Continuous At-Sea Deterrent
Debate between Ronnie Cowan and Julian Lewis(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am delighted to follow two such supportive speeches on the nuclear deterrent and the work of those who have crewed it for the past 50 years. It is amazing to think of the combination of high training and long periods of low activity that such personnel have to undergo. They truly are the silent guardians of the country and we are hugely in their debt.
What is more, most Members of this House recognise that fact. It is worth putting on the record that in recent years the House has had two key votes on the question of the renewal of the nuclear deterrent submarine fleet, the first under the Labour Government of Tony Blair on 14 March 2007. The House voted by 409 to 161—a massive majority of 248—to proceed with the initial gate of the replacement or successor submarine fleet. The second was under the Conservative Government of the current Prime Minister on 18 July 2016, when the House voted by a colossal majority of 355—namely, 472 votes to 117—to proceed to the main stages of development and production of the submarines.
The only issue to which I took a little exception in the contribution of the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), was in one turn of phrase, when she said how appalling it would be if the deterrence weapons were used. I remind her gently that the nuclear deterrent is in use every day of every week all around the year, because the purpose of the nuclear deterrent is to ensure that nuclear war does not break out because no one is in a position to attack us with impunity.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
In the right hon. Gentleman’s description of the deterrent, will he explain why none of the missiles is actually targeted at any targets?
Dr Lewis
It is for the simple reason that, in the unlikely event of anyone being mad enough to attack us—because we have the ability to retaliate—it would be simple to target missiles to retaliate against them, and that could easily result in the obliteration of any country unwise enough to launch a nuclear attack against a nuclear power such as ourselves.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
When I rose to make my maiden speech on 1 July 2015, I touched on the Trident programme, because it is close to my heart. In fact, it is very close to my constituency. At the time, I mentioned that Trident seemed to be a bit of an abstract concept. People know it is out there, but they do not know what it is, how much it costs, how much it cannot be used and what it is actually doing as a deterrent.
If people stand on the shore of my constituency, they will often see Vanguard class submarines moving silently through the deep waters. They catch the sunlight, which shimmers along their long, sleek, black bodies as they cut through the surface of the water. Their colour may suggest giant eels, but they lack the elegance. They are, however, engineering marvels. It takes some doing to fire a missile from beneath the water’s surface, project it through the water until it breaks free, and manage two controlled explosions that project the missile to a pre-defined target where ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads are released and either explode on impact or are exploded automatically at the required height to cause maximum death and destruction. Mankind has never lacked ingenuity when it comes to inventing ways of killing each other. I cannot help but wonder what else we could have achieved with all that time, effort, ingenuity and money.
The issue we have is that successive Governments of the United Kingdom have supported and expanded the nuclear weapons programme at eye-watering cost. Why? When I sit in the House of Commons, I talk to many Members who support Trident. I can tell them that these weapons can kill tens of millions of people. But they know that. I can tell them that the watershed will be poisoned, crops will fail and many more will die in the most degrading ways from famine, pestilence and plague. But they know that. I can share stories of survivors, such as Setsuko Thurlow, who told me of people falling to the ground, bellies extended and bursting as they hit the ground, of people trying to carry their own eyes that had fallen out of their heads, and of people with their flesh falling off their bones as they died in agony.
I can also tell Members that WMD have not stopped wars across the globe from Vietnam to Afghanistan. But they know that. I can tell them that WMD are no protection from terrorism. But they know that. I can tell them that the £205 billion could be spent on health, education, housing, transport or even financing our conventional armed forces. But they know that, too.
The majority of supporters of WMD are just like me with one vital difference. They believe that WMD are a deterrent. They believe their existence has kept us safe. As those weapons have existed during a period in which we have avoided wars on the scale of the first and second world wars, I can see where they are coming from. If people believe that keeping their guard up is keeping them safe, then lowering their guard is a frightening thing to do. In this case, they are so frightened that they are prepared to carry out the greatest atrocity humankind has ever perpetrated, and have it done in their name. Well, not in my name. Not all countries believe that nuclear warfare is required. Maybe as many as nine countries feel the need to have nuclear weapons, out of 200.
Dr Julian Lewis
I make one point for the hon. Gentleman’s consideration—one could say exactly the same thing about poison gas, which was used in the first world war and not in the second. It was not used in the second because of fear of overwhelming retaliation. The British warned that we had those stocks and that we would retaliate not only on our own behalf but on behalf of our allies such as Russia. The question is, which keeps the peace?
Ronnie Cowan
We could say that about almost any weapon that we have managed to invent. The threat escalates because such weapons exist. We sit in this Chamber to debate all sorts of subjects, which we sometimes try to do in a fairly amicable manner. If that escalated and went beyond debate, it could turn to violence—but it does not, because we respect each other, we back off and we discuss it. We say to kids in the streets, “Don’t carry knives. If you are carrying one and I’m carrying one, someone will get stabbed.” We talk to those kids, saying, “Don’t carry those weapons,” yet here in this place our attitude towards ending war is to escalate the weapons that people can carry.
Trident
Debate between Ronnie Cowan and Julian Lewis(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Trident is a term often used to describe the UK’s entire nuclear weapons system, including Vanguard class submarines, Trident missiles and nuclear warheads. Each Trident D5 missile can hold up to 12 nuclear warheads, and each warhead has eight times more capacity to kill and destroy than the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima. Each submarine has 16 missile tubes, which means that it is technically capable of carrying 192 warheads. If deployed as per Hiroshima, 192 warheads, times eight, equates to killing 61 million people. With four submarines, that number grows to 250 million deaths. It would, of course, be far worse than that: a nuclear strike would lead to water supplies and arable land being polluted. Livestock would die; crops would fail. For those not initially killed by our nuclear weapons, starvation would follow. By arming themselves with Trident, the UK Government are saying that they are prepared to inflict that fate on millions of innocent civilians if that were deemed necessary.
Nobody can win a nuclear war. An exchange of nuclear weapons would lead to a level of devastation that neither side, or indeed the planet, could ever recover from. I acknowledge that we have imposed limits on the use of those weapons, but that will come as little comfort to the dead and the dying. The plan is to use a maximum of 40 warheads. Obviously, while sitting in the cloistered atmosphere of Westminster and playing war games, somebody decided that 39 warheads were not enough, and 41—well, that would be plain barbaric.
The only rational thought that could justify the renewal of Trident would be a genuine belief that its existence in some way, shape or form contributed to a more peaceful world. Since world war two, the nuclear deterrent has not stopped wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falkland Islands—I could list 20 or 30 more countries. It has not deterred terrorist attacks in London, Tunisia, Mali, Paris or New York. If nuclear weapons have proved to be completely inadequate in preventing those wars and atrocities, what are its successes? What threat does Trident address, and who does it deter?
Dr Julian Lewis
The hon. Gentleman’s argument is like saying that just because the antidote to one deadly disease is ineffective against other deadly diseases, we should not have the antidote.
Ronnie Cowan
If we had used our time, effort, money and ingenuity to fight deadly diseases instead of creating weapons of mass destruction, the world would be a better place today. We should be looking for humanitarian solutions, not for death.
Former Defence Secretary Des Browne, and Ian Kearns, the former adviser to Parliament on national security, stated:
“It has become clearer, for example, that a set of long-term threats has emerged, to which deterrence, nuclear or otherwise, is not applicable”.
Former Conservative Defence Secretary Michael Portillo said:
“Our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and doesn’t constitute a deterrent against anybody that we regard as an enemy. It is a waste of money and it is a diversion of funds”.
I agree with the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) when he said:
“The successor Trident programme is going to consume more than double the proportion of the defence budget of its predecessor…The price required, both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces, is now too high to be rational or sensible.”
I am not naive, and I know there are dangers in the world, but the sort of threats that we need to address will not be placated by Trident. The UK Government have identified terrorism, cybercrime, pandemics, natural disasters, foreign instability and foreign conflicts as our primary risks over the next five years. Trident will not solve any of those issues. In the meantime, Scotland’s coast continues to be poorly guarded, and our maritime reconnaissance is poor.
I am aware that the UK Government have finally committed to new maritime patrol vehicles, but the gap in our capability will remain, at least until 2020. Westminster’s irrational commitment to Trident has come at the expense of defence jobs in Scotland. Between 2000 and 2010, cuts to military personnel in Scotland were measured at 27.9%, compared with 11.6% across the UK as a whole. The decline continued between July 2014 and July 2015, as personnel numbers in Scotland dropped by a further 9.5%. At a lifetime cost of £167 billion, it is clear that Trident makes no economic sense. It solves none of our pressing foreign policy priorities, and it is draining resources from our conventional forces. Trident is not the solution; it is very much part of the problem.