document on the subject.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1747151.ece

‘Row erupts over decision to veto Trident debate’ by Christopher Adams in the Financial Times, 25 September 2006
A fierce row has erupted over the replacement of Britain's nuclear weapons after Labour party conference organisers vetoed calls for a debate on the issue.
The party was accused by angry delegates in Manchester on Sunday of "gagging" discussion about the Trident weapons system after a decision to rule out attempts by a number of local parties to force the issue on the agenda.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/efd8e20c-4be8-11db-90d2-0000779e2340.html

‘Trident trio defy pleas for conference unity’ by Graeme Wilson in the Telegraph, 25 September 2006
Pleas for party unity from Labour's high command were shattered yesterday as Peter Hain, Hilary Benn and Harriet Harman demanded a full debate on plans to replace Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent. Peter Hain said the debate "should involve the party, it should involve the movement, it should involve people in civil society and the wider public who have something to contribute". Miss Harman said: "There are choices to be made about what that money is spent on. "Of course people need to have a view. And it's their security too. They have got to have a view."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2006/09/25/nlabour325.xml

‘MPs will urge Whitehall to order new Astutes’ in the North West Evening Mail, 21 September 2006
MPs on a key defence committee are to warn the government to stop delaying new orders for Astute nuclear submarines from Barrow. They said they had been given the strong message from BAE that continuing delays in getting orders for the next batch of Astute boats will lead to the shipyard losing key design engineers and other staff. That in turn could lead to the UK being unable to build replacement Trident missile subs in future. The government is expected to back replacing the deterrent in a White Paper before Christmas.
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=414931

‘Lib Dem MPs refused free vote on Trident’ in politics.co.uk, 21 September 2006
The Liberal Democrats have rejected calls for their MPs to have a free vote on Trident replacement, as new figures suggest the true cost of the nuclear system is £76 billion. Delegates at the party conference in Brighton defeated a motion put by former environment spokesman Norman Baker to allow Lib Dem MPs to vote on conscience, not the party line, if a vote takes place within the next six months.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/party-politics/liberal-democrats/
lib-dem-mps-refuse-free-vote-on-trident-$452504.htm

‘New Trident system may cost £76bn, figures show’ by Richard Norton-Taylor in the Guardian, 21 September 2006
The true cost of replacing and operating the Trident nuclear missile system would be at least £76bn, according to estimates revealed today. Based on official figures, they take into account the initial cost of acquiring new Trident missiles and replacing Britain's existing nuclear submarines, and the annual running costs of maintaining the system and nuclear warheads over its 30-year life. The figure is based on calculations made by the Liberal Democrats from parliamentary answers and is backed up by independent Commons researchers.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1877260,00.html

‘They walked 85 miles to say: Bin the Bomb’ by Louise Gray in the Scotsman, 20 September 2006
Five hundred protesters arrived at the Scottish Parliament yesterday, having marched across the country in protest at plans to renew Britain's nuclear weapons arsenal. Bedraggled and blistered after a five-day, 85-mile walk from Faslane, where the navy's Trident nuclear submarines are based, the group gathered outside the public entrance chanting and singing.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1387482006

‘Archbishop hits out over Trident’, BBC, 20 September 2006
The leader of the Anglican Church in Wales, Archbishop Barry Morgan, is to hit out at plans to upgrade the UK's Trident nuclear missile system. He is expected to say the £25bn costs could prevent 16,000 children dying each day from diseases caused by contaminated water and malnutrition.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5362342.stm

McConnell’s dreams for Trident could put Brown in the history books
Iain Macwhirter on a plan for peace in the middle east … and peace for Scottish Tories
http://www.sundayherald.com/58015

'McConnell slapped down over 'stupid' Trident trade-off call' by Hamish Macdonell and James Kirkup in the Scotsman, 15 September 2006
Jack McConnell sparked an angry backlash from the Westminster government yesterday when he suggested Britain should offer to scrap its nuclear weapons in a disarmament deal with Iran. Straying into areas which are completely outside his remit as First Minister, Mr McConnell suggested the UK's Trident system could be traded in for a guarantee from Iran and other developing countries that they would not pursue their own nuclear weapons programmes. While Downing Street and the Foreign Office declined to offer an official comment, a British official close to the talks with Iran was privately scathing about Mr McConnell's suggestion, describing it as "stupid" and "completely ridiculous".
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1361582006

'McConnell faces missile grilling' BBC, 14 September 2006
First Minister Jack McConnell has again been challenged to say whether he backs the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system. Scottish National Party deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon previously tackled Mr McConnell on the issue during First Minister's Questions in July after Chancellor Gordon Brown had backed a Trident replacement. The first minister said it was a matter that required serious debate and not a "knee-jerk reaction". The question came at Holyrood as church leaders set out on "a long walk for peace" across Scotland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5345870.stm

'I'm standing down so I can speak the truth' by Clare Short in the Independent, 14 September 2006
"Gordon Brown's commitment to a replacement of Trident, in one throwaway sentence, is an insult to democracy."
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article1575803.ece

'Trident replacement a complete fallacy' by Transport and General Workers Union in Politics.co.uk, 13 September 2006
The T&G union urged delegates at the TUC in Brighton to support a motion calling on the government to have a parliamentary debate over Trident. T&G assistant general secretary Barry Camfield demanded a "fully transparent" discussion, saying: "This issue about replacement is a complete fallacy." The motion was carried.
http://www.politics.co.uk/issueoftheday/features/tuc-conference/
tg-trident-replacement-complete-fallacy-$450334$450237.htm

'Hain launches bid for deputy leadership with loyalty pledge' in the Guardian, 13 September 2006
Calling for renewed passion inside the government, Peter Hain set out a provisional list of policy areas on which the party needed to be more radical. He said it was legitimate for the party to discuss how the Trident nuclear missiles system should be replaced, suggesting he may not support full-scale replacement.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1871108,00.html

'With the necons discredited, here comes libcon Cameron' by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, 13 September 2006
It means cancelling Eurofighters and Trident submarines and investing in infantry and field armour. It means engaging with Iran rather than threatening to bomb it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1871073,00.html

Former Home Secretary calls for the case for Trident replacement to be made. BBC, 5 September 2006
In his speech, Mr Clarke was equally scathing about the way debate on a possible replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system has been handled. Chancellor Mr Brown used a lecture at The Guildhall in London to signal his support for keeping Britain's "independent nuclear deterrent". But Mr Clarke says there needs to be a full consideration of all the options. "Our resource and strategic allocation should depend on the conclusions of that consideration and should not be pre-empted," he says. "In short a convincing argument for taking the step which the chancellor announced at the Guildhall has yet to be presented."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5315636.stm

'Nuclear Demonstration: By scrapping Trident, Britain could make a real difference to global non-proliferation efforts' by Michael MccGwire in Prospect Magazine, September 2006
The case for retaining our nuclear capability is not national security, let alone strategic necessity. It is about sunk costs-as we already have it, we might as well keep it-and the strategic justification is that it may come in handy one day-and that we're better safe than sorry. This is somewhat slim for such an awesome capability, and it ignores the balance of costs and benefits.
The most important opportunity costs are, however, political. They relate to Britain's role in the world and, more specifically, to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If Britain were no longer seen as America's glove puppet, our political status would rise and a range of new policy options would open up. Britain would be able to argue publicly against the further development of nuclear weapons, to forcefully reassert the nuclear taboo and to challenge the existence of double standards.
Britain faces mutually exclusive choices. Either we concentrate our efforts on halting and reversing nuclear proliferation. Or we retain a nuclear capability, in case it comes in handy in the unforeseeable future. We cannot do both.
Michael MccGwire is a former naval officer and was a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7746. Also available as a pdf file at: http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/beyondtrident/mccgwire.pdf.

'Vatican Backs Scottish Bishops on Missile Stance. Cardinal Martino Endorses Declaration on Trident System'. Zenit.org, 4 September 2006
The Vatican has backed the opposition of Scotland's Catholic bishops to the Trident missile system and its possible replacement. Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, sent a letter to Cardinal Keith O'Brien endorsing the bishops' April declaration which urged "the government of the United Kingdom not to invest in a replacement for the Trident system."
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94252

'New nuclear sub is lifeline for Barrow' by Toby Poston, Business reporter, BBC News, 28 August 2006
The big prize for BAE, and Barrow, is Trident. In June, Chancellor Gordon Brown pledged to replace the Trident nuclear missile system. The Vanguard class submarines are scheduled to be phased out in the 2020s - and most Barrovians are hoping that the new Trident platform will again be submarine based, and built in the town. A decision could be imminent, because design work for a new range of Trident submarines would have to start within the next couple of years in order to have a replacement ready in time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5270640.stm

Special Update on the Chancellor's Mansion House Speech and the Defence Committee Report, June 2006

What Chancellor Gordon Brown said in his Mansion House Speech on 'our independent nuclear deterrent', 21 June 2006
"And I mean not just stability by securing low inflation but stability in our industrial relations, stability through a stable and competitive tax regime, and stability through a predictable and light touch regulatory environment - a stability founded on our strength to make the right long term decisions, the same strength of national purpose we will demonstrate in protecting our security in this Parliament and the long-term - strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent. In an insecure world we must and will always have the strength to take all necessary long term decisions for stability and security."
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/
press/2006/press_44_06.cfm

And articles and comment following it:

Britain's nuclear-weapons fix by Paul Rogers in openDemocracy, 29 June 2006
The determination of Britain's political elite to maintain the country as a nuclear-weapons state is rooted in a half-century of military planning to which the possibility of tactical and first use of nuclear weapons is central.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy/britain_nuclear_3693.jsp

Brown defends stance on Trident, BBC News, 28 June 2006
Britain can honour its commitments to Africa and also pay for a nuclear successor to Trident, according to Chancellor Gordon Brown. He made the comments in an exclusive BBC Scotland interview almost a year after the G8 summit in Gleneagles. Speaking on Wednesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair told MPs a decision on replacing Trident would be taken later this year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5126900.stm

Let's have a real debate on Trident, Independent Letter by Nicola Butler, 27 June 2006
If the Government is really committed to a proper debate on whether to replace the UK's aging nuclear weapon system, Trident, it should publish a consultative Green Paper setting out costs and opportunity costs for all the options, including the option of non-replacement. A Green Paper is supported by MPs from both sides of the Commons, including those for and against nuclear weapons. The Government's proposed White Paper, setting out its decision, is likely to repeat the lack of transparency of past government decision-making on nuclear weapons and missile defence, and is more likely to be a fait accompli, providing too little information, too late, for any real debate.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1099060.ece

Why must Brown resurrect the Cold War's MAD strategy? Times Letter by Charles Gidley Wheeler, 27 June 2006
I served in the Fleet Air Arm, 1954-80 - most of the Cold War years - and I am appalled that Britain appears to be sleep-walking back into an entirely inappropriate Cold War strategy of mutually assured destruction. … If the human race is to survive, the West must turn its back on the strategy of nuclear deterrence. There is now a rare opportunity for Britain to set an example to the world by turning her back on nuclear weapons once and for all.

Call for Government transparency, Times Letter by Nick Harvey MP, 27 June 2006
In February the Prime Minister told the liaison committee of the House of Commons that there would be "the fullest possible parliamentary debate" on Trident replacement. The Prime Minister's assured successor has pre-empted this debate. What is required from the Government is transparency on decision-making, a public consultation process and a White Paper. This is a decision which should only be taken after informed analysis and debate. Given the national importance and the profound international implications, it should also be subject to a vote in the House of Commons.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2244114,00.html

Politics calls the nuclear missile shots, by Philip Stephens in the Financial Times, 27 June 2006
There is nothing new and something depressing in Gordon Brown's public commitment to replace Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system. The chancellor's political positioning is transparent enough. So, too, is the absence of strategic thinking. The global landscape is being remade by huge shifts in relative power. Yet the prevailing presumption is that the past is permanent.

U.K. stays nuclear, by Martin Walker, United Press International, 26 June 2006
It is unusual to watch a senior and experienced politician walk deliberately into trouble. But Gordon Brown, for the past nine years the successful steward of the world's fourth-largest economy and the second-most powerful man in Britain after Tony Blair, knew exactly what he was doing when he kicked the third rail of left-wing politics by pledging to renew Britain's nuclear forces.
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=
20060625-025733-5963r

The real cost of the nuclear option. Letters in the Times, 26 June 2006
As one of those who gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee against the replacement of Trident, I find it regrettable that Gordon Brown has signalled his intention to replace Britain's dependent deterrent without taking time either to reflect on the committee hearings or to debate the issue within the Labour Party.
Professor Shaun Gregory
Brown should certainly challenge the Left over the nuclear deterrent but not by even allowing it to be thought that the Government might decide the matter without taking a vote in Parliament
Dr Richard Turner.
Neil Kinnock may have "infuriated the Left by declaring 'there is now no need for something-for-nothing unilateralism' " but it was not until July 1991 that Labour really abandoned one-sided nuclear disarmament. It remains to be seen whether our pressure on the Labour Government now to state that they agree with us, not only to "retain" Trident, but actually to replace it, will similarly bear fruit.
Dr Julian Lewis.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2243172,00.html

If Brown takes on Cameron with spin or stunts, he'll lose, by Jackie Ashley in the Guardian, 26 June 2006
There is no denying that, for many Labour people, Gordon Brown's advance warning that he is committed to replacing the nuclear Trident system is grim news. The left's furious reaction might have been predictable, but that does not make it insincere - still less wrong. To have the power to obliterate so much of the life on Earth might have made strange sense during the cold war's balance of terror, but it seems much less relevant now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1805796,00.html

No evidence that nuclear weapons deterred. Letter in the Herald by Rev David A Keddie, 26 June 2006
RD Don states that he believes that "our deterrent has protected us and kept the peace for the past 50 years". Why? This is not a belief I share, for the simple reason that he can offer no proof of this. The theory of deterrence is essentially flawed because there is no way of demonstrating that it has worked. There may be reasons for our retention of nuclear weapon but the concept of deterrence is most certainly not one of them. It is an illusory self-deception.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/64741.html

Trident exacerbates threat to our security. Letter in the Independent by Kate Hudson, 26 June 2006
Gordon Brown now publicly supports the replacement of Trident even though the Prime Minister has recognised that nuclear weapons are no use against the current security threats that we face. John Reid and others have argued that we need to replace Trident as an insurance policy against future threats. But this argument is deeply flawed.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1096385.ece

MPs angry over nuclear secrecy, by Michael Smith in the Sunday Times, 25 June 2006
The government will be criticised this week by an influential Commons committee over its refusal to discuss details of a secret programme to build a new nuclear weapons system. Members of the defence select committee are angry that ministers would not allow officials to give evidence to their inquiry into the replacement of Britain's Trident missiles. They have been particularly annoyed by the contrast between the government's reluctance to co-operate and the willingness of Gordon Brown, the chancellor, to back a replacement nuclear deterrent publicly.

Brown reaches for nukes just when they look nuts, by Michael Portillo in the Sunday Times, 25 June 2006
"Subtle as an air raid" might be a good way to describe the galumphing political semaphores now coming from Gordon Brown. He hopes that they will reshape our ideas about him before he assumes the prime ministership. Last week his arms were flapping vigorously to signal that despite being thought a figure of the left he can be relied upon to renew Britain's nuclear deterrent. If that is his reasoning, the chancellor is thinking in oldspeak. Being for or against the renewal of Britain's deterrent now has nothing to do with right and left as it once did. In a depressing way, all too common in British politics, Brown's policy for the future does not reflect fresh or even modern ideas about the issue. It is rather a reaction to his party's past.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24392-2242054,00.html

Britain needs a nuclear deterrent more than ever, by John Keegan in the Sunday Telegraph, 25 June 2006
On Wednesday, the Chancellor revealed - indeed positively emphasised - that he is not an advocate of nuclear disarmament. Not merely is he not a unilateralist, as the best Left-wingers always used to be, he is not any sort of nuclear disarmer at all, but now advocates replacing Britain's current nuclear armoury with a modernised system. Moreover, he is apparently committing himself to approving the type of nuclear weapons to be purchased and the funds to foot the bill within the next six to nine months, thus ensuring the continuity of nuclear policy from one Labour leadership to the next.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/
2006/06/25/do2504.xml

Ministers seek Trident replacement, by Brian Brady in Scotland on Sunday, 25 June 2006
Ministers will this week try to thrash out a timetable for replacing the ageing Trident deterrent in an effort to bolster Britain's nuclear status. Days after Gordon Brown gave his blessing to calls for a new nuclear deterrent, the government will draw up a blueprint for producing an armoury to face the changing threats of the modern world. Ministers will order Ministry of Defence officials to produce a White Paper in the autumn which will present the options for a new deterrent.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=928352006

Rocket man by Brian Brady in Scotland on Sunday, 25 June 2006
It was through a news bulletin early on Thursday morning that Des Browne, Britain's new Defence Secretary, learned his government had been publicly committed to maintaining its nuclear deterrent. The night before, Chancellor Gordon Brown had taken business leaders - gathered for his annual speech at the Mansion House in the City of London - by surprise. What was expected to be the usual dull run through economic statistics and boasts of government achievement was set on its head when Brown suddenly announced that New Labour would show "strength of national purpose" in "protecting our security in this parliament and the long term...retaining our independent nuclear deterrent". "He wasn't a happy man," a colleague reported of Des Browne's demeanour on Thursday morning. "Gordon insists they kept on missing each other in the run-up to the speech, but he didn't make the call that he should have made on Wednesday morning. Normal niceties were not observed, and the first Des heard of the announcement was on the news."
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=926842006

Why Brown pressed the nuclear button, by Fraser Nelson in Scotland on Sunday, 25 June 2006
Never will insults have sounded sweeter to a politician's ears. Gordon Brown would have welcomed every brickbat thrown at him last Wednesday night after he declared to a businessmen's dinner that he favours keeping Britain's nuclear weapons. The CND denounced him as a hypocrite, Clare Short declared herself his sworn enemy and other left-wing Labour MPs declared him a capitalist brute. There could be no better character reference for a Chancellor who is about to sell himself to Middle England.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=926922006

Think before pressing red button on renewal. FT Editorial, 23 June 2006
Britain's Labour leaders have taken the Bush doctrine of pre-emption to heart. First, Tony Blair pre-empted his government's energy review and pronounced himself in favour of building new civil nuclear reactors, but at least he is prime minister and had already announced a review. Now, Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer, has launched his own pre-emptive strike by pledging to retain the UK's nuclear deterrent beyond its current batch of Trident submarines, before he has yet become prime minister or a formal review of such a move is in train. The chancellor's motive was clearly to reassure Blairites on the right of the party that he would be a safe successor. But in doing so he is playing short-term politics with a strategic decision that has consequences for Britain and the world.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c40471e2-0254-11db-a141-0000779e2340.html

Brown fires only first shot in missile debate, by Stephen Fidler in the Financial Times, 23 June 2006
It is a decision last faced by a British gove