Renewal of the trident

Incidentally, I've been chatting to a few fellow students about the UK government's decision this week to renew the Trident submarine-based nuclear deterrent. Two questions came through - what does it actually protect the UK against, and would UK citizens ever want to use it? On the question of threats, the most pertinent is non-state actors (against whom the tool is blunt). Future threats are always difficult to pin-point and this cloudiness seems to be a prime justification. On the question of whether the deterrent is credible (would it be used), those I've talked to were horrified at the thought of the use of UK nuclear weapons against another country - even had the UK itself been struck. The deployment of nuclear weapons would seem to collide with Britain's post-cold war self image (human rights, development, rule of law, multilateralism, just war etc).

This leaves a final explanation (and one which is a bitter pill to swallow). To not renew the deterrent would leave France the only nuclear power in europe, and leave the UK under the US nuclear umbrella. So long as 'Great Power' status remains linked to nuclear status, it's hard to let go. But so long as nobody lets go, the association remains and aspirants to great power status will chase nuclear capability by hook or by crook. The renewal of trident would seem a lost opportunity for the UK to take the lead in global disarmament, not necessarily through unilateral disarmament, but by using that as a bargaining chip. Maybe France can oblige.....

Mr Blair's parliamentary speech on the issue is here