• UK
  • 04:36 23 Nov 2009
  • |    Geneva
  • 05:36 23 Nov 2009

Britian's Nuclear Deterrent

“Photograph by: Royal Navy; © Crown Copyright/MOD, image from www.photos.mod.uk.
Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office”.

The decision to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent is explained in the government's White paper on The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent.  This decision was part of a 3 month public debate before it was put to a parliamentary vote in 2007. 
 
In an address to the Conference on Disarmament on 22 February 2007, FCO Minister for Non-Proliferation and Disarmament issues, Dr Kim Howells outlined the UK’s commitment to retaining the minimum nuclear deterrent capability to provide effective deterrence, while setting an example where possible, by reducing our nuclear capability, and working multilaterally for nuclear disarmament and to counter nuclear proliferation.  The UK believe's this is the right balance between our commitment to a world in which there is no place for nuclear weapons and our responsibilities to protect the current and future citizens of the UK.
 

Questions and Answers

Is Trident replacement legal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty? 

Renewal of the Trident system is fully consistent with our international obligations, including those on disarmament. The UK fully complies with its obligations under Article VI of the Non Proliferation Treaty which does not establish a timetable for unilateral disarmament, either nuclear or general, and does not state that replacement or updating of currently held systems would be unlawful. Instead, Article VI places an obligation on all NPT member States to pursue the necessary negotiations to achieve the goal of disarmament.  The UK shares this goal of a world free from nuclear weapons. Towards this end, we continue to press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons.
 

Is retaining the deterrent incompatible with NPT Article VI

The NPT does not establish any timetable for nuclear disarmament. Nor does it prohibit maintenance or renewal of existing capabilities. Renewing the current Trident system is fully consistent with the NPT and with all our international legal obligations.  The UK fully complies with its obligations under Article VI of the NPT. We share the goal of a world free from nuclear weapons. The UK continues to press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons.
 
The UK also continues to support the further measures that were adopted at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, and in the outcome document from the 2000 NPT Review Conference to take forward the implementation of the Treaty. These include the “13 Practical Steps for systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI”. We have an excellent record on meeting the priorities they set.
 
The UK is committed to counter proliferation and disarmament and have already reduced its nuclear weapons to a single system (the only recognised nuclear weapon state to do so). The UK also has the smallest stockpile of nuclear warheads amongst the established nuclear weapon States, which will now be cut to fewer than 160 operationally available warheads.  
 

The Strategic Defence Review said that there is no threat to the UK and none foreseeable.  So why do you need to replace Trident?

Our assessment of the potential security environment over the period from 2020 to 2050, gives rise to significant causes for concern.   Large arsenals remain and nuclear proliferation seems set to continue, despite our best efforts.  Cannot discount the risk that a nuclear threat to our vital interests will not emerge by 2050.  Need a credible nuclear capability to deter these threats. Read more about the Strategic Defence Review (SDR)
 

Is it not hypocritical to retain nuclear weapons whilst trying to prevent DPRK/Iran from having them?

The NPT recognised the UK, the US, France, Russia and China as nuclear weapon States and established other signatories as non-nuclear weapon States.  We have an excellent track record in meeting our NPT obligations.  Iran and North Korea, for example, do not. 
 

Any country could argue it needs nuclear weapons to deal with potential threats; does the UK’s decision, therefore, justify proliferation?

No.  Signatories to the NPT recognise that there should be no more nuclear weapons States and ultimately no nuclear weapons States. It is in everybody’s interest to create the security environment in which the nuclear weapons States can eliminate their nuclear arsenals.



Back to top