Any system - as long as it's Trident 
Monday 13 June 2011 by Steve Schofield

This is the official line - no final decision has been made on Trident and the schedule has been delayed so that the next Parliament can have the final say on whether to continue or not.

There is only one problem.

It's a complete pack of lies.

Trident is set fair on the original timetable, which was to have a new fleet of submarines from the mid 2020s to early 2030s and the government, in compliance with the demands of the military-industrial complex, is running a sideshow to maintain the illusion of democratic accountability.

The conspiracy dates back to the early 2000s and even before the last of the existing Trident submarine fleet had entered service.

For the military planners, 25 to 30-year timescales are quite normal, and it was always envisaged that, in order to maintain compatibility with the United States on Trident missiles, a new generation of submarines would be required in the mid to late 2020s.

Under the Blair administration a commitment had been made to put any plan for nuclear modernisation before Parliament.

So the military-industrial complex developed a fairly crude but still effective strategy to guarantee an early endorsement.

Instead of the expected 30-year operational life for the Trident fleet, the Ministry of Defence simply reduced it to 25 years, while industry representatives gave evidence to parliamentary committees that the design phase for the new submarines also had to be extended.

Yet both the MoD and industry were well aware that the US Ohio-class nuclear submarine fleet, on which British Trident is based, was having its operational life increased beyond 30 years, following mid-life updates, and that new computer design techniques could actually reduce the time needed for development of the follow-on Trident.

But the changes had the desired effect in gaining a parliamentary vote in 2007 for the principle of modernisation based on a new fleet of Trident submarines and to endorse the timetable for design and production to begin in 2009 rather than 2014.

This accelerated timetable ensured that funding and industrial commitments were in place well before they were actually needed while helping to close off any debate about future options.

Once the formality of the vote had been completed, the MoD could move to what it calls the "pre-main gate" expenditure phase, stressing in public that that the final decision still rested with Parliament on the "main gate" expenditure and full production.

This distinction is illusory because the MoD will have spent at least £3 billion by that time.

Steel hull sections and other long-lead items for the submarines will have already been sent to the Barrow shipyard and industrial timetables will be well advanced.

Since the Wilson government of 1964, which was elected on a platform to cancel Polaris but continued the programme because of high cancellation costs, the nuclear weapons story has been one of state deception.

Whether it was the secret installation of the Chevaline warheads in the 1970s and the masking of the £1bn costs from Parliament, or beginning the design for a much larger and more expensive submarine in the 1980s before any official decision was announced on replacing the smaller C4 with the D5 missile, the idea of democratic accountability has been treated with barely disguised contempt.

The military-industrial complex simply has too much invested in Trident, through which it maintains the illusion of Britain's great power status.

You only have to consider the scale of the investment.

From the new facilities at Aldermaston for the design and development of warheads to the giant submarine bases at Faslane and Coulport where the missiles are stored, vast sums of public money have been invested in the infrastructure of nuclear weapons.

Overall, this represents the biggest capital programme ever carried out by the British state, drawing on the skills and resources of an army of scientists and skilled engineers.

So this tragi-comedy enters its closing scenes with the government, under Lib Dem prompting, having announced yet another so-called delay to the final decision, while also highlighting cost savings as a review of options is carried out.

But, just as in the run-up to the vote in 2007, the MoD will produce a sham report that effectively says you can have any system you want - as long as it's Trident.

The cost, rather than falling, will continue to rise from £20bn to £25bn.

The only sensible option - and the one that won't be under consideration, of course - is cancellation.

Take the financial hit on Trident, with some compensation costs, and then close down the whole nuclear weapons infrastructure.

Although expensive, it would be a very small price to pay compared to the government bail-out of the banks, while saving the bulk of the £25bn construction costs and all of the £80bn operational costs.

More importantly, it would signal to the rest of the world that Britain was intent on leading a new era of international disarmament.

But the peace movement needs to be clear about the nature of power and the scale of the challenge that faces us.

Parliament, without external pressure, will simply carry out the wishes of the military-industrial complex.

What is needed is a determined, direct action campaign where the main nuclear facilities are targeted on a regular and intensive basis.

The Trident programme has been accelerated not delayed, all options are closed not open, there are no savings but only cost increases and any final review demonstrates not the power of Parliament but its utter irrelevance.

Such is the abysmal state of our democracy when such crucial decisions are being taken by a corrupt militarist elite to lock the country into another generation of nuclear weapons.