Government and Military

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
LEVEL 8, ZONE L, MAIN BUILDING, WHITEHALL
LONDON, SW1A 2HB

Telephone 02072189000 (Switchboard)
Fax 0207218 6107

Dr Jon Barks

DOP583/2006

Penny Baxter Trident Ploughshares Tamarians -Plymouth

5 May 2006

Dear Ms Baxter

Thank you for your letter to the Secretary of State for Defence raising concern regarding the possible replacement of the UK’s nuclear deterrent. This has been passed to me to reply on Dr Reid’s behalf.

First and foremost, as we have made clear on many occasions, and as was repeated by the Defence Secretary in the House during Defence Questions on 27 February this year, no decisions on this issue have yet been taken, either in principle or detail. Initial preparatory work is being undertaken by officials on possible options for the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent beyond the current planned life of the Trident system. This work is at an early stage and Minister have not yet engaged in the process in any detail, nor have they made any decisions. It is therefore too early to speculate on, amongst other things, the possible costs of any replacement programme.

On the question of legality, the Advisory opinion provided by the international Court of Justice in 1996 confirmed that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is subject to the law of armed conflict. The Court did not conclude that such use would necessarily be unlawful. We remain confident that the UK’s minimum deterrent is entirely consistent with international law.

You went on to mention the linkage between the possible replacement of Trident and the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). We will ensure that decisions on the future of our current nuclear deterrent are taken in a way that is fully consistent with our international legal obligations, including those under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. All Nuclear Weapons States are committed to nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT. However, no timetable for disarmament has yet been agreed. When we are satisfied with progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons we will ensure that the remaining British nuclear weapons are included in negotiations. The UK has made more progress towards disarmament than any other Nuclear Weapon State. We have:
  Withdrawn and dismantled the RAF’s W E177 nuclear bomb without replacement, so that Trident is our only nuclear weapons system.
  Dismantled all of our remaining Chevaline (Polaris) warheads demonstrating our commitment to irreversible reductions in the UK’s nuclear weapons.
  Reduced our operationally available stockpile of nuclear weapons to fewer than 200 warheads, (a 70% reduction in the potential explosive power of our nuclear forces since the end of the Cold War).
  Reduced the readiness of our nuclear forces. Only one Trident submarine at a time is on deterrent patrol, carrying 48 warheads (compared to a previously planned total of 96), on several days’ "notice to fire" and its missiles are de- targeted.
  Signed and ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
  Continued to press for negotiations without preconditions to begin at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

Finally, you asked about the linkage between terrorist threats and nuclear weapons. It is true that Trident was never designed to deter a terrorist threat. It is equally true that you cannot use Special Forces to deter a nuclear attack, but this does not mean to say that Special Forces are redundant. As the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on 19 October, "I do not think that anyone pretends that the independent nuclear deterrent is a defence against terrorism; nonetheless, I believe that it is an important part of our defence". All of the UK’s armed forces play a part in deterrence, and we therefore have a broad range of responses available to counter any particular threat. Furthermore, the fact that new terrorist threats to our security have emerged recently does not mean that we no longer need worry about other potential threats.

Thank you again for your interest in these important issues and I hope that this letter goes some way towards resolving your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Jon Barks

Printer friendly version

Home | Top