A Nuclear Future

Abstract

In December 2003 the British government announced that within a few years it would need to take decisions about the future of Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent. Exactly three years later, its plans were revealed in a White Paper. The existing Trident system is to be given a life extension, which includes building new submarines to carry the missiles, costing £15–20 billion. Britain has a substantial nuclear legacy, having owned nuclear weapons for over half a century. The strategic context for the deterrent has changed completely with the end of the Cold War, but nuclear weapons retain much of their salience. This Adelphi Paper argues that it makes sense to remain a nuclear power in an uncertain and nuclear-armed world.

Given that deterrence needs are now less acute, but more complex than in the past, the paper asserts that deterrence also needs to be aligned with non-proliferation policies, which seek to reduce the scale of threats that need to be deterred. Somewhat overlooked in current policy are appropriate measures of defence, which can raise the nuclear threshold and, if required, mitigate the effects of deterrence failure. It concludes that the government's decisions about the future form of the deterrent are very sensible, but cautions that they still need to be integrated into a broader policy that embraces diplomacy, deterrence and defence to counter the risks posed by nuclear proliferation.

Notes

This paper was funded by a grant from the Leverhulme Trust.

¹ Witney, ‘British Nuclear Policy After the Cold War’, pp. 108–9.

² Clarke, ‘Does My Bomb Look Big in This?’, p. 49.

³ Keith Payne, Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1996); Gray, The Second Nuclear Age; Paul Bracken, ‘The Second Nuclear Age’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 79, no. 1, January/February 2000.

⁴ David S. Yost, The US and Nuclear Deterrence in Europe, Adelphi Paper 326 (London: IISS–Oxford University Press, 1999), pp.14–18.

⁵ Booth, ‘Debating the Future of Trident: Who are the Real Realists?’, in Booth and Barnaby, p. 79.

⁶ Quinlan, ‘Nuclear Weapons and the Abolition of War’, International Affairs, vol. 67, no. 2, April 1991, p. 295.

⁷ Josiane Gabel, ‘The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons After September 11’, The Washington Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, Winter 2004–05, p. 193.

⁸ Gray, Modern Strategy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 302.

⁹ Gray, The Second Nuclear Age, p. 2.

¹⁰ McGeorge Bundy, William J. Crowe and Sidney D. Drell, Reducing Nuclear Danger (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1993), p. 5.

¹¹ Gray, Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005), p. 276; Paul Rogers presentation at Chatham House conference, Britain's Nuclear Weapons Debate, London, 10 July 2006.

¹² Quinlan, Thinking About Nuclear Weapons, Whitehall Paper 41 (London: Royal United Services Institute, 1997), p. 19. Quinlan credits Sir Hermann Bondi with the original observation.

¹³ Gray, Modern Strategy, p. 347.

¹⁴ Julian Lewis, ‘Nuclear Disarmament Versus Peace in the 21st Century’, RUSI Journal, vol. 151, no. 2, April 2006, pp. 50–54.

¹⁵ HC 986, p. 25.

¹⁶ Quinlan, ‘The Future of United Kingdom Nuclear Weapons: Shaping the Debate’, International Security, vol. 82, no. 4, July 2006, pp. 635–4.

¹⁷ Ainslie, The Future of the British Bomb, p. 19.

¹⁸ Michael MccGwire, ‘Comfort Blanket or Weapon of War: What is Trident For?’, International Affairs, vol. 82, no. 4, July 2006, p. 643.

¹⁹ Booth, ‘Debating the Future of Trident’, p. 90.

²⁰ Cm 6994, p. 18.

²¹ HC 1558, p. 4.

²² HC 986, Ev.32.

²³ Hansard, 4 December 2006, Cols.23–24.

²⁴ For a recent examination of Russian strategic forces, see Henry Ivanov, ‘Austere Deterrence’, Jane's Defence Weekly, 3 May 2006, pp. 24–9.

²⁵ Gray, The Second Nuclear Age, p. 25.

²⁶ Cm 6994, p. 19.

²⁷ Clarke, ‘Does My Bomb Look Big in This?’, p. 56.

²⁸ T. Milne, H. Beach, J.L. Finney, S. Pease and J. Rotblat, An End to UK Nuclear Weapons (London: British Pugwash Group, 2002), p. 13.

²⁹ Quinlan, The Future of Deterrent Capability, p. 10; and T.V. Paul, ‘Power, Influence and Nuclear Weapons’ in T.V. Paul, Richard J. Harknett and James J. Wirtz, eds, The Absolute Weapon Revisited: Nuclear Arms and the Emerging International Order (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1998), p. 38.

³⁰ Paul Nitze, cited in Dennis M. Gormley, ‘Securing Nuclear Obsolescence’, Survival, vol. 48, no. 3, Autumn 2006, p. 131.

³¹ Lewis, ‘Nuclear Disarmament Versus Peace in the 21st Century’, p. 53.

³² Robert O'Neill, ‘Weapons of the Underdog’, Baylis and O'Neill, eds, Alternative Nuclear Futures: The Role of Nuclear Weapons in the Post-Cold War World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 194; Codner, ‘Britain's Nuclear Deterrent’, p. 88.

³³ Smart, The Future of the British Nuclear Deterrent (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1977), p. 5.

³⁴ Cm 6994, p. 20, para. 5.

³⁵ Quinlan, ‘The Future of UK Nuclear Weapons’, pp. 634–5.

³⁶ HC 1558, p. 4.

³⁷ MccGwire, ‘The Rise and Fall of the NPT’, International Affairs, vol. 81, no. 1, January 2005, p. 134.

³⁸ Goldstein, Deterrence and Security in the 21st Century, p. 57.

³⁹ Hansard, 4 December 2006, Col. 24.

⁴⁰ HC 986, p. 21.

⁴¹ MccGwire, ‘The Rise and Fall of the NPT’, p. 137.

⁴² Andy McSmith, ‘Britain Will Remain US Poodle if Trident Replaced, Short Warns’, Independent, 7 December 2005.

⁴³ Lewis Page and Rodric Braithwaite, ‘Should Britain Renew the Trident Nuclear Deterrent?’, Prospect, August 2006, p. 22.

⁴⁴ Greenpeace, Why Britain Should Stop Deploying Trident (London: Greenpeace, March 2006), p. 2.

⁴⁵ Memorandum submitted by British-American Security Information Council, HC 986, Ev. 116.

⁴⁶ Caroline Lucas, ‘Is There a Sound Political Rationale for the UK Retaining Its Nuclear Weapons?’, Booth and Barnaby, p. 23.

⁴⁷ George W. Bush, Message to the Congress of the United States, 14 June 2004: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/print/20040614-16.html.

⁴⁸ Andrew Dorman, ‘Prestige Purchase’, The World Today, vol. 62, no. 4, May 2006, p. 14. See also Quinlan's comments to the House of Commons Defence Committee, HC 982, Ev. 12.

⁴⁹ Quinlan, The Future of Deterrent Capability, p. 9.

⁵⁰ Freedman, ‘Great Powers, Vital Interests and Nuclear Weapons’, Survival, vol. 36, no.4, Winter 1994–95, p. 46.

⁵¹ Yost, ‘France's Evolving Nuclear Strategy’, Survival, vol. 47, no. 3, Autumn 2005, p. 134.

⁵² Tertrais, Memorandum for House of Commons Defence Committee, HC 986, Ev. 82.

⁵³ Quinlan, The Future of Deterrent Capability, p. 11.

⁵⁴ Tony Blair, interview with Jeremy Paxman, BBC Newsnight, 20 April 2005.

⁵⁵ Hansard, 22 November 2006, Col. 540.

⁵⁶ David Clark, ‘The Blairite Love Affair With The Bomb Will Cost Britain Dear’, Guardian, 1 November 2005.

⁵⁷ Conservative Research Department, The Campaign Guide (London: The Conservative Party, 31 March 2005).

⁵⁸ Michael Portillo, ‘Does Britain Need Nuclear Missiles? No. Scrap Them’, The Times, 19 June 2005.

⁵⁹ Nick Brown, ‘UK To Begin Trident Replacement Debate’, Jane's Defence Weekly, 1 February 2006, p. 7; Riddell, ‘Poll Shows Gender Gap Over Renewal of Nuclear Deterrent’, The Times, 13 December 2006.

⁶⁰ A 1996 advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice and a 2004 opinion by two members of Matrix Chambers in London.

⁶¹ Steven Haines letter published in RUSI Defence Systems, Winter/Spring 2005–06, p. 22; Nick Grief and Steven Haines, ‘Is Britain's Continued Possession and Threatened Use of Nuclear Weapons Illegal?’, in Booth and Barnaby, eds, pp. 41–57.

⁶² For a discussion of the controversy surrounding the demise of the ABM Treaty, see Stocker, Britain and Ballistic Missile Defence, pp. 224–6.

⁶³ MccGwire, ‘Comfort Blanket or Weapon of War’, p. 640.

⁶⁴ Lucas, ‘Is There A Sound Political Rationale…’, p. 25.

⁶⁵ HC 986, Ev. 23.

⁶⁶ Grief and Haines, ‘Is Britain's Continued Possession and Threatened Use of Nuclear Weapons Illegal?’, Booth and Barnaby, p. 41.

⁶⁷ For a fuller (and more expert) examination of the implication of the NPT for the current debate, see the evidence submitted to the House of Commons Defence Committee by Quinlan, HC 986, Ev. 65.

⁶⁸ Cm 6994, p. 7.

⁶⁹ Bruce Blair, cited in Ainslie, The Future of the British Bomb, p. 21.

⁷⁰ HC 986, Ev. 115.

⁷¹ Ainslie, The Future of the British Bomb, p. 22.

⁷² Professor Shaun Gregory, evidence to House of Commons Defence Committee HC 986, Ev. 24.

⁷³ For a fuller examination of the cost issue, see Hartley, ‘The Economics of UK Nuclear Weapons Policy’, pp. 675–84.

⁷⁴ Hare, ‘Should the Decision on Trident Replacement be a Subject of Public and Parliamentary Debate?’, p. 67.

⁷⁵ Michael Meacher MP in Hansard, 4 December 2006, Col.29.

⁷⁶ Cm 6994, p. 7.

⁷⁷ Codner, ‘Britain's Nuclear Deterrent’, p. 87.

⁷⁸ Hill et al., Does Britain Need Nuclear Weapons?, p. 53.

⁷⁹ MccGwire, ‘Comfort Blanket or Weapon of War’, p. 646.

⁸⁰ Mary Midgley, ‘Can the Retention of British Nuclear Weapons be Justified Ethically in Today's World?’, Booth and Barnaby, pp. 74–5.

⁸¹ Gregory, Evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee, HC 986, Ev. 19.

⁸² NATO's Nuclear Fact Sheets (Brussels: NATO, 2006), p. 5.

⁸³ Gray, ‘An International “Norm” Against Nuclear Weapons? The British Case’, pp. 231, 233.

⁸⁴ Cm 3999, p. 17,

⁸⁵ Smart, The Future of the British Nuclear Deterrent, p. 6.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeremy Stocker

Jeremy Stocker is a consulting Research Fellow at the IISS and a freelance defence analyst. He served as a Seaman Officer in the Royal Navy for 20 years, specialising in air defence, before transferring to the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR) in 1996. Commander Stocker has seen active service in the Persian Gulf and in Afghanistan. He is now responsible for staff training in the RNR, based part-time at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, Shrivenham. He has a BA from the University of Reading and a Masters and PhD from the University of Hull. His book Britain and Ballistic Missile Defence 1942–2002 was published in 2004 by Frank Cass. He is a regular conference speaker and contributes to academic and professional journals on both sides of the Atlantic.