Is Trident really necessary? – answering common objections

In this article, we refute some of the arguments frequently presented by those campaigning for the UK to abandon its nuclear deterrent.

Britain is in the middle of a major programme to renew its Trident missile-based nuclear weapons capability which consists of three main efforts. 1. Construction of the Dreadnought-class submarines to replace the ageing Vanguard class boats. 2. Development of the new A21/Mk7 Astraea warhead to replace the Holbrook warhead (in service since 1994). 3. Infrastructure projects at the MENSA warhead assembly facility at AWE Burghfield, the Pegasus facility for enriched uranium manufacturing at AWE Aldermaston and extensive works at Faslane and Devonport naval bases. A project of this scale does not come cheap and inevitably attracts plenty of critics who can suggest endless alternative ways to use the resources.

Even in an increasingly uncertain world, only 46% of the British public fully backs Trident replacement, while a significant number have no opinion or would favour a cheaper, downgraded nuclear capability. A vocal minority continues to actively campaign for unilateral disarmament, using the arguments answered below. (In the context of this article, ‘Trident’ is used as shorthand for the whole British nuclear weapon programme.)

“Trident is a waste of money because it has never been used”

Contrary to this claim, Trident is in use every day as a deterrent. The very existence of a credible nuclear deterrent influences potential adversaries and contributes to global stability. While the post-Cold War period saw reduced tensions, recent years have demonstrated how quickly the geopolitical landscape can change. More nations now possess or seek nuclear weapons than at the end of the Cold War, including North Korea while Iran is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities.

Since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Putin has threatened the use of nuclear weapons against other nations on at least six occasions. The deterrence effect, by its nature, is difficult to quantify as it results in things that don’t happen, but recent events demonstrate Putin cannot contemplate the use of nuclear weapons for fear of retaliation.

Historical evidence suggests that nuclear deterrence contributed to preventing major conflicts in Europe between 1945 and 2022. While critics argue that Britain should abandon Trident without consequence, the reality is that doing so would weaken the broader nuclear balance that has helped maintain global stability.

For many years in the post-Cold War era, critics told us that Trident was a relic and no longer relevant because state-on-state conflict was a thing of the past. In some cases, these voices also argued against acquiring complex conventional capabilities such as aircraft carriers, claiming future conflicts would be mostly asymmetric, involving sub-threshold activities, insurgencies, cyber-attacks and terrorism. Unfortunately, the last 5 years have proven this analysis to be entirely false. The influence of this thinking, ineffectual counter-insurgency operations and the ‘peace dividend’ mindset that dominated the early 21st century has been devastating for Western militaries. Meanwhile, Russia and China continued to invest heavily in both conventional and nuclear forces.

Ongoing Russian military activity directed against the UK includes an increased submarine presence, threats to undersea infrastructure, airspace incursions and nuclear posturing. This highlights the continued need for both conventional and nuclear deterrence and the wisdom in resisting calls for disarmament when the threat appeared less acute. As an island nation with a natural barrier that offers substantial protection from invasion, the UK could be especially vulnerable to nuclear coercion, should it dispense with its own deterrent.

“Trident cannot protect us from terrorism or hybrid threats”

Trident’s sole purpose is to deter nuclear threats from hostile states and nothing else. To suggest that resources should be redirected from nuclear deterrence to other security measures misunderstands the distinct nature of these threats. While terrorism is a real concern, statistically, it poses a tiny risk to the UK population compared to the threat of war with another state.

Maintaining national security involves countering an increasingly broad range of challenges, nuclear weapons are just one aspect of UK defence dedicated to deterring the most serious existential threat to the UK. It should be noted that Trident does not protect from growing conventional threats and should not be seen as a backstop or panacea that can be used to justify wider reductions in defence.

“Trident costs too much; the money should be spent elsewhere”

What is not in dispute is that Trident is an expensive system, but put in context, the average annual cost of Trident is around 0.13% of total government spending. During the peak years of expenditure on renewal, Trident will consume about 12% of the defence budget but should average around 6% of the MoD’s budget over its lifetime.

Critics often cite varying and unsubstantiated estimates for the entire 30-year through-life cost of the Dreadnought-class submarines and all the other supporting elements of the deterrent renewal. (NIS says £172 billion, CND says £205 billion). Quoting entire lifetime cost is a tactic designed to exaggerate the expense. Budgets are run on an annual, or in rare cases, 5 – 10-year basis. We do not, for example, talk about the size of the NHS or welfare budgets in 30-year blocks, which would dwarf Trident and amount to trillions of pounds.

Given its role in safeguarding the nation, Trident represents a responsible and proportionate investment. The costs and risks of nuclear war are exponentially greater and it is an insurance policy worth paying. Disarmament would not generate immediate savings, decommissioning the UK’s nuclear infrastructure has been estimated to cost at least £10 billion, and entail the loss of thousands of highly skilled jobs, particularly in the north of England and Scotland.

“Trident puts the profits of big companies ahead of broader national interests”

This argument ignores the reality of modern defence procurement. Large corporations are essential to delivering complex military capabilities and there is no credible alternative, just as big pharmaceutical companies are essential to healthcare provision.

Beyond its strategic value, the UK’s nuclear deterrent supports thousands of advanced manufacturing jobs and hundreds of British businesses. Construction of the Dreadnought class is one of the most complex engineering endeavours underway in the country but for reasons of security, this has to be mostly hidden from the public.  The expertise involved in nuclear submarine construction is irreplaceable and will mostly be transferable to the critically important SSN-AUKUS programme.

“Unilateral disarmament would set a positive example”

While noble in sentiment, unilateral disarmament is strategically flawed. History has shown that security guarantees are unreliable; Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in exchange for flimsy international assurances and was subsequently invaded by Russia. It is highly unlikely that any other nuclear state would follow the UK’s lead in disarming, such an action would simply be perceived as weakness to be exploited.

Unilateral disarmament would leave the UK vulnerable to coercion and diminish its global influence. A strong nuclear deterrent ensures that Britain maintains a voice in international arms control efforts rather than being ignored as a non-nuclear state.

“Trident is immoral”

The potential scale and horror of nuclear war has many well-meaning people performing intellectual contortions in an attempt to put nuclear weapons in a different ‘moral’ category to conventional weapons. Dealing with all forms of war is always an exercise in ‘least appalling’ choices. An example is the unpalatable truth that more lives were saved by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than the number of people killed in those cities. Many anti-Trident campaigners cite the suffering of the Japanese survivors as their inspiration. They seem to overlook the greater slaughter of other civilians and allied soldiers by the Japanese army that would have continued unchecked without the atomic bomb.

Nuclear weapons are undoubtedly the ultimate expression of the dark heart of mankind and the arguments against their possession have great emotional resonance. Unfortunately, we cannot un-invent the bomb, instead, we must rationally face up to dealing with the consequences. The idea that humanity is on a path towards entirely peaceful coexistence and a world without weapons is sadly more fanciful now than ever. Given that nuclear bombs brought an early end to WWII, have prevented a worldwide conflict since and have saved millions of lives, there is even a case to be made that they have more moral legitimacy than any other type of weapon.

Attempts to give ‘moral value’ to inanimate objects are fraught with problems anyway, it is clearly the motivations and actions of the people who use them that count. The machine gun is responsible for by far the most violent human deaths. Disarmament campaigners might be wasting marginally less time by fighting to ‘outlaw the automatic weapon’ which continues to kill hundreds around the world daily.

“Trident is illegal”

Using Trident to target civilians would be illegal under international law. However, its possession and continued renewal are entirely lawful. While British Prime Ministers sensibly have refused to publicly rule out preemptive use of nuclear weapons, it is generally accepted that the UK would only retaliate if an aggressor had already grossly transgressed international law by attacking first. The key point is to make a potential aggressor believe it is a possibility, thus preventing the use of nuclear weapons in the first place.

Over time, the UK has reduced to an absolute minimum strategic deterrent, currently possessing just 225 usable warheads and is fully compliant with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Vanguard class submarines have 16 missile tubes but now only carry a maximum of 12 missiles fitted with about 48 warheads between them. The new Dreadnought class boats are being built with just 12 tubes. Unlike the four other NPT states (US, France, Russia and China) the UK now has no alternative method of delivering nuclear weapons besides the submarine-based deterrent. The NPT aspires to eliminate nuclear weapons, and this laudable, if virtually impossible, aim remains.

“Scrapping Trident would allow greater investment in conventional forces”

This is perhaps the most compelling argument against Trident for those genuinely concerned about the defence of the nation and not proposing nuclear disarmament for virtue-signalling or political motives. While strengthening forces is essential, nuclear weapons have a unique power that cannot be matched by even the best conventional forces. In a conflict against a nuclear-armed adversary, the UK would be at a severe disadvantage without its own deterrent. Even if Trident were scrapped, Politicians who have consistently underfunded defence could not be relied upon to redirect the eventual savings into conventional weapon investment.

The steep decline in the relative size of the defence budget since CASD began with Polaris in 1968 means the cost of Trident renewal disproportionally impacts conventional capability. It is not flawed nuclear policy but rather the political choice to underfund defence as a whole that has put UK forces in such a poor state. Against this backdrop, inevitably, the funds being spent on the nuclear enterprise now seem especially extravagant. Unfortunately, strategic weapons platforms and their supporting infrastructure cannot be delivered with half measures. There are no corners that can be cut; either you have a credible deterrent or you do not. Aircraft or cruise missile-based delivery systems are often suggested as cheaper alternatives. While it might be prudent to consider tactical weapons to complement Trident, they are vulnerable to countermeasures and would not comprise a credible strategic deterrent on their own.

“Britain’s nuclear deterrent is not independent”

This is widely repeated misinformation. The deterrent is fully independent in the short-medium term, and there is no hidden ‘back door’ option for the US to disable the Trident missiles which carry UK-made warheads. In the very unlikely event that US-UK foreign policy aims were so divergent, the Prime Minister still can launch without permission or any reliance on the US.

The US could withdraw technical assistance and maintenance support for the missiles, which would eventually render the UK deterrent inoperable after several months. Claims that switching off the Global Positioning System (GPS) would disable the system are entirely false. The missiles do not use GPS and navigate using celestial and inertial guidance systems that require no other external inputs.

There is very significant value in an independent deterrent as it demonstrates to the US that Britain is willing to pay for its own defence and not rely entirely on their benevolence. It also provides reassurance to other European NATO nations because the UK deterrent is a declared NATO asset. If the UK was subject to nuclear blackmail or attack, it would give the US the option not to go nuclear, thus possibly avoiding global nuclear conflagration. It backs up Britain’s position as one of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council with the potential for positive global influence that comes with that position.

The claim that other major European nations such as Germany, Italy and Spain manage fine without nuclear weapons overlooks the fact that they shelter under the NATO nuclear umbrella. Their defence is largely underwritten by the US and to some extent, the UK and France. Recent events suggest that reliance on the US for European security is becoming increasingly untenable.

“Those in favour of Trident are war hawks”

While not always explicitly stated, many who call themselves ‘peace campaigners’ believe they have the moral high ground and that those in favour of Trident are less concerned about the possibility of nuclear war or are ignorant of its horror. Quite the opposite, many generations of RN submariners have conducted deterrent patrols at great personal sacrifice to themselves and their families, dedicating their lives to keeping the peace. Every sailor departing on patrol is fully aware of the consequences of a nuclear exchange and fervently hopes they will never have to press the button. By doing their duty, they actively help reduce that possibility, making nuclear conflict less likely. While the protestors have been shouting about peace, the Royal Navy has actually been keeping the peace with dignity and professionalism.

Nuclear weapons have been a major contributor to long-term peace and upholding democracy, resulting in unparalleled prosperity in Europe and much of the world. Ironically it is the nuclear umbrella that has allowed pampered generations to grow up, largely shielded from the horrible reality of conventional war and able to indulge their unilateralist views. Without the nuclear balance, we would either be living under totalitarian domination or in a continuous cycle of war and conflict, more familiar to older generations who instinctively understood our need for strong defence.

This is an updated version of an article first published in 2016.