BASIC MEDIA RELEASE
Thursday 14 December 2006 - IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Briefing UK Trident replacement:
too important to rush into
Government White Paper fails to address eight key
questions on the timing of the decision
Full text of the briefing is available at: http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/beyondtrident/briefing01.pdf.
Paul Ingram, Senior Analyst at BASIC said: "Given the disadvantages
of rushing this premature decision it is crucial that MPs seek answers
to eight key questions not covered by the Government White Paper
published on 4 December". These questions are:
- Why was the life expectancy of the Vanguard submarine reduced
by five years earlier this year?
- Why were the Vanguard-class submarines apparently built to lower
standards than the US Ohio-class submarines?
- Why is the same shipyard in line to receive the follow-on contract
when it failed to produce a cost effective solution last time?
- Is a continuous-at-sea deterrent necessary at a time when even
the Prime Minister agrees there is no major nuclear threat to
our strategic interests?
- Why should a "minimum deterrent" require a new class of submarine,
and why should this take 17 years to design and build?
- How much faith should MPs and the Government put in the judgment
of BAE Systems' estimated lead-time for new submarines?
- Could a replacement submarine be purchased off the-shelf from
the Americans at a lower cost and with a much reduced lead-time?
- Could a decision be made to invest in R&D while holding off
on a 'main gate' decision until the next parliament, in order
to allow time for:
- a proper cost-benefit assessment based on a new Strategic
Defence Review;
- the Government to mount a new multilateral disarmament
initiative in advance of the 2010 NPT Review Conference; and
- a proper and informed public and parliamentary debate of
ALL the options.
Ian Davis, Co-Executive Director of BASIC added: "The White
Paper on Trident replacement raises more questions than it answers.
MPs need to seek answers to those questions and hold the Executive
to account. In particular, the ludicrously short timetable for reaching
a decision should be challenged by Parliament. Far from being a
lasting solution, a decision to replace at this stage would escalate
the crisis in the nuclear non-proliferation regime and make a future
world of 30-40 nuclear weapon states more likely."
For further information please contact:
Dr Ian Davis (Co-Executive Director) 0207 324 4685; mobile: 07887
782 389
Paul Ingram (Senior Analyst) 0207 324 4686; mobile 07908 708175
|
