Trident, our current nuclear weapons system, will reach the end of its lifespan in about 2025, and the government is saying that a decision will be made about replacing this system in the current parliament – so in the next 4 years. A decision within this timeframe gives the government enough time for a replacement to be developed and entered into service before Trident becomes obsolete. It also gives us enough time to amass even more support, to make an even bigger majority saying ‘No Trident Replacement’.

So what do we need to know about a replacement:

1. It might actually not be a replacement at all just yet. In the short-term, the government might follow the US currently extending the lifespan of their own Trident system with hull-life extension of the submarines and updating and modifying the missiles and warheads. The UK could do the same since we lease-purchase our Trident missiles from the US and our warheads are widely accepted to be based on the same design as the US ones. We could then be involved in US designs and plans to fully replace their Trident system by about 2029.
    
2. There are different opinions about what an actual replacement for Trident might be. Most agree that the delivery system is most likely to be another submarine since they are the more difficult to detect and track. These submarines could be more versatile carrying conventional and nuclear warhead-tipped cruise missiles. More useable nuclear warheads could be procured allowing for improved targeting with variable yields and lower yields – so called ‘mini-nukes’.

So why is it thought to be more likely that the government will decide to replace Trident or at least extend its lifespan than get rid of our costly weapons of mass destruction?

• Aldermaston. Many say that a decision has already been made and recent investments at Aldermaston, our very own nuclear weapons making factory, do point towards this even though the government tells us this is just for maintaining our current warheads. Money spent on equipment and buildings – capital costs – at Aldermaston has increased every year for the last 5 years to make ₤278 million just over this period. Aldermaston will also receive an extra ₤350 million of investment every year for the next 3 years. New buildings are going up, new staff are being recruited and Aldermaston is attempting to site a brand new laser system Orion which replicates conditions of a nuclear explosion. The planning permission for this laser has been deferred for the moment thanks to sustained campaigning by Aldermaston Women’s Peace Campaign and all those who have written in to oppose the permission.
   
• It also seems to be that where Bush goes we faithfully follow. We recently renewed a unique bilateral agreement with the US which covers all aspects of nuclear weapons design, development and maintenance – the Mutual Defence Agreement, first signed in 1958. But the US, particularly since its Nuclear Posture Review in 2001, is demonstrating an increasingly aggressive nuclear position with first-use and new nuclear weapons research. Most recently was its draft nuclear doctrine which goes even further by suggesting nuclear use in a conventional war.
   
• It looks like we are going the same way; the Labour government dropped its support for a no first-use policy after it was elected in 1997 and threats have since been made to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively against a non-nuclear weapon state in response to threats to use chemical or biological weapons.
   
• In April, Tony Blair said it is important that we retain our independent nuclear deterrent. Recently the Defence Secretary John Reid repeated this but went on to imply that this was in case of future threats.

1. Well we all know it is not independent (even if it was all ‘Made in Britain’ we still wouldn’t want it anyway). The missiles are made in the US and leased to us, the warheads are based on a US design and there is very close collaboration between our scientists and theirs.
    
2. We don’t need a deterrent. Rather than preparing for a future re-run of the edge-of-the abyss nuclear nightmare of the Cold War period, surely it would be better to start working now towards re-affirmation of a global security framework based on compliance with and respect for treaties and UN resolutions, and peaceful conflict prevention and resolution. Bush seems to be the most likely to use nuclear bombs not any other country! We are one of only 8 states with nuclear weapons in the world (but one too many). Having a ‘so-called deterrent’ didn’t stop the terrorist attack in London. Suicide bombers aren’t deterred. Having nuclear weapons actually only makes us more threatened.
    
3. It’s also hardly a ‘deterrent’ if we are prepared to use it pre-emptively against a non-nuclear weapon state. Trident is infinitely useable and any replacement will probably be even more so.

Of course we can use lots of the important information and arguments we know already from campaigning against Trident – after all we want to get rid of that too.

For example:

• By having Trident the UK is failing its obligations to disarm under article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and if Trident is replaced this failure is even more pronounced as here is the chance for the UK to actually commit to its obligations and make the choice to disarm at last.
   
• The threat or use of nuclear weapons is illegal according to the 1996 International Court of Justice under virtually every conceivable circumstance.
   
• Nuclear weapons cause extreme and indiscriminate devastation, destruction and killing. Sadly we know this from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fireballs kilometers wide, firestorms sucking the oxygen out of the air, bodies reduced to ashes or nothing but shadows left on walls and horrific radiation poisoning causing cancers decades later.

Simply in monetary terms, nuclear weapons are incredibly expensive. The poll I mentioned earlier showed that this was what the general public could really understand once they knew more about it. Lots of people simply don’t know how much a replacement nuclear weapons system might cost. We need to remind people about the terrible effects of the use of nuclear weapons and also explain what the money could be spent on instead. After all it is our money!

Let’s make our campaigning as local and personal to the areas we live in as we can. Do you have a school, nursing home or community centre desperately in need of funding? Is there something special in your community that you care about that needs extra money spending on it? How can the government even contemplate spending up to £25 billion on new weapons of mass destruction when there is not enough money for the ward in your local hospital that is having to close down, for example? What else could even just some of this money be spent on in your community? And don’t forget that Trident itself currently costs us about £1.5 billion every year anyway just in running costs!

Preventing Trident Replacement Conference

Support for no Trident replacement really is increasing. We are building the broadest possible campaign drawing together alliance with faith groups, community organizations and student and trade unions.  In September, we held a very successful Preventing Trident Replacement conference in London, which some of you may have attended, to discuss and debate ways in which to campaign against replacement. A Trident Replacement core group of representatives from several different groups continues to meet every few weeks to share information, and debate new initiatives and ways forward.

Parliamentary support

On Tuesday 6^th December we are holding a ‘No Trident Replacement’ public meeting in parliament with many speakers including Clare Short, Michael Meacher, Baroness Jenny Tonge, Gordon Prentice and Union representatives. The meeting is supported by Christian CND, the World Disarmament Campaign, Atomic Mirror and the Aldermaston Women’s Peace Campaign. We’re expecting it to be very well attended and we are asking for a government green paper on this issue and then a parliamentary vote.

Trade Unions

Ben Folley, our other Campaigns Worker is busy increasing affiliations and we will have a presence at a number of trade union conferences next year. If you are, or someone you know is, a member of a trade union then please do submit our model resolution for debate (see our website at http://www.cnduk.org/pages/campaign/ntdtrep.html )

Campaign Pack

There are lots of facts and tips in the new Campaigns pack we’ve produced to help you with your own campaigning. There’s also a new petition and we’re asking everyone to take part in the ‘Ten signature challenge’. If everyone can try and get at least 10 signatures from friends and family then we can hand in at least 320,000 signatures to Tony Blair at Easter.

There’s now a new leaflet too for you to use too and there will be a postcard to MPs available in the New Year. They petition, briefing and Campaign pack are all available from our website http://www.cnduk.org/pages/campaign/ntdtrep.html.