Invalid or Broken rss link.


“Reassuringly, as North Korea tests yet another intercontinental ballistic missile, the UK Government has voted by a large majority to commission the next generation submarines to carry Britain’s nuclear deterrent out to 2050 and beyond.  This was the only viable decision in my opinion in what is a troubled and complex world. The events in Nice on Thursday and Turkey on Friday personify this.

The debate and vote last night was about how we deploy our nuclear deterrent which is currently housed in submarines which cruise silently, secretly, deep in the oceans. They are ready 365 days per year to deploy their devastating power to protect the people and shores of the United Kingdom.  Maintaining the UK as a nuclear power is critical to our future security.

Forget the EU, UN and NATO it is Britain’s nuclear deterrent that gives us a meaningful voice on the world stage as a member of the UN’s P5.  This is not just about plucky Britain punching above its weight, it about the UK exercising its very considerable diplomatic skills to temper the somewhat erratic ambitions of Russia, coupled with uncertainty over the shape and dimensions of the next US administration.  The increasingly bumptious actions by N Korea, potential loop holes in the Iranian nuclear deal, and a likely increased nuclear programme in India,Pakistan and elsewhere, means now is not the time for unilateral disarmament.  Tempting as this might seem to some, this school playground approach to de-escalation in nuclear terms would be as effective as an air rifle pellet against a charging rhino.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the UK at the moment is from Jihadist terrorism perpetuated by ISIL.  It is well documented that ISIL are trying to develop a ‘dirty’ bomb technology and Improvised Nuclear Devices (IND).  The prospect of ISIL having a nuclear capability, albeit OpinionIND is horrific.  Though I believe they are some way from acquiring this capability it is not completely beyond the bounds of possibility.  In order to counter this threat we must stay at the forefront of preventing nuclear proliferation to ensure an ISIL capability does not materialise and providing a massive and overwhelming counter if it does.

Whatever our views of BREXIT, in these uncertain times TRIDENT has become even more important.  However, the vote on Monday is how to exercise the delivery of the deterrent, ‘Continuous at Sea Deterrent’ and not whether we should renew it.  Some advocate not deploying submarines as a de-escalation and cost save proposal. To accept this is incongruous.  The key issue about a deterrent is the acceptance that it is there to be used should the Armageddon scenario materialise.  Submarines packed up in dockyards are unusable as a deterrent due to the time required to ‘fire’ them up.  Hence any change to the modus operandi of Trident would in my opinion invalidate the UK’s deterrent.

Most people in Britain understand and support the continued requirement for our nuclear deterrent, which has after all kept world peace in no small measure for over 70 years.  UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn showed his  CND/anti-Trident rhetoric in Parliament on Monday but had almost no support from his MPs.  This drove yet another nail into his Prime-ministerial ambitions and once more showed his unsuitability to lead this country in the multi polar 21st Century world.”

Hamish de Bretton Gordon is a chemical weapons expert, former commander of the NATO CBRN Regiment, and now advises Syrian NGOs. 


2 Comments on "Opinion; Why The UK Needs Its Nuclear Deterrent."

  1. Credit to you Hamish for not using the word ‘independent’ when describing the nuclear deterrent. I could fully get behind a deterrent that didn’t depend on the USA for continued servicing and maintenance but the current renewal proposal doesn’t offer this. It is practically useless as a deterrent to terrorism and it is only the political aspects of renewal that currently offer any real benefit to offset the huge costs. Who exactly would we strike with our missiles if there was a nuclear explosion in London? would that have any real chance of completely obliterating what is likely to be an organisation with fragments located around the world?.

  2. Peter Kennedy | 20th July 2016 at 10:21 pm | Reply

    I agree with what Rob Walker just said. If ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device in the centre of London then those in power would be hard pressed to find a suitable target. Medina? Meccah? Both of these sites are important to the Muslim faith but to choose them as nuclear targets would a) enrage ALL of the world’s Muslims and b) Probably lead to war with Saudi Arabia. The rest of the Middle East is a very crowded place.

    The Trident submarines are a relic of the Cold War when the Warsaw Pact had tens of thousands of troops waiting to march west, should they have chosen to do so then the UK had the option of launch. The Cold War is now over and I would much rather see the cost of Trident funnelled into the NHS.

    One more thing. I have visited Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and I strongly suggest that anyone in favour of nuclear weapons should make a similar visit. Once you understand the power that you want to unleash you will probably change your mind.

Leave a Reply to Rob Walker Cancel reply

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please consider if you're contributing to the discussion before you post. Abuse and general negativity will not be allowed to appear on the site. This might be the Internet but let's try to keep things civil.

Your email address will not be published.



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.