"Trident" of Her Majesty

Britain will build a new nuclear fleet

Yesterday, the British Prime Minister presented to parliamentarians a plan for updating the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear forces . The government's intention to build a new generation of Trident ballistic missile submarines has raised objections not only among the traditionally pacifist Liberal Democrats, but also within the ruling Labor Party itself. About a third of Labor MPs were strongly negative on the issue. They were determined to openly confront Blair and were planning to vote last night against the government's nuclear programme. The government's hopes for approval of the plan were based only on the support of the opposition represented by the Conservatives.

According to the Prime Minister, “in the current conditions, it would be unreasonable and dangerous for Great Britain to be the only nuclear power to abandon its nuclear deterrent.” Trident missiles with a range of up to 7.4 thousand km are the basis of the British nuclear deterrent force. They are based on four Vanguard class nuclear submarines. Each boat carries 16 missiles, and although a single Trident can carry up to 12 nuclear warheads, the Royal Navy has currently limited the number of warheads per missile to three. Only one boat is constantly on alert.

The submarines' service life expires in 2024. Critics of the government program argue that the Vanguards could last until 2040. However, the Labor cabinet insists that due to the long production cycle and to reduce future costs, a decision on replacing the nuclear fleet must be made now.

Yesterday there were press reports that the Trident missiles currently in service are being secretly upgraded to improve their accuracy and expand the number of possible targets. As a result, the power of the charge can be adjusted depending on the target. Joan Ruddock, a Labor MP and long-time opponent of nuclear weapons, accused the government of deceiving Parliament. “This is further evidence of the increased combat capabilities of Trident missiles,” she said, “and demonstrates the falsehood of the official report, which stated that the new nuclear fleet is needed solely for deterrence.”

A similar view is shared by Paul Ingram, chief analyst at the UK-US Security Information Council: “The level and nature of investment suggests that the UK is committed to further modernization of warheads for a variety of purposes, not just deterrence.” During parliamentary debates in Westminster, one of the deputies even recalled the words of former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev, who expressed concern about the intention of the Tony Blair government to replace the British nuclear arsenal with a new generation of weapons. “In today's world, with its new threats and challenges, nuclear weapons are unable to solve security problems, and relying on them is becoming downright dangerous,” Gorbachev said in an open letter published last week in The Times.

However, the former commander of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Allan West, did not agree with these arguments. “We live in a world in which there is a lot of uncertainty. No one can guarantee what will happen in 10, 20 or 30 years. God grant that we never need these warheads. But if they are still needed to save our country, we will have to spend crazy amounts of money on their creation. If we accept the current plan, then updating the nuclear fleet will cost us 0.1% of GDP, which is actually not that much,” he told Vremya Novostey.

Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain should not rely solely on US military assistance in the 21st century: “No one can guarantee that America will be willing or able to protect us if Britain is in mortal danger. Therefore, we are obliged to take care of our safety ourselves.” According to the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, "the world remains unpredictable, and maintaining our nuclear defense capability is the responsibility of any responsible government."

Zurab NALBANDYAN, London