LAB PR: Scrap Trident? Yes and No.
Lady Goldman proposes a middle ground on Trident renewal: scrap it and replace it with a fully-funded cybersecurity strategy
WESMINSTER - The Labour Party has had an admittedly difficult relationship with nuclear weapons. There is a strident, proud tradition of disarmament among many members but many of us have recognised that the reality of Government means toleration of a nuclear arsenal for national self-defence is often a key expectation of the public. Recent comments by friends and colleagues have once again raised this issue and the question of what a Labour Government in 2024 would do with Trident.
On one side of the argument are those who proclaim that to get into Government and be taken seriously on defence and national security, Labour must adapt to the reality of a nuclear world. In Government, these members would ask us to put aside our moral objections, perhaps make it clear they're too "idealistic" and articulate to the public our "maturity" by renewing the submarine missile systems or developing new ones. Some of these members would offer rationale for doing so by pointing to the manufacturing jobs that Trident creates or to the deterrent it supposedly provides.
On the flip side of the issue are our members who call for the party to stand by our principles of peace, internationalism, social justice and cooperation. They would argue that nuclear weapons belong in a Cold War mentality and moralistically, should not exist in 2019. Many of our members are also members of the CND and push for Labour to enter Government with a clear agenda to dismantle unilaterally our nuclear arsenal in the name of peace. One of the most popular arguments for this is that the money saved, which still have dubious pricetags claimed from both sides of the debate, would be better spent on public services. Dismantle Trident, comes the cry, and give the savings to the NHS. Sound familiar? You don't need to put it on a bus to realise this is unlikely to happen. My respected colleague Eva Phillips wrote the other day that the money could be spent on a whole plethora of items including ensuring "every child is fed, where every pensioner is kept warm and where every school and hospital has the resources it needs… solve the climate crisis… improve air quality… clean up our oceans."
Of course, as with most political issues, both sides are right and both sides are wrong. We should absolutely stand by our convictions and promote internationalism and cooperation and peace. We should also absolutely accept that in 2019, it is ludicrous to spend so much money on something that in reality deters nothing. Since Britain obtained our nuclear arsenal, we have seen; the Korean War, the Suez Crisis, the Vietnam War, half a dozen Cold War proxy wars, the Falklands, the First and Second Gulf Wars, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, military actions in Kosovo, Libya and Syria. Who exactly are we deterring?
That said, it would remiss of us to assume that we are safe in simply scrapping Trident and not replacing it with something more robust, more efficient, more effective and more relevant to conflict and security in the 2020s. All academic and expert research highlights three key trends in how our security is developing;
1) "Weapons" are becoming more technological and effective over time, including developing of online cybersecurity threats
2) These weapons are increasingly being used by a wider range of actors beyond the traditional Superpowers definition
3) These weapons are harder to track, quicker to use and are more readily available than every before
Trident does not address increasingly technological security threats. Trident does not address weapons being used by the likes of ISIS or terrorist organisations who are typically less concerned about protecting a civilian population. Trident doesn't help us tackle new and emerging threats. However, neither does simply pouring the money saved into social care, education or climate change, as admirable and worthwhile these causes may be.
Rather, we should use the money saved in decommissioning Trident, for both moral and strategic reasons, to research and development Britain's cybersecurity defences, our counter-terrorism expertise and our intelligence services. Only then can we say with certainly that our strategy is one of this centuty and not of the last. To prepare Britain adequately for the trends of the 2030s, rather than the 1930s, we must be bold and ambitious in our approach to national security. However, we should also be unapologetic about our commitment to our values. Labour, and Britain, should now scrap Trident, and replace it with a comprehensively resourced strategy to tackle cybersecurity treats and terrorism.