Billions could be saved by scaling down Trident

LONDON Fri May 21, 2010 7:39am BST

Crew from HMS Vengeance, a British Royal Navy Vanguard class Trident Ballistic Missile Submarine, stand on their vessel as they return along the Clyde river to the Faslane naval base near Glasgow, Scotland December 4, 2006. REUTERS/David Moir

Crew from HMS Vengeance, a British Royal Navy Vanguard class Trident Ballistic Missile Submarine, stand on their vessel as they return along the Clyde river to the Faslane naval base near Glasgow, Scotland December 4, 2006.

Credit: Reuters/David Moir

Related Topics

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain may be able to save about 11 billion pounds in defence costs if it were to end its policy of keeping at least one nuclear armed-submarine at sea at all times, a prominent defence think-tank said.

Defence spending is a prime candidate for cuts as Prime Minister David Cameron seeks ways to reduce a budget deficit set to reach 163 billion pounds this financial year.

Cameron's government outlined plans on Thursday to reduce the deficit, before an emergency budget due on June 22, including cutting defence ministry running costs by 25 percent.

Controversy has swirled around Britain's submarine-based nuclear weapons system, or Trident, with the Liberal Democrat party, the junior partner in the new coalition government, arguing that it should be replaced with a cheaper alternative.

The Conservative Party, the coalition's senior partner, wants to keep Trident.

Britain plans to replace Trident's four submarines when they become outdated, a plan the government estimated would cost between 15 billion and 20 billion pounds at 2006/2007 prices.

Ending Britain's so-called continuous-at-sea-deterrence (CASD) -- having a nuclear-armed submarine at sea at all times -- would remove the need to replace all four submarines, while prolonging the life of existing ones, the Royal United Services Institute think-tank said in its May journal.


"Only building two or three could reduce the cost of the programme by up to 6 billion (pounds, on current estimates)," RUSI said. "Ending CASD now would further extend the service life of the existing submarines well beyond 2024, with significant savings, estimated at over 5 billion."

Cameron told reporters on Thursday such a move was out of the question.

"The short answer to that is no ... If it wasn't continuous at sea it wouldn't be a proper deterrent," he said.

RUSI argues that the nuclear threat against Britain is low, and that the likelihood of a nuclear attack by Russia, which it says is the only country able to deliver a nuclear first strike against Britain, was "near zero."

The think-tank also says reduced, but more varied, submarine patrols at times of tension would create uncertainty in the mind of the enemy, and that Britain's NATO allies were also a deterrent to attackers, reducing the need for CASD.

The UK defence budget totals about 50 billion pounds in the 2010/2011 fiscal year. Defence minister Liam Fox told Reuters last month a planned strategic defence review (SDR), scheduled to take six months, would be "unsentimental."

"Alongside the Strategic Defence and Security Review, we will undertake a fundamental review of the way we provide defence capability in the UK, including reshaping the structure of the Ministry of Defence and defence acquisition. It is through this process that we will achieve a 25 percent reduction in running costs...," a ministry spokeswoman said.

Steve Jary, a spokesman for a union representing Ministry of Defence (MoD) workers, condemned the planned cost cut.

"The government has put the cart before the horse. What possible advantage is there to making swingeing cuts to MoD running costs before the SDR has even begun? ... The danger is that the UK's defence capability will be hamstrung as a result."

(Reporting by Mohammed Abbas)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (4)
Michael_E_Coles wrote:
This article shows the pressing need to include Trident in the Defence Review. With an eye-watering 25% cut in MoD costs promised, a 35 billion pound overspend in the defence equipment budget, and a hugely expensive war ongoing in Afghanistan, the government simply can’t afford to to include Trident in the review.

Including Trident in the defence review would allow options for removing submarines from continuous patrol to be objectively tested for their feasibility and the military implications of this.

It would be useful too to use the review to take a long cool look about the purpose of the UK’s nuclear weapons. Designed for the Cold War, it is not easy to see what role they play in current or future security contexts, other than (from a cynical viewpoint) acting as a political vanity symbol.

The reason given by the previous government for not including Trident in the defence review was that the matter was signed, sealed, and delivered in the Parliamentary debate on Trident in 2007. However, things have changed massively since then – the credit crunch and the election of a US president with a high-profile agenda on nuclear arms control means the game has changed since 2007.

The new coalition government needs to take a more mature approach than the previous one and consider the costs and need for Trident on a sensible, measured basis. The defence review is the best way to do this.

May 21, 2010 11:02am BST  --  Report as abuse
diia wrote:
An interesting article that clearly shows that the UK could put both its deterrent capability at risk and relinquish the geopolitical advantage the country now enjoys because of Trident. Either you have an effective insurance policy or none at all. Read full report.

May 21, 2010 11:17am BST  --  Report as abuse
Leedmetoleeds wrote:
Diia – I don’t think the evidence supports your assertions. There’s no evidence that the UK enjoys any geopolitical advantage as a result of possessing nuclear weapons. Our international position results from our economic strenght, our history, and our willingness to be a reliable ally to the USA.

Regarding an ‘insurance policy’, at a time when money is in short supply, I’d rather use scare resources to tackle the immediate threats we know we face – eg the Taliban in Afghanistan, cyberthreats, risks to energy security. It’s a waste of money – and irresponsible – not to address these threats but spend huge sums of money on an ‘insurance policy’ against vage undefined threats in the long term future.

The benchmark must be value for money, and Trident has to prove that it represents value for money.

May 23, 2010 7:21pm BST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.