UK & Trident

Question 1

Main Reasons Behind Trident

Answer 1

1. Maintain UK Commitment to Min. Deterrence and Policy of CASD
2. Strong links with US defence strategy and NATO
3. Address Nuclear Weapons dynamic of the Cold War, which successive governments have viewed as unchanged

Question 2

Main Theories Behind Trident, is it needed?

Answer 2

1. HoC Defence Committee/Blair Gov. White Paper: Trident is needed in current IR system, CW threats still exists
2. Michael Clarke - “Credible but minimal” deterrent is still required, but must be adaptable in order to remain “future proof”
3. Nick Ritchie - No, Trident contradicts National Security Strategy of the UK, the integration of economies and democratic peace theory is enough

Question 3

Opportunity Costs of Trident, is it worth it?

Answer 3

1. Keith Hartley - replacement is an issue of defence economics, Trident is difficult to judge given the intricacy and variability of the factors involved
2. Franklin Miller - UK deterrence is necessary, as Cold War dynamics still exist, otherwise the UK will be vulnerable
3. Hugh Beach - No, there are better things to spend money on, and US nuclear umbrella should be enough
4. William Walker - Trident relies too much on the US, making it more expensive for the UK

Question 4

The Idea of Shared Deterrence, could it work?

Answer 4

1. William Walker - Shared deterrence has its problems, and UK does not practice bilateral deterrence on an official basis, that is the job of American umbrella
2. Franklin Miller - UK already protects the EU and contributes to regional power balancing, no need for official deterrence
3. In general, theorists support the idea that it may certainly be cheaper to share deterrence (with France for example) but risks the UK’s security independence
4. Andrew Futter - raises issues in regards to shared deterrence and MAD