Brown is smothering debate on Trident

12.14.04pm UTC (GMT +0000) Thu 22nd Jun 2006

Do we really need to spend £25billion on these?

Commenting on Gordon Brown's support for the replacement of Britain's independent nuclear strike capacity, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, Nick Harvey MP said: "Gordon Brown's posturing on Trident is smothering the national debate that this Government promised to the British people. Regular Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Questions have brought repeated denials from Ministers that work on options for Trident replacement has even started. The British people deserve a comprehensive White Paper and full parliamentary scrutiny of a scheme that may cost up to £25billion to replace."

The issue of Britain's independent submarine-based Trident nuclear deterrent has always been a controversial one, especially within the Labour Party, which opposed Margaret Thatcher's decision to commission Trident in the 1980s.

Britain tested its first nuclear weapon in 1952 and detonated a hydrogen bomb in 1957. A year later a US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed which allowed the sharing of nuclear technology. Britain abandoned its air launched system in the 1960s and bought the US-built Polaris submarine launched system. The first British submarine armed with Polaris missiles started to patrol in 1968. Polaris was later replaced with Trident missiles which are also bought from the USA. The warheads and submarines are British built but are useless without American missiles. So how "independent" is our independent nuclear strike capacity? Do we really need it anyway? Gordon Brown gave no answers to these and many other questions.