The United Kingdom openly expresses its lasting resolve to continue to keep its nuclear deterrent in a most recent Defence Nuclear Command Paper published. This decision is made within the frame of government statements of national missions that address the prospect of a defense nuclear complex in the country.
The paper details a multi-pronged approach to sustaining the UK’s nuclear arsenal. Here are the key takeaways:
Maintaining and Modernizing: The plan is based on the maintenance of the two existing Vanguard Fleet submarines which are bearing the Trident nuclear warheads. Moreover, this strategy calls for proceeding with the development and production of the contemporary Dreadnought-class submarines in the early 2030s as another priority. These submarines are deployed with a replacement warhead and therefore, the effectiveness of the deterrent is still as efficient as it has been.
Investing in Infrastructure and Skills: The government is going to devote substantial financial means to achieving this goal. This amount represents more than £3bn that will be channeled by 2024/25 into the Defence Nuclear Enterprise. It consists of allocating money for the renovation of anchor facilities of local bases and nuclear sites all over the country. Moreover, the plan goes as far as allocating a budget of £200 million to put up a new nuclear skills plan. The venture aims to be the origin of more than 5,000 apprenticeships and a tremendous augmentation in the number of doctorates in the nuclear district.
Balancing Deterrence with Disarmament: The UK government says that its goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is not in conflict with its shorter-term aim to maintain nuclear deterrence. They continue being fully convinced of their responsibilities upon the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and other international agreements.
Reactions were mixed based on the announcement. Promoters of that policy for instance Defence Sectory Grant Shapps hold that the current international climate requires robust nuclear deterrence measures. The authors do not hesitate to claim that “current challenges the UK and its allies are facing” provide grounds for strategic extension and modernization of nuclear forces.
On the other hand, critics show their objections over the decay in the effectiveness of at least the production of nuclear weapons and their ethical principles. They contend why so much money has been allocated to building nuclear weapons over the money that has been devoted to traditional security and other social services. Together with them, they demonstrate the disastrous consequences of any universal nuclear conflict for humanitarian reasons.
If we can reach a consensus and eliminate the dangers of these devastating weapons, future generations will remember the disarmament movement with admiration. However, the UK government’s latest provocation demonstrates their intention to maintain a traditional standpipe for their military strategy including a credible nuclear deterrent for the future.
Further Considerations:
Probably, the announcement with the UK’s NATO allies is going to make their representatives start inquiring into the necessity of reducing the nuclear weapon handicap.
It remains to be seen as to what effect this decision will have on the progress and treaties of international arms control and nuclear disarmament.
The economic and environmental effects of sustaining and extending the nuclear army will be salient points, as well.
