JULY 2011
The UK should remain a nuclear weapons state. Despite President Obama's Prague speech, the international context in fact is not benign or stable. The threat of a nuclear attack has not disappeared and is unlikely to do so. Future threats are not predictable so as to justify abandoning the UK’s nuclear deterrent. To do this would not only leave the UK vulnerable to nuclear blackmail but would weaken the collective security of NATO and reduce the UK’s international influence.
JUNE 2011
The UK government policy is one of high visibility, global responsibilities and ambitions. The price the UK pays for undertaking this role on the world stage is that we are more susceptible to global threats than other European countries who adopt a lower profile. As we live in a volatile and uncertain world, the UK should remain a nuclear weapons state.
UK should opt for Trident renewal as it is by far the cheapest and most effective option open to the UK.
MAY 2011
We live in an unpredictable and potentially extremely chaotic and dangerous world. Hence, the UK must not elect to forego its independent nuclear deterrent.
Maintaining the present Trident ballistic missile system which necessitates the replacement of the SSBN’s is the best option assuming the UK is to remain a nuclear weapon state.The other options, in fact, are not as cheap or practical as their supporters claim.
MAY 2011
The UK should remain a nuclear weapons state for the next 15-20 years. However, Trident like-for-like renewal is too costly and sophisticated. Instead the UK should replicate the US deployment of nuclear weapons on hunter killer submarines.
MAY 2011
The UK will remain a nuclear weapon state, even if it has no operational or stockpiled nuclear weapons or means of delivering them, for as long as the NPT remains in existence. To alter this position, extraordinary legal, political and practical measures would have to be instituted to convince the international community that such a change is genuine and absolute.
MAY 2011
We benefit from the collective security arrangements of the North Atlantic Alliance including a framework of deterrence extended from the US to its European allies. As a result, the future risk of the UK becoming engaged in conflict remains very low. However, we know how unpredictable the international security environment can turn out to be. Looking ahead several decades we could be surprised by new and unforeseen threats; thus, we have no objective justification for seeking major changes today in the collective security that our NATO membership provides.
APRIL 2011
Advocates of Trident replacement argue that the core reason is to deter other states that possess nuclear weapons from engaging in nuclear blackmail. However this does not represent the whole picture as the historical record does not support this view.
MARCH 2011
British nuclear weapons have never had credible independent military value. They were acquired and have been maintained as an expensive exercise in political and diplomatic prestige; primarily to impress and influence allies rather than deter adversaries. Whether that approach was ever worthwhile is questionable, but it is certainly no longer valid.