Round the Clock At Sea  Deterrence – the Conservative Secretary of State for Defence (Phillip Hammond MP) has made the case for the TRIDENT replacement and thus this becomes one of the fault lines at the next General Election, as of course the Liberal Democrats hold the contrary view.   It is worth noting the points made by the Secretary of State for Defence, summarised as under:

·         For almost 45 years, Royal Navy submariners have delivered the ultimate guarantee of our national security, carrying first POLARIS and now TRIDENT ballistic missiles, the undetected patrolling of our submarines provides an essential protection against nuclear blackmail or attack.

·         Although no State currently has both the intent and the capability to threaten the integrity of the UK, there are countries in unstable regions that possess, or are on the verge of possessing, nuclear weapons.  (North Korea and Iran were quoted).

·         The nature of the deterrent we require (apparently) to be credible, must provide effective deterrence against the full range of current and future threats, with the VANGUARD SUCCESSOR Class Submarines costing some £11-14 billion at 2006/07 prices and delivering security to 2060 and beyond.

·         The deterrent must be carefully scrutinised for savings – if there is a more cost effective way of delivering the required deterrence, of course we should investigate it, and we have already identified more than £1 billion of cost reductions - but we must be under no illusion that we can pick and choose the threats we face. A deterrent only deters if it is credible and available. All the evidence points to a continuous at sea presence, based on TRIDENT as the most cost-effective route to deliver the deterrent effect.

·         Some have argued that we should sacrifice our continuous at-sea deterrence, but not having a submarine permanently at sea would make us vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike. What is more, having to take the decision to arm and deploy our deterrent at sea in a period of tension would risk escalation at the critical moment.    Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the evidence points to a replacement for VANGUARD Class being a lower cost solution than the proposal for a less capable option based on ASTUTE Submarines with “nuclear tipped” cruise missiles. The VANGUARD Replacement would use existing warheads and missiles and elements of the submarine would be designed in collaboration with the USA.      

·         The cruise alternative would mean designing new warheads and missiles, without American partnership, as well as making major modifications to the launch submarines – and the greater vulnerability of cruise missiles means we would need many more of them to deliver any meaningful effect. A cruise based deterrent would carry significant risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation, at the point of firing, other States could have no way of knowing whether we had launched a conventional cruise missile or one with a nuclear warhead.      Such uncertainty could risk triggering a nuclear war at a time of tension, so, the cruise option would carry enormous financial, technical and strategic risk.

·         TRIDENT thus remains the best option for Britain, by keeping our deterrent at sea, we maximise our freedom of manoeuvre, while the TRIDENT missile offers range, endurance and invulnerability with the cost savings of operating a common system with the USA.     At around 5 to 6% of the annual defence budget, the deterrent is affordable and reinforces our special relationship with the USA and our status as a force for good in the world.

Thus the battle lines between the Coalition Government parties have been drawn and we shall see how this matter develops over the time until the next General Election.