Argument: Nuclear weapons are no longer needed

When the United Kingdom first tested Nuclear Weapons in 1952 she was still a great power with a large empire to defend. In the early 1980s when trident was being conceived [1] the UK fought a war with Argentina and the Cold War was perhaps at its deepest following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The Country was therefore in an international situation in which nuclear weapons were potentially required to deter the Soviet Union.

A study of the vulnerability of Nuclear Weapons states shows that the UK is the least vulnerable nuclear weapons state because the country is surrounded by allies and is nowhere near any states that may potentially become failed states. [2] The only conclusion from this can be that the UK no longer has any need for nuclear weapons.

[1] Fairhall, David, ‘£5 billion Trident deal is agreed’, The Guardian, 16 July 1980.

[2] Asal, Victor, and Early, Bryan, ‘Are We Focusing on the Wrong Nuclear Threat?’, Foreign Policy, 24 May 2012.

Candidate 1: "That Britain is not currently threatened with nuclear Armageddon as it was during the cold war does not mean that such a threat could never again occur. Britain must remain prepared for any eventuality which has to include the unthinkable such as the United States no longer being an ally.

The world is not yet a safe place there are many unstable states, such as North Korea, developing nuclear weapons capabalities. Beyond these dangers it is easily conceivable that the world will once again face tensions similar to those of the cold war. Given the length of time it would take to rearm should such tensions occur Britain would be safer to keep its nuclear armament."
Candidate 2: "One country disarming is not going to persuade others, particularly those like China and Russia that still consider themselves great powers, to do so. At the same time the United Kingdom’s situation can never be compared to other countries; Israel would argue it is surrounded by enemies, China that it needs them if the US has them etc. These countries would only consider whether to disarm based upon their own national interests not what other states have done. We should do the same and renew trident as being necessary for the defence of the realm."
Candidate 3: "Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters.

[1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005."
Candidate 4: "A state of the art nuclear weapons system is always going to be costly and no one wants to cut corners for the risks that could create. Yet it is money well spent when compared to the damage which would be caused if Britain was attacked due to not having a nuclear deterrent."

That Britain is not currently threatened with nuclear Armageddon as it was during the cold war does not mean that such a threat could never again occur. Britain must remain prepared for any eventuality which has to include the unthinkable such as the United States no longer being an ally.

The world is not yet a safe place there are many unstable states, such as North Korea, developing nuclear weapons capabalities. Beyond these dangers it is easily conceivable that the world will once again face tensions similar to those of the cold war. Given the length of time it would take to rearm should such tensions occur Britain would be safer to keep its nuclear armament.
