Clegg Should ‘Get Real’ on U.K.’s Trident Replacement

Clegg Should ‘Get Real’ on U.K.’s Trident Replacement

During Britain's recent parliamentary elections, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg argued that the U.K. should scrap the proposed "like-for-like" replacement of its submarine-based nuclear deterrent, known as Trident, with a similar modernized system. As a possible alternative, Clegg's party has suggested fitting Britain's Astute-class submarines with nuclear cruise missiles, or in the event of a crisis, arming these same submarines with Trident missiles. Although such proposals may lead to financial savings, they are deeply flawed and could have far-reaching strategic and political implications for both the United Kingdom and its NATO allies. With Clegg now part of Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government, he will hopefully "get real" about Trident, as former Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged in the second prime ministerial debate on April 22.

Rather than enhancing U.K. and NATO security, the arming of submarines with nuclear missiles during crises is potentially destabilizing, since it could provoke an adversary to increase their own state of readiness. By contrast, continuous at-sea deterrent patrols virtually eliminate the risk of sending inadvertent escalation signals. Even if the nuclear-armed submarines may never be called upon, they provide a hedge against unforeseen threats while minimizing the risk of crisis escalation.

It is also debatable whether a system based on cruise missiles will provide an adequate deterrent. The range of a cruise missile is up to 1,550 miles, in comparison to a Trident D-5 ballistic missile, whose range is over 4350 miles. This means that in order for a submarine armed with cruise missiles to carry out an effective strike, it must be closer to its target, making it more susceptible to attack. Cruise missiles are also more likely to be shot down if detected. Given these factors, such a weapon system will only add limited value to NATO's defense posture. Furthermore, the merit of maintaining a nuclear weapons platform that only has limited deterrence capability should be heavily scrutinized.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.