Nuclear Deterrent Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Defence

Nuclear Deterrent

Joan Ruddock Excerpts
Wednesday 18th May 2011

(13 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liam Fox Portrait Dr Fox
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I rather fear that my hon. Friend is a little too late. Having made my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces sit through some 57 hours of the strategic defence and security review, I feel I have already inflicted a cruel and unusual punishment on him. I refer my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) back to the advice he gave me when we were in opposition, which was that we should never be afraid to have the most rigorous look at alternative systems. When one considers the evidence, the costings and the threats, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that a submarine-based continuous at-sea deterrent based on the Trident system will be the best protection for the United Kingdom. I take him at his word and I am not at all afraid to consider the alternatives.

Joan Ruddock Portrait Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Given the phenomenal cost of this weapons system and given that we will commit future generations to it by these actions, I believe that people have the right to understand whether this weapons system can be used. What are the circumstances in which Trident would be used? Will the Secretary of State tell the House?

Liam Fox Portrait Dr Fox
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

This has always been at the heart of the deterrent argument. The whole point is that there is uncertainty about the circumstances in which the United Kingdom would respond, and the system therefore acts as a proper deterrent. We would hope that such weapons would never have to be used, because they would deter any threat against us. That is the principle and the core of the issue, and it is something that the unilateralists never understood.