Parliament voted 409-161 to support “the Government’s decisions, as set out in the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent, to take the steps necessary to maintain the UK’s minimum strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system …”
I confess that I do not fully understand Britain’s system, but the process—laid out in the Ninth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2006-07—offers other opportunities for intervention:
Suggested Timeline for Future Decisions
| Date | Decision |
|---|---|
| 2007 | Decision in principle to preview new SSBNs and extend life of D5 missile |
| 2007-2009 | Initial concept and design work for a new submarine |
| c 2009-13 (“next Parliament”) | Decision on replacement of warhead |
| 2009-2016 | Detailed design work on new submarine |
| 2012-14 | Contract to be placed for detailed design of new submarine |
| 2016 | Contract to be placed for build of first new SSBN |
| 2016-2023 | Build programme for first new SSBN |
| 2022 | HMS Vanguard out of service (with 5 year life extension) |
| 2024 | HMS Victorious out of service (with 5 year life extension) |
| 2024 | First new SSBN in service |
| 2026 | HMS Vigilant out of service (with 5 year life extension); Second new SSBN in service |
| 2029 | HMS Vengeance out of service (with 5 year life extension); Third new SSBN in service |
| 2020s | Decision on Trident D5 missile successor |
| 2030-32 | Fourth new SSBN (if required) in service |
| 2030s | Development of new ballistic missile |
| early 2040s | Life-extended D5 missile out of service |
| 2050s | New SSBNs out of service |
This decision is not binding on the next Parliament, which will make a decision on replacing the Britain’s warhead and issue a contract for the detailed design of the new submarine.
The Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett stated that the Prime Minister confirmed the voted was a “decision of principle … It is inevitable that there will be future discussions, and there will be decisions down the road as the programme proceeds.”
Dick Garwin, Phil Coyle, Ted Postol and Frank Von Hippel argued rather persuasively that this decision did not need to be taken at this time—expressing skepticism that the UK’s Trident submarines “were only designed for a 25-year life” as the UK White Paper stated. “More likely,” Garwin, Coyle, Postol and Von Hippel argued, Trident submarines “have a ‘minimum design life’ of 25 years and are likely to be operable for a much longer time.”
The warhead replacement, by the way, is a really interesting question. Hans Kristensen has posted declassified documents that conclusively demonstrate that Britain’s nuclear warhead design is essentially similar to the US W76 (right).
As I have noted before, the W76 is the warhead slated for replacement by the Reliable Replacement Warhead, closely linking the questions of Trident replacement in Britain and RRW in the US.
I don’t fully understand how these two debates interact, but it seems to me that this is an interaction worth thinking about.
Late Update: Somehow, I missed Peter Scoblic’s brilliant commentary on Trident, observing:
”’What if’ is the essential argument – if it can be called that – for the government’s decision to continue deploying 16 megatons of destructive power in the post-Cold War world, even though Britain’s deterrent does not actually deter.”