British Policy

Trident Renewal, Highlights of Acronym Institute Coverage

The UK Trident System

The UK is currently a nuclear weapon state. It has four Trident nuclear-armed submarines, equipped with Trident II D5 missiles manufactured by Lockheed Martin. The missiles carry warheads that are built and maintained by the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishments, but that are believed to be based closely on the design for the US (Trident) W76 warhead. UK nuclear weapons are assigned to NATO.

The UK has a close cooperative relationship with the US on defence policy, especially on nuclear weapons policy where it is heavily dependant upon the US for assistance with designing, operating and maintaining its nuclear forces. The UK receives help from the US with "design, development and fabrication capability" for its nuclear weapons under the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement. It procures US Trident missiles under the terms of the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement (as amended for Trident).

UK Vote on Trident Renewal, March 14, 2007

Blair wins Trident vote after telling UK Parliament that the NPT gives Britain the Right to have nuclear weapons, Disarmament Diplomacy, No.84, Spring 2007
Britain divided as the Conservative Party wins the Trident vote for Tony Blair: but the decision is not irreversible, Initial reaction from Westminster, by Rebecca Johnson, with input from Nicola Butler and Martin Butcher, March 14, 2007.
The Trident Dispatches No. 6: Reaction to the vote, by Rebecca Johnson, The Bulletin Online, March 15, 2007. After Prime Minister Tony Blair relied on Conservative leader David Cameron to force through the white paper on renewing Trident, MPs from several parties joined protesters outside the Houses of Parliament and vowed to continue the campaign to persuade the government to implement its treaty obligations and eliminate Britain's nuclear arsenal.
The Trident Dispatches No. 5: Voting Day, by Rebecca Johnson, The Bulletin Online, March 14, 2007. On March 9, later than expected, the British government published the motion that it wants the House of Commons to vote on.
The UK White Paper on Renewing Trident: the wrong decision at the wrong time, by Rebecca Johnson, Disarmament Diplomacy, Winter 2006
Providing a critical assessment of the Trident renewal justifications by Tony Blair's government, Acronym Institute's director argues for Britain to play a more visionary and coherent role to prevent security threats that nuclear weapons will not prove capable of deterring.
The Trident Dispatches No. 4: The Run-Up to the Vote, Rebecca Johnson, The Bulletin Online, March 6, 2007. As protests against Trident renewal recall similar demonstrations in the 1980s, the British government pushes ahead toward a March 14 vote on the issue.
The Trident Dispatches No. 3: Tony Blair's Forgetfulness, Rebecca Johnson, The Bulletin Online, February 26, 2007. In his rush to renew Britain's nuclear weapons, the prime minister has overlooked past promises to pursue disarmament.
The Trident Dispatches No. 2: Protests and Presentations, Rebecca Johnson, The Bulletin Online, February 14, 2007. While civil resistance increases in Scotland, Britain's secretary for defence defends the Labour Party's stance that effective national security includes nuclear weapons.
The Trident Dispatches No. 1: An Overview of the Debate, Rebecca Johnson, The Bulletin Online, February 5, 2007. The first in a series of weekly reports from London as Britain discusses the future of its nuclear weapons.

Government White Paper on Trident - Worse than Irrelevant? December 4, 2006

The government's White Paper on Trident replacement published on Monday December 4, proposes that Britain spend billions of pounds on a new generation of submarine-based nuclear weapons for the next 50 years, either Son of Trident or Trident-lite, its slightly-reduced sibling.

Government White Paper on Trident - Worse than Irrelevant? Media Advisory, London and Brussels, December 3-4, 2006
Worse than Irrelevant? British Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century - Independent new report analyses options for UK's future security, by Dr Rebecca Johnson, Nicola Butler, and Dr Stephen Pullinger, published November 22, 2006. Full text is available here as a pdf file.

Background

Does Britain need to replace Trident: You Decide, Tony Blair has put the question of a replacement for Britain’s nuclear weapon system, Trident, onto the agenda for this parliament... Britain’s choice will not only have national implications; it will also have ramifications for the course of nuclear non-proliferation and international security for generations to come. Briefing Paper published under the auspices of the Beyond Trident project, September 2006.
The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, House of Commons Defence Committee, eighth report of Session 2005-06, HC 986, June 30, 2006.
End of a Nuclear Weapons Era: Can Britain Make History? Rebecca Johnson, Arms Control Today, April 2006.
The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: The Strategic Context, Uncorrected Oral Evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee, from Dr Rebecca Johnson, Michael Codner, Dr Kate Hudson, Dan Plesch, Sir Michael Quinlan and Dr Lee Willett, March 14, 2006.
The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: The Strategic Context, Memorandum to the House of Commons Defence Committee, from Dr Rebecca Johnson, March 6, 2006.

In June 2006, Chancellor Gordon Brown gave his backing to Trident replacement. In his annual Mansion House speech to the City of London on June 21, the Chancellor said that Britain must be: "strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent."

This speech provoked a storm of media coverage of the Trident replacement issue and much discussion in Parliament.

In the House of Commons, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that a decision would be taken "this year" and that the government would publish a White Paper setting out its decision-making on the future of British nuclear weapons.

On 30 June 2006, the Defence Committee published its report The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (eighth report of Session 2005-06, HC 986).

The Report made a number of important recommendations including that:

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

The report followed a Committee inquiry, which took written and oral evidence from a number of experts including Dr Rebecca Johnson.

Full text of the Conclusions and Recommendations is available at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0606/doc09.htm. Full text of the report is available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/
cmselect/cmdfence/986/98602.htm.

Legality of a decision to replace Trident

In December 2005, the prestigious Matrix Chambers (London) published an important legal opinion on "The Maintenance and Possible Replacement of the Trident Nuclear Missile System". In this opinion, Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin (LSE) concluded that the replacement of Trident was "likely to constitute a breach of article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".

In an earlier legal opinion, Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin also concluded that "it is strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement" - a special arrangement between the US and Britain for exchanging nuclear information, technology and material - "is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".

Further information about both of these legal opinions is available at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/uk/mda.htm.

Coverage in Disarmament Diplomacy

Integrated Disarmament: a Prerequisite for Sustainable Nonproliferation, by Rebecca Johnson, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No. 82, Spring 2006.
UK Trident Replacement a 'Material Breach' of the NPT, including:
- The Future of UK Nuclear Weapons, by Lord Garden
- Does Britain need nuclear missiles? No. Scrap them, by Michael Portillo
- A new nuclear weapon is irrelevant to the real issues, by Clare Short
- The Blairite love affair with the bomb will cost Britain dear
Worse than Irrelevant: Replacing Trident is Against both our National Interests and our International Obligations, Robin Cook MP, reproduced in Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No. 80, Autumn 2005
Renewal of US-UK Nuclear Cooperation 'in Breach of NPT' say Eminent Lawyers, Disarmament Diplomacy, No.78, July/August 2004
US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, Disarmament Diplomacy, No.77, May/June 2004
US-UK Nuclear Weapons Cooperation Up for Renewal, Disarmament Diplomacy, No.76, March/April 2004
Why is Britain's Nuclear Weapons Infrastructure Being Upgraded? Disarmament Diplomacy, No.76, March/April 2004

Official Documents and Analysis

The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, House of Commons Defence Committee, eighth report of Session 2005-06, HC 986, June 30, 2006.
UK Election Manifestos, Non-Proliferation and International Security Excerpts, April 2005.
UK White Papers on Defence and Foreign Policy, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No.75, January/February 2004.
'Decisions on whether to replace Trident are not needed this Parliament but are likely to be required in the next one', UK Defence White Paper, December 11, 2003.
US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, Full Text of the Agreement and Comments from Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No.77, May/June 2004.
Amendment to the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement (on nuclear weapons' cooperation), June 2004
US-UK Nuclear Weapons Cooperation Up for Renewal, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No.76, March/April 2004.

Back to the Top of the Page