Text Only | Disarmament Diplomacy | Disarmament Documentation | ACRONYM Reports
back to the acronym home page
Calendar
UN/CD
NPT/IAEA
UK
US
Space/BMD
CTBT
BWC
CWC
WMD Possessors
About Acronym
Links
Glossary

Beyond Trident

Trident Replacement in the Media

Back to the main page on the UK

Recent Media Articles

  • Astonishing Nuclear Costs, from the website of Paul Flynn MP, August 10, 2006
    The astonishing cost of cleaning up Britain’s nuclear sites and equipment was revealed by the Defence Secretary, Des Browne in answer to a question I raised in July. The total bill for decommissioning sites is almost £10 billion.

  • Will the BAE, Barrow-in-Furness submarine carry the UK's next nuclear deterrent? Sam Wollaston, The Guardian, July 29, 2006
    First look inside new Astute vessel that navy could adapt to carry Trident.

  • Government backs off from replacing Trident missile fleet, Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, July 27, 2006
    The government said yesterday it now believed it "would be possible" to continue operating the existing submarines beyond the original timescale.

  • £3bn to clean up MoD nuclear sites, James Kirkup, Scotsman, July 27, 2006
    It will cost taxpayers £3bn to decontaminate military bases. Sites include Rosyth dockyard in Fife the and Dounreay nuclear complex. Accountants estimate the costs will not be paid for another ten years.

  • MPs to get Trident replacement vote, Michael Settle, The Herald, July 21, 2006
    Yesterday during Business Questions in the Commons, Mr Straw surprised MPs by saying there would be a "substantive vote" on the issue.

  • Trident replacement vote 'inevitable', ePolitix, July 20, 2006
    Commons leader Jack Straw said: "Of course we should involve the House fully in a decision as important as the renewal of our nuclear deterrent and in practical terms it is inevitable that there will therefore be a chance for the House to express its view on this important matter in a vote."

  • We need less tosh and more facts for a decision on Trident, Max Hastings, The Guardian, July 17, 2006
    For some people, nuclear weapons are a simple moral issue. For the rest of us, it's about weighing up the practical options.

  • Addicted to the nuclear option, William Keegan, The Observer, July 23, 2006
    Nuclear deterrence was not much use against the home-grown terrorists who caused mayhem in London just over a year ago. Nor was it much good in the power-play between a standing, supplicant, British Prime Minister and a sitting US President in St Petersburg.

  • Defence minister backs nuclear arms, Patrick Wintour and Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, July 8, 2006.
    The defence secretary, Des Browne, yesterday strongly hinted he would join other senior ministers in supporting the retention of a British independent nuclear deterrent. He highlighted "the terrifying prospect" of a state with nuclear weapons linking up with a terrorist group.

  • Britain's moral imperative, Guardian Leader, July 8, 2006.
    "In the end the choice is between some form of renewal or a controlled step into a non-nuclear future, the brave and right thing to do."

  • UK needs no nuclear arms - Healey, BBC News Online, July 7, 2006

  • Trident convoys carry risk of nuclear blast, James Randerson, The Guardian, July 6, 2006
    MoD says accident could cause partial detonation
    Explosion unlikely, but result would be lethal

  • Threat of Trident the best defence, The Sunday Times Letters, July 2, 2006

  • Is nuclear necessary in a post-9/11 world? BBC News Online, July 1, 2006
    "Since the demise of the Soviet Union, does Britain still need a nuclear deterrent? That is the question posed by the House of Commons defence committee which is calling for a public debate on the future of Trident."

  • Full nuclear weapons debate urged, BBC News Online, June 30, 2006
    "There needs to be a "genuine and meaningful" public debate on whether the UK should keep its nuclear weapons, the Commons defence committee has said."

  • Ministers have failed to make a case for nuclear deterrent, MPs say, Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, June 30, 2006
    "The government must explain the purpose of a British nuclear deterrent, something it has failed to do so far, a cross-party committee of MPs says in a hard-hitting report on the future of the Trident missile system published today."

  • We don't need nuclear submarines on round-the-clock patrol, say MPs, Michael Evans, The Times, June 30, 2006

  • Blair looks set to decide first, debate later, The Times, June 30, 2006

  • Britain's nuclear-weapons fix, Paul Rogers, OpenDemocracy, June 29, 2006

  • Yesterday in Parliament, Press Association, June 29, 2006
    "The prime minister confirmed that a decision on whether to replace Britain's Trident nuclear programme will be taken "later this year". Challenged by the Tory leader, David Cameron, Mr Blair said an independent nuclear deterrent was an "essential part" of Britain's defences. He promised to consult fully on the controversial issue but stopped short of offering a Commons vote to settle it."

  • Blair pressed over Trident vote, BBC News Online, June 28, 2006
    "Tony Blair says a decision will be taken on replacing Trident later this year but refuses to promise MPs a vote."

  • Brown defends stance on Trident, BBC News Online, June 28, 2006
    "Britain can honour its commitments to Africa and also pay for a nuclear successor to Trident, according to Chancellor Gordon Brown."

  • Let's have a real debate on Trident, Independent Letters, June 27, 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."

  • Call for Government transparency, Times Letter by Nick Harvey MP, 27 June 2006

  • Why must Brown resurrect the Cold War's MAD strategy? Times Letters, June 27, 2006

  • If Brown takes on Cameron with spin or stunts, he'll lose, Jackie Ashley, The Guardian, June 26, 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."

  • The real cost of the nuclear option, Times letters, June 26, 2006

  • MPs angry over nuclear secrecy, The Sunday Times, June 25, 2006

  • Brown under fire after he pledges to replace Trident, Will Woodward and Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, June 23, 2006
    "The former cabinet minister Clare Short yesterday condemned Gordon Brown's pledge to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent, warning that she and other leftwingers were no longer prepared to support his succession to the Labour leadership."

  • Brown reaches for nukes just when they look nuts, Michael Portillo, Sunday Times, June 25, 2006
    "In today’s world we need new doctrines because the enemies that we must deter — whether terrorists or rogue states — are different from the past. Without new thinking the government may waste our money and leave Britain unsafe."

  • Britain needs a nuclear deterrent more than ever, John Keegan, Sunday Telegraph, June 25, 2006
    "So the purpose of a Trident replacement would be to convince the only partly rational that, even if they possess or acquire nuclear weapons, they must not be used."

  • Mandelson calls for Trident vote, BBC News Online, June 23, 2006

  • Cost of arms insurance policy, Michael White, The Guardian, June 23, 2006
    "It won't affect the succession. Gordon was appealing to patriotic middle Britain," said one young apparatchik. "As an issue the bomb is too retro."

  • What are the weapons for? Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, June 23, 2006
    "What are such weapons for, and what is the message they give to nonnuclear countries? The government seems intent on managing and politicising the debate to suit its partisan interests. But it should not be about being on the left or the right, or whether a minister and Middle England still want "the bloody union jack on top of it", as Ernest Bevin, the Labour foreign secretary, said in 1946. It is much more serious than that."

  • Labour at the crossroads, Guardian Leader, June 22, 2006
    "Mr Brown's people were crystal clear last night that their man was making a significant statement. In a few apparently innocuous words, they said, the man who wants to be Labour's next leader was committing himself to the long-term replacement of the current submarines. We need to consider our interests in a 21st-century context, not a 20th-century one. The military case for a nuclear-armed Britain in the 2030s seems to rest largely on the possibility that something nasty may turn up. Perhaps that's a good case. But it deserves a debate it hasn't yet had. Without it, there is a justifiable suspicion that this covert decision is a purely political one about top-table status and rights of audience in Washington. Perhaps rightly. But let's discuss it first."

  • Short warns Brown on Trident row, BBC News Online, June 22, 2006

  • He has more to fear from his own party than general public, Bronwen Maddox, The Times, June 22, 2006

  • Blair promises 'proper debate' on Trident, Matthew Tempest, The Guardian, June 22, 2006

  • Brown intervenes in Trident debate with backing for nuclear deterrent, Chancellor steps in as Blair evades issue at PMQs, Replacement may cost taxpayer up to £25bn, Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, June 22, 2006

  • Brown ready to call the shots by replacing Trident missiles, Philip Webster, The Times, June 22, 2006
    "GORDON BROWN’S decision to commit the Government he hopes to lead to replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent means that he has removed one of the last potential areas of policy conflict with Tony Blair."

  • Brown backs Trident replacement, BBC News Online, June 21, 2006

For previous Articles and Publications, see our archive.

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2006 The Acronym Institute.