Trident alternatives given lukewarm support
Lib Dem-demanded paper suggests UK could cut number of nuclear submarines but alternative systems would cost more
There are alternatives to Trident that would enable the UK to be capable of inflicting significant damage such that most potential adversaries would be deterred, a long-awaited paper demanded by the Liberal Democrats has concluded.
It suggests Britain could reduce the present Trident fleet of four submarines but that an alternative system – such as placing nuclear warheads on cruise missiles – would be more expensive.
It also shows that there are alternative non-continuous postures (akin to how the UK operates conventional military assets) that could be adopted, including by nuclear missile submarines, which would aim to be at reduced readiness only when the UK assesses the threat of a no-notice pre-emptive attack to be low.
However, the report adds that none of these alternative systems and postures offered the “same degree of resilience” as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances.
Whether the cruise missile-based systems amount to a credible alternative to Trident would depend on a political judgment on whether the UK was prepared to accept a number of conditions, the report says, including:
• “a reduction in whom it could deter unilaterally in all circumstances (major nuclear powers might only be deterred if UK acted with its nuclear allies)”.
• “a significant increase in the vulnerability of any alternative system (as a result of not being able to deploy covertly and/or not being able to sustain an assured second strike capability)”.
• “significantly increased operational complexity, especially if Forward Operating Bases were required”.
Choosing to operate the Trident subs in a non-continuous posture depends upon the level of political confidence that:
• “a potential aggressor would not launch a no-notice pre-emptive attack when the UK was at a lower posture with no boat deployed”.
• “with sufficient warning, the UK could re-constitute back-to-back patrolling before a potential period of heightened tension arises (covering the availability of equipment and suitably trained and motivated civilian, military and industrial personnel)”.
• “such back-to-back patrols could then be sustained long enough to cover any emergent crisis”.
The paper adds: “The costs of delivering an alternative system could theoretically have been cheaper than procuring a like-for-like renewal of Trident were it not for timing and the fact that the UK deterrent infrastructure is finely tuned to support a submarine-based Trident system.
“In particular, the time it would take to develop a new warhead (itself a costly and high risk exercise) is judged to be longer than the current Vanguard-class submarines can safely be operated … Investing in the development of a new warhead, new missile, new platform and new infrastructure means that transitioning to any of the realistic alternative systems is now more expensive than a 3 or 4-boat Successor Trident fleet.”
