Should Britain have nukes?

The United Kingdom has only one way to deliver its nuclear weapons: U.S.-built submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) called Tridents, which are carried on British Vanguard-class subs. These subs are aging and due to be decommissioned in 2024. Since the British government estimates it will take 17 years to design and build a new submarine, a decision looms and an unusual debate has arisen: should the U.K. even bother maintaining its own nuclear deterrent?

Britain’s answer will almost certainly be yes, but the fact that there is a real debate at all is interesting. Detractors of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s plan to extend the lifetime of the U.K.’s nuclear forces attack it from several different angles. Nearly everyone cites the expense: roughly £20 billion (~$39 billion) that they say could be better spent. Some maintain that Britain should set an example by giving up its own weapons—as they are obligated to do under Article VI of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Other opponents say deterrence is an “unproven theory” that is “essentially flawed.” Churches across the country have decried nuclear weapons as immoral.

But most of Blair’s Labour party and the opposition Conservatives support the prime minister’s plan, and together they have more than enough votes to push the proposal through. They argue that nuclear weapons are the “ultimate insurance” against unseen future threats, especially when the number of nuclear states seems set to increase. Plus, none of the other nuclear states show any sign of giving up their own nuclear weapons. So why should Britain?

Then there are the implicit concerns, mostly unsaid. If Britain gave up its nuclear weapons, France would be the only European country to retain them. And many politicians in Britain, just like elsewhere, believe that nuclear weapons are their ticket to keeping a seat at the great-power table. At least for now, it seems, nukes are almost impossible to give up.