On Trident Renewal

Dave Levy
3 min readMay 27, 2016

I have today, submitted this article, on reasons not to renew Trident to Labour’s “Your Britain” site, I am now looking to see how to submit it to the Labour Party’s trident review. My submission focuses on the defence arguments, its ineffectiveness as a defence weapon, its questionable independence, its cost and its opportunity cost. If you agree, please visit the Your Britain site and vote for it.

Defence Imagery via Flickr CC 2013 BY posted 29/1/2024

The Law has changed. Acceptable behaviour when in a state of war is much more restricted than in the period following the 2 ndworld war and thus the moral arguments for not having/using strategic nuclear weapons are greater than in the ‘80s.

The debate is about Trident Renewal and so-called strategic nuclear weapons and not total nuclear disarmament[1].

Trident should not be renewed,

  1. It is not an effective defensive weapon, its proponents state it deters, or did so in the 70' through to the ’90s. The argument is hard to prove but it didn’t deter Argentina in invading the Falklands, China during the negotiations to return Kowloon and the New Territories, nor has it deterred Russia in its occupation of the Crimea nor has it brought peace to the India/Pakistan borders. The fact that Trident is not a defensive weapon is obvious, it’s a deterrent maybe.
  2. One has to question its independence. There are questions about whether we can launch our nuclear missiles without US permission and even more crucial questions as to whether we’d know where they’d land should we do so. One also has to ask if we should renew Trident whether we would have a security[2] of supply?
  3. The cost of Trident represents a poor investment in defence assets, due to a poor threat analysis, Trident can’t defend the British state nor its citizens against cyber-attack[3] nor asymmetric warfare nor domestic terrorism and it’s questionable if it is an effective weapon to defend the United Kingdom against any state-on-state military threat.
  4. In order to defend the UK, we need a broad range of military capabilities, army, navy, air-force and cyber. We have no fighter bomber, or won’t soon. The 2010 Defence review identified the lack of sufficient heavy cargo planes as another serious deficiency. We have no maritime fixed wing planes (but we do have two aircraft carriers, which we may not…

--

--

Dave Levy

Brit, Londoner, economist, Labour, privacy, cybersecurity, traveller, father - mainly writing about UK politics & IT, https://linktr.ee/davelevy