Analysis

Trident: the British question

The Guardian’s Ian Jack was briefed by Paul Ingram on November’s SDSR and vulnerabilities to Trident, before writing this in-depth review. It is a holistic article that touches on nine diverse topics which are part of the complex debate of Trident in the UK.

14419385728 879064f71a z

Making Sense of the Trident Debate Requires an Open Mind – In Defence of Emily Thornberry

It has always astounded me how little attention people have paid to risk and future developments when debating Trident. It's a debate that heats the passions up more than most, because it deals with such visceral things as security and morality, and acts as a proxy for political identity. All too often people revert to established positions, comfortable that they are right, even if they lose.

45137620

Will Trident Still Work in the Future?

Developments in anti-submarine warfare could be decisive. Emerging developments in technology that are transforming our lives and already revolutionising the battle-space in air and on land could ensure that submarines will no longer be stealthy in the foreseeable future, however silent they are. This is undeniable, and claims that these risks are minimal to Trident’s future are patently false. The judgement comes in assessing this risk and when it becomes operational, based upon the speed of technology development today, and what countermeasures that could be developed. This briefing outlines the risk and its consequences to the programme.

Trident: A Done Deal?

Trident is in the news again, and will continue to generate heat in the run up to a parliamentary debate promised later this year on the programme and patrolling posture. But the outcome is clear, pre-determined in the minds of the political elite and to some extent in contractual and diplomatic commitments. For now. Could the equation change in the next parliament? The momentum behind the project appears unstoppable, but beware unexpected shocks before coming to a firm conclusion.