Blair: 'Trident replacement is vital for Britain's security

"It is not utterly fanciful to imagine states sponsoring nuclear terrorism from their soil. We know this global terrorism seeks chemical, biological and nuclear devices. It is not impossible to contemplate a rogue government helping such an acquisition." Tony Blair

Story in full

BRITAIN would be prepared to use nuclear weapons against countries who allowed their own nuclear technology to fall into the hands of terrorists, Tony Blair said yesterday.

The Prime Minister made the threat as he declared the government's intention to spend as much as 20 billion replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent with a new submarine-based weapons system.

The decision will be put to a Commons vote in February, when the government is likely to have to rely on Conservative support to overcome what could be a substantial Labour rebellion.

In a pre-emptive concession to his own party's sceptics, the Prime Minister yesterday announced that the government is willing to cut Britain's holding of nuclear warheads by a fifth, to 160 devices.

The Ministry of Defence also said it would look at reducing the number of missile-carrying submarines from four to three. Ministry officials concede that a decision to cut the Trident flotilla could have employment implications for the navy base at Faslane on the Clyde, where the submarine programme supports 6,500 jobs directly and another 5,000 indirectly.

While the government is prepared to make concessions to the critics on the precise form of the nuclear weapons system, Mr Blair made it clear that he would not compromise on the basic decision to keep Britain a nuclear-armed power for the next generation.

Confronting head-on his Labour opponents who argue a nuclear weapons system is not relevant to the security threats of the 21st century, Mr Blair made it clear Britain would be willing to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike on "state sponsors" of nuclear terrorism.

"It is true that our deterrent would not deter or prevent terrorists. But it is bound to have an impact on governments that might sponsor them."

Citing national security, the government refuses to discuss the precise circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons, but the white paper setting out the government's argument for replacing Trident contains an even more explicit warning.

"We make no distinction between the means by which a state might choose to deliver a nuclear warhead, whether, for example, by missile or sponsored terrorists," the white paper says.

"Any state that we can hold responsible for assisting a nuclear attack on our vital interests can expect that this would lead to a proportionate response."

Mr Blair's Commons announcement came after a Cabinet meeting yesterday morning at which no dissent was expressed. Some reports have suggested that ministers including Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, are opposed to a new deterrent, but Mrs Beckett last night insisted she supported the decision.

In the Commons, David Cameron, the Conservative leader, also offered to support the renewal of Trident and the submarines to carry it, which is expected to take 17 years from full authorisation to operational readiness.

The Liberal Democrats have not stated a clear position on Trident, and Sir Menzies Campbell, their leader, yesterday called for a final decision to be delayed until 2014, something the government says would be impractical and expensive.

Without direct criticism from the main opposition parties, doubts about the new weapons programme were expressed by Labour back-benchers and the nationalist parties.

Gavin Strang, a former Labour Cabinet minister, said that replacing Britain's weapons would "weaken our efforts to persuade other countries to stay non- nuclear".

Defence policy is reserved to Westminster, but the government's decision yesterday triggered another clash between Labour and the Scottish Nationalists.

Jack McConnell, the First Minister, had appeared to equivocate about replacing Trident, but last night he said: "I agree with the decision of the UK government to maintain the UK's independent nuclear deterrent and I fully support the associated commitment to further reduce the number of nuclear warheads."

Nicola Sturgeon, SNP deputy leader, said Mr McConnell's statement "underlines how out of touch he is with the people of Scotland - he has now received his orders from London and is duly complying to the letter".

TRIDENT: YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

WHY DOES OUR EXISTING DETERRENT NEED REPLACING?

The UK's four Vanguard-class nuclear submarines, which carry the Trident inter-continental ballistic missiles, are due to reach the end of their working lives in the early 2020s. The missiles' use can be extended into the 2040s, but if Britain is to continue to have a submarine-based deterrent, the vessels must be replaced.

WHY IS A DECISION NEEDED NOW?

The government argues that it will take around 17 years to design, commission and build the submarines. The Liberal Democrats argue that a decision could be put off until as late as 2014, but Ministry of Defence planners say that would be expensive and hazardous. To avoid a gap in British capability, "detailed concept work" must begin by the end of 2007.

WHO ARE THE MISSILES SUPPOSED TO BE DETERRING?

Trident was designed for the Cold War, and critics argue that the collapse of the Soviet Union removes the need for long-range nuclear missile capacity.

Trident will not deter the terrorists and organised criminals who now pose the greatest threat to UK security, they say.

Ministers argue that it is impossible to predict the security threats 20 years from now. With states such as North Korea conducting tests and Iran believed to be trying to acquire an arsenal, they say it would be irresponsible for Britain to give up its bomb.

The government also says a British nuclear weapon could help to deter other states from passing their technology to terrorist groups.

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

The government yesterday gave a surprisingly low estimate for a new system, 15-20 billion in total for a four-sub system, a bill that breaks down to 11-14 billion for the submarines, 2-3billion for possible future refurbishment or replacement of the warhead, and 2-3 billion for infrastructure.

Opponents of the scheme claim that the total spending over the lifetime of the system could hit 75 billion.

HOW MANY SUBMARINES WILL BRITAIN HAVE?

To ensure "continual deterrent", two of the subs are at sea at any given time, with another held in reserve. The current flotilla of four is required because at any given time at least one of the complex vessels is out of service for refitting.

If the new generation of subs can operate with fewer refits, the government is willing to cut the flotilla to three, but no decisions have been taken yet.

WHY DO THE MISSILES HAVE TO BE BASED ON SUBMARINES?

Defence planners did consider alternative systems, including nuclear "cruise" missiles mounted on planes, weapons launched from surface ships and even the use of land-based silos.

All the alternatives were found to be more expensive and more vulnerable to counter-attack than a submarine-based weapon, the MoD says.

IS REPLACING TRIDENT LEGAL?

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by the UK in 1968, Britain is one of just five states - alongside the USA, Russia, China and France - permitted to own nuclear weapons. The treaty commits these states not to share their technology with other countries and to work towards reducing, and eventually eliminating, their own stockpiles.

Some lawyers claim replacing Trident would violate the treaty, but government lawyers say it does not commit existing nuclear states to disarm unilaterally. Other nuclear states, including France, are replacing their weapons.

IS OUR DETERRENT REALLY INDEPEDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

The Trident missiles themselves are made in the US, but the nuclear warheads are constructed in the UK, and the subs that carry them are under UK command. The government insists that only a UK prime minister can give the order to use Britain's nuclear weapons.

WILL TONY BLAIR BE ABLE TO GET HIS PLANS THROUGH PARLIAMENT?

Almost certainly. Although around 40 Labour MPs may rebel, the vast majority of Conservative MPs will back the replacement of Trident when a binding Commons vote is held, probably in February.

WASTE OF MONEY

SCOTLAND faces a huge choice: do we want to be one of the most heavily-militarised nuclear weapons' countries in the world or not?

We house the entire UK nuclear weapons fleet, which is based at Faslane. The missiles deployed from the Clyde have the power to obliterate a continent, killing millions. This is not something to be proud of.

Nuclear weapons don't deter terrorism and fuel proliferation. In short, they make the world a less safe place.

Trident should not ever be used. It is a massive waste of taxpayers' money with a starting price of 25 billion. Why not provide better funding for our overstretched conventional armed forces? Why not employ the excellent Faslane service and civilian personnel in support of the conventional naval capacity we so desperately lack in Scotland?

• Angus Robertson MP is the defence and foreign affairs spokesman for the SNP.

STALEMATE SECURITY

DURING the inter-war years, the peace-loving democracies disarmed each other and themselves while the rogues, the villains, the bandits, the dictators and the tyrants re-armed in secret, threatened democracy and destroyed the peace of the world.

The fact the Third World War did not break out is not, of itself, proof that containment by deterrence succeeded.

Yet the fact that there were so many small but deadly wars fought between client states of the superpowers strongly suggests the mutual threat of annihilation had something to do with the restraint of the superpowers themselves.

Possession of the deterrent may be unpleasant, but it is an unpleasant ultimate "stalemate weapon" - and in the nuclear age, stalemate is the most reliable source of security available to us all."

• Dr Julian Lewis is a shadow defence minister and Tory MP for New Forest East.