Today the Lib Dems have been asserting that there are realistic alternatives to a Continuous at Sea ballistic missile nuclear deterrent. Yet I wonder if the Liberal Democrats have actually read the report they published today? Because if you want to find out why there aren’t any viable alternatives to a like-for-like replacement for the current Trident system, then their report explains why.
The report concludes that:
‘None of these alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances’ (p.10).
Of course, the Lib Dems initially set up the review to vindicate their original policy, which was to build a new cruise missile based system. They were convinced this was the way forward. But the report concluded what most defence experts have been telling them for years – that this is not realistic. On the costs the report states:
‘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. Bridging the resulting gap in deterrence capability would involve procuring two Successor SSBNs so that a Trident-based deterrent remains available until at least 2040. Doing that at the same time as 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 SSBN fleet’ (pp.10-11).
The report confirms also that cruise missiles are technically inferior to ballistic missiles and therefore offer poor value for money. Some cruise missiles we are just not technically able to develop. While supersonic missiles, for example, have the problem that their ‘range would place the platforms in particularly vulnerable positions close to any adversary that they were seeking to deter’ (p.18).
No wonder the Liberal Democrats rejected a cruise missile system! But now, in a desperate attempt to appease the left of their party, they have opted for something worse – to build only two ballistic missile submarines and have a part-time nuclear deterrent. Amazingly, the Lib Dems have confessed that they haven’t given much consideration to this. Indeed, the report reflects this. Yet they went ahead and adopted it anyway. The few parts of the report devoted to this outlines very clearly the dangers of reducing our nuclear posture.
‘An alternative system or posture with a reduced level of assurance and/or capability may increase our dependence on allies for security and could, potentially, introduce an increased risk of miscommunication or miscalculation with an adversary during a crisis’ (p.9).
Any abandonment of CASD would also leave us open to a pre-emptive strike:
‘As part of a responsive posture an irregular deployment pattern would be adopted, with periods of time when there are no submarines deployed at sea or on deterrent duty in port as for the previous posture. A potential adversary would be able to identify when all of the deterrent platforms were in the UK’ (p.54).
So there you have it. Some very good reasons why the current CASD Trident system is the best courtesy of the Liberal Democrats and you the taxpayer. Or information I could have told you at a very small fraction of the cost!
The Liberal Democrats have shown why they aren’t a serious party. After u-turning on a flawed cruise missile policy, they’ve now adopted an even more dubious policy that they haven’t even considered properly. This isn’t a minor area of policy – it’s an area of policy which is about the survival of the country! What’s more is that they’ve commissioned a report that proves why they’re wrong. As the old saying goes, you couldn’t make it up!
I must make the additional point that it’s not just the far left and the Lib Dems that have been pushing the Trident myths, but some right-wing fiscal conservatives, some of whom I’ve had heated arguments with, too. I hope they now concede today that I was right all along!
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
