« Some hae meat and canna eat | Main | Wimps »

January 25, 2006

Polaris, Chevaline, Trident and ???

Waaay back in the early 1980's if you'd wandered through Reading you had a good chance of being accosted by some scruffy looking oik or smartly dressed member of the clergy and firmly enlightened as to the risks of global nuclear war; the scruffy oik may even have been me.

At the time we were protesting against the arrival of cruise missiles at Greenham Common, the deployment of the Chevaline upgrade to Polaris, and the announcement of Trident. Chevaline had cost nearly £1bn, making it the largest "secret" peacetime military program in British history; and Trident was eventually to cost more than £12bn.

Then with the "collapse of communism", the need for strategic nuclear weapons seemed to have disappeared, at least in the minds of rational people. After all, who could we use them against, and would the Americans allow us to use them in an independant manner? But we'd spent the money on swords instead of ploughshares so we were stuck with Trident. At least it seemed that we'd moved beyond the era of nuclear weapons development other than activities necessary for the maintenance of Trident.

In 1993, the Labour Party conference voted to cancel Trident and stop nuclear testing, a position also made clear in Parliament.

Hansard - Oral Answers to Questions Defence Procurement
Mr. Corbyn : Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for a serious review of Britain's defence expenditure, which now totals more than £23 billion a year? Should not we cancel the nuclear missile programme and consign all nuclear missiles back to base as part of a programme of worldwide disarmament? Should not we try to cut conventional expenditure to at least the European average, which would save £6 billion a year? Should not we also ensure that skilled workers who are at present manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and other forms of armaments are put to making socially useful products, including materials for the health service and housing industry--and recognise that world peace is best achieved by people working for peace rather than by arming themselves for war?

Now fast-forward to 2006, a Labour government is in power, the former Soviet Union presents no significant threat requiring an independant nuclear deterrent and Trident has many years of life left in it. Throw in phased withdrawal and life extension programs, and Trident could still be in service for 20 to 30 years at least.

So how has the situation arisen where H.M.G. is allocating significant funds for nuclear weapons research, monies that are already being spent:

The Herald - Faslane to have £125m facelift

Defence chiefs gave the go-ahead for the investment to try to attract the navy's best staff to the nuclear submarine base.

Surely if Trident is merely to be maintained, then no expansion of Faslane is required? And why try to attract the brightest and best?

More telling are the expansion plans - already at the planning application stage - for AWE Aldermaston.

AWE - AWE Updates Site Development Plans

Hydrodynamics is the science of shock forces acting on solid materials. AWE has led the world in this area of science and plans to maintain the lead with the construction of a new hydrodynamics research facility – known as a Core Punch Facility.

The existing facility, HELEN, proved sufficient for the development of the Trident warheads, so if they are just to be life extended is there any need for enhanced facilities? The AWE press release may actually reveal more than intended, and ORION may be about more than just Trident life-extension.

ORION is an important factor in plasma physics research, and Aldermaston also specialises in hydrodynamics, the science of shock forces acting on solid materials

It would seem to me more likely that Aldermaston is expanding to facilitate research into nuclear bunker busters, along lines similar to programs in the U.S. which have received congressional approval.

ContraCosta Times - Report claims warhead program would promote new nukes

The DOE's Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which recently received $25 million in congressional funding for a second year of feasibility studies, is a "slippery slope to new nuclear weapons," according to the author of the new report, physicist Robert Civiak. He worked for more than a decade on national security issues in the president's Office of Managem

Now nuclear bunker busters seriously blur the line regarding the use of atomic weapons in warfare. To some military planners the use of nuclear bunker busters would not constitute the first use of atomic weapons in combat. With a subterranean detonation it would be difficult initially to determine whether or not the explosion was nuclear, but might trigger a nuclear response on the part of the nation thus attacked.

Michel Chossudovsky - The Dangers of Nuclear War: Interview with Michel Chossudovsky

I should mention that these tactical nuclear weapons, which are often referred to as 'mini-nukes,' are now in a sense re-classified - in fact they are considered as conventional weapons and the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred following a decision in the U.S. Senate, December 2003, which essentially allows for these so-called mini nukes to be used in conventional war theatres and in fact, the senate decision was reached after a propaganda campaign waged by the Pentagon, which enlisted nuclear scientists to the fact these nuclear bombs were harmless to civilians, quote, unquote. That's exactly the term they used, that these nuclear weapons are "harmless to civilians" because the explosion is underground, and the system of delivery would be very similar to the conventional bunker buster bombs.

So it looks like our government wants to join an exclusive club without recourse to Parliament, or at best with debate conducted under misleading terms.

And why is there no significant debate on the matter in the mainstream media?

George Monbiot has this to say on the matter:

The defence secretary explains that a new missile system is necessary because “some countries” have not been “complying with their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty”(5). In response, therefore, the UK will refuse to comply with its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. This provides other countries with their justification for … well, you’ve got the general idea.

Now in theory Berkshire County Council could delay matters by asking for a public inquiry into the expansion plans for Aldermaston, though we'll know tomorrow whether or not they have stepped up to the plate. And even if an inquiry is requested, the Government is under no obligation to grant it. So once again it is up to people on the ground to do what they can in the face of Government arrogance and indifference.

I thought, over the years as I grew up, that our society might have grown too; that as we left the Cold War behind us, so our nation would abandon the trappings of that era and - albeit slowly - get rid of our nuclear weapons. In my naivety I stopped supporting CND, not maliciously, but simply in a belief that there were other things to worry about.

I was wrong. So I'm going to signup and do what I can, and I ask you to do the same.

More on CND's campaign against the expansion of the AWE can be found here.

Posted by Clive on January 25, 2006 3:44 PM in the category War

Comments

Comments Closed