The pros and cons of Trident

Keir Starmer has further distanced himself from his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn by saying he would push the button on Britain's nuclear arsenal if necessary. 

The Labour leader and likely next prime minister described the Trident nuclear programme as "a vital part of our defence", adding that "of course that means we have to be prepared to use it".

Adhering to the West's nuclear doctrine, "Starmer did not set out the circumstances in which he would actually use the UK's nuclear arsenal," said Politico. But the commitment alone was an "eye-opening moment in the campaign – and an important one for Starmer," who has sought to define himself in contrast to Corbyn, who said he would "never be the person to press the nuclear button".

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What is Trident?

The Trident nuclear missile system is based at Faslane in Scotland and consists of four Vanguard-class submarines, each carrying eight ballistic nuclear warheads. There is always at least one submarine on patrol, with two others armed and ready to be deployed at relatively short notice, so the fourth is able to undergo maintenance. Trident's ballistic missiles have a range of around 4,000 miles and their destructive power is the equivalent of eight Hiroshima bombs.

The current generation of submarines will begin to end their working lives this decade and are due to be replaced by a new Dreadnought class in the early 2030s. Their renewal will certainly reignite the debate over the role of nuclear weapons in Britain's defence programme.

Pros: the ultimate deterrent

For Trident's supporters, the threat of retaliation to a nuclear attack remains the ultimate deterrent to any aggressor, and the best means of ensuring peace – as it and its predecessors have done successfully since the Second World War.

The ongoing threats posed by hostile states like Iran and North Korea as well as existing nuclear powers such as Russia and China should "serve to remind all of us that nuclear weapons continue to play a crucial role in world affairs", said US defence journal Defense One. "If you think the world is dangerous now, try envisioning it without a credible, safe and reliable nuclear deterrent."

Con: the ultimate threat to world peace

Critics of nuclear weapons say their proliferation represents the gravest threat to world peace. The more states that have them, the argument goes, the more likely it is that they will be used.

To its detractors, Trident is a relic of a Cold War mentality that wields the "grotesque" threat of nuclear attack against an adversary, said the BBC. The "humanitarian consequences" of deploying nuclear weapons against would be "unfathomable".

Pro: clout on world stage

Possession of nuclear weapons gives the UK clout on the world stage it would not otherwise have. In 1957, the shadow foreign secretary Aneurin Bevan stated that unilateral nuclear disarmament would "send a foreign secretary naked into the conference chamber".

Writing for the Institute of Economic Affairs(IEA), Kate Andrews agreed that the presence of Trident allows the UK to "continue to assert its presence as a strong do-gooder in the world.

"And as long as nuclear deterrence is part of this mission, Trident still seems the sensible option – economically and strategically," she said.

Con: rise of asymmetric warfare 

While the war in Ukraine has stoked fears of nuclear-armed blocs facing off against each other, the nature of the war on the ground has also revived calls for more of the defence budget to be spent on training and equipping conventional forces.

The truth is nuclear weapons are ill-suited to meet the challenge of asymmetric warfare conducted by insurgencies and, increasingly, remotely operated drones.

Pro: economic benefits

The government's stance is that "designing, building, maintaining and operating" Trident is "directly supporting tens of thousands of jobs across the country", according to the Ministry of Defence.

Around 2,500 companies in the UK are employed through the supply chain, with the IEA estimating "perhaps 30,000" jobs could be created and/or retained through the continued use of Trident. And indeed, the SNP – which has long opposed the renewal of Trident – has often struggled to articulate how it would make up the shortfall in jobs if the programme was scrapped.

Con: cost of operating and renewal

Trident costs billions of pounds to operate and maintain a year, at a time when government departments are facing a squeeze across the board.

Annual running costs are estimated at 6% of the defence budget – about £3 billion for 2023-24. The BBC estimates the cost of the new Dreadnought boats being built at Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria to come to £31 billion.

Scottish Greens external affairs spokesperson Ross Greer called Trident a "vast money pit" and said that the money "could be far better spent eradicating poverty, tackling the climate crisis and transforming public services like the NHS".