As the US lowers the nuclear threshold, debate is stifled

MPs must follow the lead of the US Senate and demand the information we need to question the replacement of Trident

...
The Senate armed services committee is not fooled and has asked the Pentagon for a briefing on the new doctrine. In Britain the document has barely been noticed, and the Ministry of Defence is refusing to release any information on the government's plans to maintain a nuclear deterrent and replace the existing Trident missile system. Last week it dismissed requests for MoD documents under the Freedom of Information Act, refusing to say what studies have been made about the costs involved. It refuses even to say what nuclear weapons are for, arguing that it is not in the public interest to publish its assessments about what threats such weapons could deter.

The MoD was asked to release studies it has made assessing the threats that might be deterred by a Trident replacement. It replied that though there was a "strong public interest" in the UK having a "credible nuclear deterrent", "it is felt that releasing information about the potential value of a deterrent capability ... could damage national security, and we do not believe there would be any public interest in doing so".

The ministry also refuses to disclose the nature of discussions with the US on nuclear-weapons policy on the grounds that "there is a public interest in the UK maintaining strong relations with the US". That would be prejudiced, the MoD argues, if any information about talks with American officials was released.

In an interview with the Guardian last month, John Reid, the defence secretary, promised an open debate on any decision to replace Trident. There should be a debate in the country as well as in parliament, he suggested. In light of the blanket refusal to release any papers relating to the matter, a defence official told the Guardian: "There is no need for a debate now. When the time comes there will be a debate." That, presumably, will be when it is too late to make any difference to what the government has already decided, in private with Washington.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1584990,00.html

Worse than irrelevant

Down at Aldermaston they are spending hundreds of millions of pounds of your money on a refit of the production line for nuclear warheads. We are assured this does not mean that any decision has been made to replace the Trident nuclear system. Dear me no, the investment is merely intended to keep open our options.

If we want to exercise the option of producing more weapons, we are told we must make up our minds in this parliament. This is not because Trident is in imminent danger of going out of service. The British submarines can keep on diving and surfacing for another two decades. The problem is that it will take that long to order, build and commission another expensive fleet to replace them.
...
It is not as if the large sums that would be required to keep us in the nuclear game would buy us an independent weapon. Dan Plesch documents in an impressive forthcoming report that all levels of the Trident system depend on US cooperation. The missiles are not even owned by us, but are leased from the Pentagon in an arrangement that Denis Healey once dubbed as "rent-a-rocket". Renewing our collaboration with the US on nuclear weapons will deepen the bonds between Downing Street and the White House, at the very time when the rest of the nation longs for a more independent stance.

It is therefore against Britain's national interests to replace Trident. It is also against our international obligations, notably the commitment in the non-proliferation treaty to proceed in good faith to nuclear disarmament.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1538629,00.html

British SLBMs are thought to carry a variation of the U.S. W76 warhead designed for Trident I C4 and Trident II D5, enclosed in a U.S. Mk-4 reentry vehicle.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab18.asp

Penney, who had been involved in the development of the first atomic bombs in the United States during World War II, began operations at the former wartime airfield at Aldermaston in Berkshire, on 1 April 1950 - and the Atomic Weapons Establishment was born.
...
Prompted by British advances in the development of the hydrogen bomb, the United States signed an agreement with the United Kingdom in July 1958 which enabled collaboration between the two countries on nuclear defence. This ushered in a series of technical exchanges which have been a cornerstone of life for our nuclear weapons community ever since.

http://www.awe.co.uk/main_site/about_awe/history/