Navy needs four nuclear subs or defence will be at risk, warns Fox

REDUCING Britain’s fleet of nuclear submarines would “risk” the effectiveness of the UK’s military deterrent, Defence Secretary Liam Fox has claimed.

In what appears to be a toughening of his stance, Dr Fox said that the Trident nuclear programme needed the full fleet of four submarines at the Clyde Naval Base at Faslane.

The Conservative minister had previously suggested that the number of submarines could be reduced to three without limiting the UK’s nuclear capabilities.

Dr Fox’s hawkish stance comes amid reports that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to a like-for-like replacement of Trident and that they have also questioned the need for continuous at-sea deterrence.

In a BBC1 TV documentary entitled Who Needs Trident? to be aired tonight, the Scottish-born MP is asked if he would consider reducing the number of submarines from four to three.

Dr Fox said: “At the moment, the assessment is we need four.

“If you reduce the number, you take an increased risk in your ability to deploy that deterrent at all times. So at the moment the technology says four. That’s something that can always be kept under review.

“The reason we have four at the moment is the technology, and remember by the time we take these submarines out of action they’ll be 35 years old.

“With current technology, we need four. What we need in 2028, that’s beyond my ability to predict.”

Under the Trident programme, the Royal Navy operates 58 nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles and about 200 nuclear warheads on four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines based at the Clyde Naval Base at Faslane.

An MoD source at the Faslane base told The Scotsman that existing technology required four submarines to make the deterrent effective because “there was always one undergoing long-term maintenance”.

The source said: “There’s also always one at sea, on patrol and one ready to go to sea, with another submarine needed as a spare in the event of a military threat to the UK.”

He said: “It could compromise our defence capability if there was no spare.

“The key thing with all of this is that it’s about having a continuous sea deterrent. It has existed for more than 40 years.”

Meanwhile, critics of the system reiterate their opposition in tonight’s BBC documentary, describing the weapons as “immoral” and “illegal”.

Angus Robertson, the SNP’s defence spokesman and party leader at Westminster, said: “It’s a weapon system which is unjustifiable. We can never use it. It’s immoral, it’s illegal and, frankly, we should be spending our money on more important things.”

Alan Mackinnon, from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: “The government, as part of its security review, looked at the threats that Britain is going to face over the next few years. And the main threats were terrorism, cyber attack, natural disasters.

“Nowhere down the line was there the threat of a nuclear attack from another country because that’s just not on the horizon. It’s just not going to happen.”

Meanwhile, Dr Fox said the UK government has committed to reducing the size of the UK’s nuclear weapons stockpile, and the next generation of submarines will carry fewer warheads, but added that he believes Britain still needed a nuclear deterrent.

“We cannot gamble with Britain’s future security,” he said.