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”
FAS
Looking at this from a US perspective, I’m not sure that Trident simply isn’t on the wrong side of history. The Administration has articulated a goal of significantly reducing nuclear capacity en route to the ‘nuclear-free world’ of the Prague speech (the ‘noises’ to which I think Will referred above). That the Administration’s own push for disarmament has run into trouble with the US defense establishment isn’t surprising; what is surprising is that advocates of a defense posture more relevant to the threats of the post-Cold War world are actually starting to win, most visibly so with the defeat of the F-22. If the US really is moving toward a more cost-effective defense policy better suited to the wars we’re fighting now and are likely to fight in the future, it might behoove the UK to do the same, for reasons both of interoperability and simple self-interest. The UK may not need Trident to be a player in the world; it is, after all, the sixth-largest economy, which in itself is a pretty stick to wield, and while there is certainly a cottage-industry around Trident, the cost of maintaining the system may prove more economically damaging in the long run than cutting back now.
Marcus Roberts
Great debate here! Good to see the blogosphere is capable of respectful and constructive arguement afterall!
I’d like to add that the Obama Administration is considering more moves in cutting back on high cost, high technology systems, particularly in the nuclear area as it moves away from the Cheney/Rumsfeld school of nuclear development. More details of this should be coming from the Department of Defence after the President’s UN General Assembly speech.
Next, whilst I acknowledge that some believe that possession of a nuclear weapon is primarily a matter of prestige, I actually subscribe to the realist position on this one: nuclear weapons are an effective form of deterrent against nuclear threats. As such, we need to consider what nuclear threats we are likely to face and resource our defence needs accordingly. If we believe that those threats are more likely to come, in a global context, from North Korea or Iran rather then from Russia or China we need to adjust our nuclear posture and platform accordingly. Such a situation would require theatre level nuclear deterrent capabilities instead of a full intercontinental platform. I’ll be writing about alternatives later this week and would welcome any and all thoughts on what a credible alternative to Trident would be.
Lastly, on the question of the poll itself, the basic options of the debate are there and fairly put: Trident, something else, nothing, don’t know. I think the results are significant in showing a desire on the public’s front to move away from a ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ position of buying “the nuclear missile Harrods would sell” in a vainglorious spending-lots-of-money-to-make-us-feel-safer approach to adopt a far more mature attitude charcterised by Obama nuclear adviser Joesph Cirincione as a “put your money where your threats are” approach.
Andy Hull
The more I read and learn about Trident, the more I think it is a cold war relic we don’t need and can’t afford. Firstly, in terms of the global strategic security environment and the probable hazards and threats of the 21st century, it is not fit for purpose. Secondly, its costs are astronomical, and those who back it need to get real about the economic situation we are in. Thirdly, if our sense of national prestige rests upon our ability to obliterate indiscriminately, we need a new cornerstone for our sense of national prestige. A window of opportunity is currently opening in terms of taking the small but important steps that will eventually help us get towards a world free of nuclear weapons. The UK needs to play its part.
John
If for the moment we assume we want some system of nuclear deterence, there seems to be three possible arguements for ‘replace Trident with an equally powerful nuclear missile shield’; security and defense, influence and the comparitive cost of the alternatives.
In terms of defense, the Vanguard/trident system does provide a close to ultimate nuclear deterent. It is practically invisible, mobile, near to unlimited range, and can remain on mission for months at a time. Almost impossible to stop and can strike immediately. However, without any enemy now or in foreseeable future who would both want and have the capability to launch a suprise attack on the UK, surely this defense system far exceeds what is required and what is cost-effective.
In terms of influence, I think the greater degree of influence we would get from vanguard/trident compared to an alternative less powerful nuclear defense system would be minor to non-existent. Indeed, if the alternative is significantly cheaper and we put that saving into conventental forces, increasing numbers and capability (more helicopters!), then surely a capability we would be willing to use gains us more inflence than capability which would only come into play in the most unlikely of scenerios.
Not being an expert on costs I am looking forward to reading about the cheaper alternative on this site, but I find it hard to believe that, for example, increasing the number of Astute class submarines we are planning to build, (which would hopefully deal with the fair objections JRT has over what would happen to submarine industry), armed with nuclear cruise missile would not be both cheaper and increase the capability of our submarine fleet in it’s other roles. Of course, cruise missile would shorter range and impact but I think these are sacrifices the UK in today’s world should probably take.
That said, extending the life of the current fleet of Vanguards and re-assessing the situation, in particular China and Russia, in 6-8 years time would be another viable option although I don’t see the overall situation changing much.
raul
Two out of three people oppose renewing Trident http://bit.ly/dRQlt via @38_degrees