New warheads: UK lobbies Congress
From END Info 18 | August 2020. Download here
The United Kingdom likes to describe the Trident nuclear weapons system as an ‘independent nuclear deterrent.’ Nuclear disarmers have long argued that the system is neither ‘independent’ nor a ‘deterrent’ of any kind. A letter seen by the Guardian newspaper (01/08/20) adds to a substantial body of evidence confirming Britain’s dependence on the US.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace wrote to members of the US Congress in April this year, asking them to approve spending on the development of a new warhead, the W93. Wallace wrote:
“These are challenging times, but it is crucial that we demonstrate transatlantic unity and solidarity in this difficult period ... Congressional funding ... for the W93 program will ensure that we continue to deepen the unique nuclear relationship between our two countries, enabling the United Kingdom to provide safe and assured continuous-at-sea deterrence for decades to come.”
What moved Wallace to write to Congress in these terms and on whose behalf, exactly, was he writing? Wallace’s letter suggests that without Congressional funding, the UK will not be able to maintain a “safe and assured”capability. In a written Ministerial Statement issued in February this year, Wallace stated:
“As set out in our annual updates to Parliament on the Future of the UK’s Nuclear Deterrent the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Nuclear Organisation is working with the Atomic Weapons Establishment: to build the highly skilled teams and put in place the facilities and capabilities needed to deliver the replacement warhead; whilst also sustaining the current warhead until it is withdrawn from service. We will continue to work closely with the U.S. to ensure our warhead remains compatible with the Trident Strategic Weapon System.”
In this statement, which was only made after US officials ‘accidentally’ disclosed British involvement in new warhead plans, Wallace also uses the word “ensure” with respect to US/UK cooperation on warheads. Without such cooperation, would the UK be able to ‘do it alone’? It seems not.
The US debate on whether to grant funding is taking place within the context of the upcoming US election and the fact that billions of dollars have already been agreed to upgrade existing warheads. There is obviously some concern that should Trump be replaced, then development of the W93 would be in doubt. Where would this leave Britain’s ‘independent nuclear deterrent’? The Guardian quotes official figures stating that the current US warhead (W76) is viable until 2045 and that the UK version “is expected to last until the late 2030’s”. It seems certain that any future US administration will maintain the nuclear alliance with the UK and that the required warheads will be supplied. If so, why the rush to gain Congressional support and why the letter, which was described by one Congressional committee aid as “a little bit surprising”?
Could it be the case that the US/UK ‘special relationship’ is so close that a Conservative government in the UK can be instructed by a Republican President to lobby a Democrat majority Congress? Such a scenario does not seem out of the realm of possibility.
Whatever the facts about ‘who gave the order’ to write the letter, it is clearer than ever that Britain’s nuclear capability is wholly dependent on US funding and technology. It is clear that both the US and UK are determined to have a new generation of nuclear warheads. It is plain to see that the UK government is at the back of the queue when it comes to warning against President Trump’s reckless and destructive ‘bonfire of the treaties’. It should be clear that UK Trident is not an ‘independent’ or ‘autonomous’ system but is an integrated arm of the US nuclear system.