Trident nuclear submarine fleet could be reduced without danger, says analyst

Royal United Services Institute report suggests effective British nuclear deterrent could be maintained but at a lower cost

Britain could achieve billions of pounds in savings by breaking with tradition to cut its Trident nuclear submarine fleet from four to three, according to a report published on Friday by one of the country’s leading military think-tanks.

For the past 45 years, the accepted view in the British military has been that the minimum number of nuclear submarines needed to act as a credible deterrent is four: one at sea, one being refitted, one engaged in training and one in reserve.

But Hugh Chalmers, in a 24-page report, argues that Britain could maintain a credible deterrent with just three submarines.

A government decision is to be made within the next few years about whether to replace Britain’s ageing nuclear submarine fleet at an estimated cost of £20 billion, rising to about £80 billion over their lifetime.

The run-up to the decision will be marked by a debate about whether Britain needs a nuclear option at all.

Both the government and Labour are committed to replacing the existing four-submarine fleet but even within the military there are senior voices arguing that at least some of the money might be better channelled towards a fast-reaction conventional force.

Dropping from four submarines to three offers a compromise that would see Britain remain a nuclear power while cutting back on the massive budget.

The US, France and Russia all have a “continuously at sea” policy. Chalmers, a research analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, argues that it may not be necessary to have at least one submarine continuously at sea in order to create uncertainty in a potential aggressor.

“Thus while continuous patrolling probably enhances the credibility of the UK’s nuclear forces, it does not embody it. It is not immediately apparent if Russia, China or, indeed, any other state would feel any less threatened by the UK’s nuclear forces were they occasionally unavailable,” Chalmers says.

In the report, A Disturbance In The Force: debating continuous at-sea deterrence, he says: “While many of the UK’s allies would be taken aback by such a change in its nuclear posture, with proper presentation and integration into Nato’s nuclear structures it could still make a useful and reassuring contribution …”

The Liberal Democrats argue that, post-cold war, a four-submarine nuclear fleet is no longer necessary, prompting defence secretary Philip Hammond to accuse them of naivety.

Chalmers argues that a reduced fleet could still make a potential adversary think twice. “If it were seen to be capable of deploying its nuclear forces in a crisis, the very existence of such a force could have the effect of dissuading a potentially hostile state from threatening or blackmailing the UK and its allies,” Chalmers says.

The fleet could cancel sustained patrols during periods of lower tension.

“An inactive fleet would be vulnerable to a no-notice strike, and could neither protect itself against nor respond to an attack under these circumstances. However, such an attack seems highly unlikely without prior indication or provocation, …read more