ISSUE AREAS:

BASIC PRESS RELEASE

Embargoed until 00.01 am on Friday 30 June 2006

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?

According to this important Committee of MPs, a full discussion of the role and purpose of the nuclear deterrent needs to happen "before decisions are made or significant investment committed". (Eighth Report of the House of Commons Defence Committee, The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: The Strategic Context, HC 986).

Tony Blair, John Reid (when Defence Secretary) and now Gordon Brown have already made it abundantly clear that they are in favour of replacing the Trident system. The Prime Minister, in answering a question in the House on 28 June, has already announced that this decision is likely to be made before the end of the year. Major investment decisions on new facilities at the Aldermaston and Burghfield atomic weapons establishment involving over £1bn have also already been taken. Finally, many analysts also suspect that the green light has been given for a service life extension programme for the Vanguard-class submarines.

This last development begs the question as to why the Government is in such a hurry to make the final decision on a follow-on system? The Defence Committee report speculates (see conclusions on p.35) that with such a life-extension a final decision on replacement would only be required in 2014. This date itself neglects written evidence submitted to the Committee by BASIC suggesting that the official line on the submarines' life expectancy is over pessimistic. Indeed, because of operational changes after the Cold War (e.g. a halving of the UK's Continuous-at-Sea Deterrent cycle to only one submarine on patrol) the life expectancy of the existing submarines could be at least ten years longer than that suggested in the report. This would mean that a final decision would not be needed until 2024 (see BASIC evidence, para 3.11-3.13, Ev 119).

BASIC's evidence also gives very persuasive reasons to delay the decision: meshing in with US plans, minimising the risk of ending up with a system that is not interoperable; strategic flexibility, enabling the UK to more effectively respond to future threats we can only guess at today; financial savings at a point when pressures on the public purse are particularly acute; and delaying the considerable risk of a negative impact upon the international non-proliferation regime at a point when other countries may look for an excuse to develop their own nuclear weapons.

Downing Street's promise to publish a White Paper on the future of Britain's nuclear weapons, to be followed by a "proper debate" on the matter also puts the cart before the horse. If the Government is really committed to a proper debate, it should publish a consultative Green Paper setting out current and future threats to the UK, the capability of a nuclear deterrent to address such threats, UK international obligations and proliferation implications, and all the options and their costs, including the option of non-replacement.

A Green Paper has cross-party support in the House of Commons, including among proponents and opponents of nuclear weapons. The Government's proposed White Paper 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 informed analysis or real debate.

Dr Ian Davis, Executive Director of BASIC said, "The depressing thing about the current state of play, including the latest Defence Committee report, is the failure to seize the opportunity to look at the world afresh. We badly need an exhaustive study of Britain's foreign policy choices and some of the assumptions about Britain's place in the world in 2030. We also need to listen to the people that are tasked with controlling WMD globally -- like Hans Blix and Kofi Annan - who are urging nuclear weapons states like Britain not to build new nuclear weapon systems."

For further comment or interviews please contact:
Dr Ian Davis 0207 324 4685; mobile: 07887 782 389
Or
Nigel Chamberlain +44 (0)1768 898641
Or
Paul Ingram 0207 324 4686; mobile 07908 708175