An exclusive poll carried out by YouGov for Left Foot Forward reveals that 63 per cent oppose the Government's plans to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent while a diminishing number of people believe that nuclear weapons make them safer.
An exclusive poll carried out by YouGov for Left Foot Forward reveals that 63 per cent oppose the Government’s plans to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent while a diminishing number of people believe that nuclear weapons make them safer.
The poll of 2009 adults carried out between 10th and 11th September shows that only 23 per cent believe that Britain should replace Trident with an equally powerful nuclear missile shield. 40 per cent say that Britain should “retain a minimum nuclear system, but it should be less powerful and cost less than replacing Trident.” A further 23 per cent say Britain should give up nuclear weapons altogether.
The poll also shows that the number of people who think that the possession of nuclear weapons makes Britain safer has fallen from 44 per cent when considering the threat of the Cold War to 32 per cent thinking of the threat faced today or in the future. Thinking about the international issues that Britain might face in future decades, 25 per cent think that “continued possession of nuclear weapons” makes Britain less safe.
The poll comes just days after Greenpeace published evidence that the true cost of Trident could reach £97 billion. Meanwhile, the online campaigning organisation, 38 degrees, today launches a petition on Trident.
25 Responses to “Trident opposed by two-in-three”
JRT
Talking of fighting ‘media manipulation’, let’s look at those figures another way. 73% of people in this country believe we should have a nuclear weapons system. So on that basis alone we ought to retain nuclear weapons.
Ask anyone if they want something for less (especially public services) and they’ll say ‘yes’, so it’s hardly a surprising result. I notice you didn’t ask ‘should we keep the nuclear deterrent or not’ which would spin the question in a way you wouldn’t like! Unfortunately, and most of the public aren’t aware, there are very few other ways of keeping a CREDIBLE nuclear deterrent other than Trident. It’s by far and away the cheapest – compare to what the French spend – availble credible nuclear deterrent and very good value for money. Not only is your position utterly false but you’re also guilty of the media manipulation you so deplore.
willstraw
Hi JRT,
I’m afraid that’s not quite right. 63% (ie 40% + 23%) favour retaining a nuclear deterrent and we don’t pretend otherwise. But by far the largest grouping (40%) call for a deterrent that is “less powerful and costs less” than Trident.
As we will show later this week, there are cheaper alternatives to Trident which, given the latest noises coming from the US and the changing global threats that we face (vis a vis the era of the Cold War), need serious consideration.
The public is already there. It’s time for politicians to play catch up.
All the best,
Will
Miller 2.0
“The first duty of any Govt is to ensure and to insure the territorial integrity of this (or any other) country.
To fail to do that invites disaster – and there are no shortages of potential disaster scenarios we saw one in the Falklands War 1982.”
How many countries have managed to do this successfully without nuclear weapons? How did they stop Galtieri invading the Falklands?
For that matter, what application do they have in the days of asymmetric warfare and civilian terrorism?
Keep Right Online, obviously nobody expects you to back Labour economic policy anyway…
But perhaps we would be in better position to back Trident if we had let the banks collapse, eh?!
I think the argument is fairly simple. I backed Trident when we had better finances. Now we don’t, I’m a lot more shaky. It’s better to spend money on stuff we will actually use, it seems to me.
JRT
Will: Thanks for your response. Perhaps my comment about manipulation was rather unfair – but I did want to suggest that there’s a certain element of interpretation at work here.
I look forward to what you have to say on alternatives and will take a look.
A general point about ‘public opinion’ is that politicians should be vary wary about following it slavishly. If they did we’d end up with some policies that your organisation would be extremely opposed to (I’ve no doubt). Politicians sometimes need the courage to go against or even to set the tone of public opinion, otherwise the majority would tyrannise the minority and some very poor decisions would be made.
On the subject of the US, I’m not 100% sure what you’re driving at there (please clarify) but we certainly shouldn’t slavishly follow what the US want, look where that’s led us! We need to forge as independent a path as we can whilst remaining close allies. Ditto on Europe. On the other hand, the US have always wanted us to have Trident and continue to do so because it supports their own case for having it.
Britain’s retention of Trident has little to do with changing threats. This is the point about nuclear weapons (and has relevance to our armed forces in general) – it’s not about threats. We didn’t acquire nuclear weapons because we were threatened by the Russians, we acquired them so we could try and play with them and the US on the world stage. The concept of ‘threat’ is merely a means of ‘selling’ the weapons to the taxpayer, as it so often has been. Read the history. Especially vis a vis nuclear weapons – but the same with other items of defence inventory – it’s about the simple fact of having them; it makes you a player on the world scene. At the same time, however, you need a credible delivery system and Trident (or even a pared-down Trident) is the best way of doing so. You might or might not want Britain to be a player on the world stage, which is a somewhat different issue, but you have to admit that our possession of nuclear weapons is a major component of global influence. Again, the example of France is salutary. Further, why do the Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians and Koreans etc want them? It’s not about the threats they face particularly, which in the case of India say are minimal, it’s about being one of the powers. We don’t face any threats worth mentioning, except to our global status, and by (i) renouncing the nuclear deterrent and (ii) rejecting Trident you will be threatening our global status. Oh and handing over control of EU foreign/defence policy entirely to France – smart move.
IF (!) you can find a genuinely cheaper alternative to Trident which delivers similar levels of credibility, go ahead, but I doubt you will. When I say genuinely, I mean the total cost which would have to factor in many elements such as the cost of firing all those expensively-trained submariners, developing and maintaining the necessary equipment (whichever form that would take?), training the new personnel to operate and maintain it, decomissioning Faslane as a base and dealing with the resultant unemployment in that area and ditto the ruin of the UK’s submarine-building industry. Also bear in mind that any new project would inevitably cost more than the ticket price – they always do. My point being, it’s easy to say that such and such a system costs x while Trident costs y, but there are a great deal of hidden costs which will not be factored into that equation. And we wouldn’t want to be guilty of manipulating figures would we? Good luck!
Richard Blogger
JRT:
I am afraid your analysis is not correct. The only sensible nuclear deterrent is submarine based, because missiles in a fixed location means that they will become a target (hence you have to dig huge holes to protect them) and the range of the missile restricts the possible targets. A submarine based deterrent means that you can move it around in such a way that you can target anywhere and you can also hide the launch site from counter measures.
The only sensible submarine to use is one with nuclear propulsion, because these submarines can stay under water the longest. Currently we have the Vanguard class of submarines and these are what is known as the “Trident system”. The replacement for Trident is a replacement for the submarines. The missiles are a separate issue. An alternative for Trident could be land-based and I doubt if it would be any cheaper than the replacement submarines. In effect, you have to replace the submarines to maintain the nuclear deterrent. If you do not replace the submarines you cannot have a deterrent. So this survey is incorrect. There are just two options[*]: replace the Vanguard class submarines, or have no nuclear deterrent at all. Taking this into account it means that 2/3 of people do not want a nuclear deterrent. However, my interpretation is only possible because the question is badly formed. The survey should be perfornmed again making it clear that without the Vanguard submarines we cannot have a nuclear deterrent. I would prefer for there not to be a nuclear deterrent, buit I think that the question should be phrased in such a way for people to express their views. This question was phrased to mislead the respondents.
[*] There is a third option, which I think is the real reason why the question was badly phrased. The third option is to retain the existing Vanguard submarines and to upgrade and re-fit them. This will still cost billions, but will be less than building new submarines. In effect it puts off the problem of replacinhg Trident for another decade or so and hence it becomes someone else’s problem. This is what the Americans are doing, and I think it will be the option that the UK government will take. It will be announced as a cost cutting measure, and justified because it is “clearly” supported by 40% (the largest group in this survey) of respondents, while tipping a hat to the “clearly” 63% who want to keep the deterrent.