:00:09. > :00:10.Tonight, a special programme on Trident -
:00:11. > :00:14.our nuclear weapon of choice.
:00:15. > :00:22.We are fully loaded with all the key players, politicians,
:00:23. > :00:35.international experts and the military.
:00:36. > :00:39.It could cost as much as ?41 billion.
:00:40. > :00:41.Labour is divided, the SNP is dead against it.
:00:42. > :00:47.Trident is a weapon designed for a Cold War world.
:00:48. > :01:01.In the? -- and who would attack us if we did not have it?
:01:02. > :01:03.Time is of the essence the government says.
:01:04. > :01:06.They need to get the renewal plan signed off this year,
:01:07. > :01:08.so we, ahead of them, are debating all this tonight.
:01:09. > :01:12.First here's our Diplomatic and Defence Editor Mark Urban.
:01:13. > :01:21.Britain's Trident submarines are ageing. And the government wants to
:01:22. > :01:23.replace them. That will cost ?31 billion, a massive amount for a
:01:24. > :01:31.system capable of unleashing massive destruction. Obliterating cities
:01:32. > :01:39.thousands of miles away in minutes. Trident Systems are the right choice
:01:40. > :01:47.for the UK because of its own vulnerability, being under the
:01:48. > :01:51.water. -- it's on in vulnerability. It is quiet, and continually in the
:01:52. > :01:58.contact so it is ready to be used whenever it is required. Britain's
:01:59. > :02:02.nuclear deterrent, for perhaps the next five years, blue steel is ready
:02:03. > :02:07.and operational. In the 50s, Britain's ability to mount a nuclear
:02:08. > :02:12.strike rescued with this bomber force. But despite spending on the
:02:13. > :02:17.aircraft and missiles designed to beat enemy defences, the bombers
:02:18. > :02:24.soon gave way to submarines. Impressive as the Vulcan may have
:02:25. > :02:30.been, there was a recognition by the mid 1960s that it could no longer
:02:31. > :02:34.play a key role in Britain's nuclear force. The feeling was that Soviet
:02:35. > :02:38.air defences had become so dense around Moscow and other key targets
:02:39. > :02:43.that he bomber would not be able to get through to them. And that
:02:44. > :02:49.yardstick, the ability to hit key places in Russia must still remains
:02:50. > :02:54.important today. Trident is a high-end system with a price to
:02:55. > :03:00.match. Being submarine launched, it can lurk under the sea, invisible
:03:01. > :03:03.and very hard to destroy. The missile's range is over 5000 miles,
:03:04. > :03:09.and allows it to hit targets fire from the sea. And once it is
:03:10. > :03:15.launched, it carries multiple warheads to the aiming point in less
:03:16. > :03:21.than 20 minutes. Trident was chosen to meet the Moscow criterion, the
:03:22. > :03:25.judgment central to British nuclear weapons decision-making for decades.
:03:26. > :03:28.That is the ability to overwhelm the anti-missile defences around the
:03:29. > :03:33.Russian capital. It is essential if Britain on its own is to be able to
:03:34. > :03:40.threaten the target dearest to Russia, Moscow. It is about politics
:03:41. > :03:46.more than it is about the military. Because it is about being close to
:03:47. > :03:51.the Americans and the ability to strike at the very heart of the
:03:52. > :03:58.Russian system. And we are talking about just Russia and just Moscow.
:03:59. > :04:02.Abandon the requirement for continuous at sea deterrent, and you
:04:03. > :04:05.can have three submarines instead of four. The saving would not be huge,
:04:06. > :04:10.because most of the system would still have to be bought. But abandon
:04:11. > :04:16.the Moscow criterion, and the choices widen further. You could,
:04:17. > :04:22.for example, threaten St Petersburg, Murmansk or any other city on or
:04:23. > :04:26.near a coast with submarine launched cruise missiles. So why not switch
:04:27. > :04:33.the Trident border to a hunter killer submarine and armed them with
:04:34. > :04:37.nuclear cruise missiles? The way the deterrent system operates is
:04:38. > :04:48.different to a cruise missile. A cruise missile goes I and has a
:04:49. > :04:55.limited range of 1000 miles. A deterrent rocket goes into space and
:04:56. > :04:59.it has a completely different way of penetrating to hit targets. They are
:05:00. > :05:07.completely different systems. You cannot compare them. The other
:05:08. > :05:12.options discussed in recent years, the significant one is the idea of
:05:13. > :05:15.arming jets with bombs or missiles. One of the options kicked around a
:05:16. > :05:27.couple of years ago by the government in one of its papers was
:05:28. > :05:30.reintroducing something like this. The WE177 free nuclear bomb taken
:05:31. > :05:34.note of British service in 1998. It is certainly cheap, but its
:05:35. > :05:39.effectiveness would have to be called into question if the aircraft
:05:40. > :05:45.flying it had to go against any kind of sophisticated air defence system.
:05:46. > :05:47.-- freefall nuclear bomb. With countries like Pakistan and Israel
:05:48. > :05:54.owning sizeable nuclear countries like Pakistan and Israel
:05:55. > :05:59.or others like North Korea, under dictators, Trident might have to be
:06:00. > :06:03.credible in a variety of scenarios. But it is the Kremlin's recent
:06:04. > :06:08.language, the development of new nuclear weapons, that keeps bringing
:06:09. > :06:11.the calculus back to Russia. Russia is embarking on a substantial and
:06:12. > :06:18.wide ranging modernisation programme that will replace its Soviet nuclear
:06:19. > :06:22.systems, and as those programmes unfold, including new
:06:23. > :06:28.intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is very difficult to avoid the
:06:29. > :06:33.impression that the Russians are emphasising the role of nuclear
:06:34. > :06:39.weapons in their national doctrine. But what of those emerging nuclear
:06:40. > :06:46.powers? What possible missions might those forces have to perform at the
:06:47. > :06:50.conventional level? Will the Trident replacement suck money out of the
:06:51. > :06:52.rest of the fence? The judgment for Britain is therefore what
:06:53. > :06:56.rest of the fence? The judgment for is willing to pay to forestall an
:06:57. > :06:58.unlikely but potentially cataclysmic confrontation. In
:06:59. > :07:03.unlikely but potentially cataclysmic much is it willing to underfund
:07:04. > :07:04.unlikely but potentially cataclysmic ability to respond to more likely
:07:05. > :07:07.emergencies. A little earlier I spoke
:07:08. > :07:10.to the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, the man in charge
:07:11. > :07:13.of delivering Trident's renewal I put it to him that Britain's
:07:14. > :07:18.nuclear arsenal was an unnecessary Well, they are needed
:07:19. > :07:22.now more than ever. Other states are trying to develop
:07:23. > :07:27.nuclear weapons and there is always, thirdly, the risk that a state
:07:28. > :07:29.developing nuclear weapons might give that nuclear weapon
:07:30. > :07:34.to a terrorist organisation. So the end of the Cold War does not
:07:35. > :07:38.mean the end of the need for the nuclear
:07:39. > :07:42.deterrent, far from it. I want to come onto whether Trident
:07:43. > :07:45.is fit for purpose more in a moment but let's just stick
:07:46. > :07:48.with this idea that you have Germany doesn't have a nuclear
:07:49. > :07:51.weapon, it's under the same But it's within the nuclear
:07:52. > :07:54.umbrella of Nato. They live within the protection
:07:55. > :07:57.of those countries. But France, the United States
:07:58. > :08:01.and ourselves have nuclear weapons, the rest of Nato enjoys
:08:02. > :08:03.the protection that that gives and, by the way, a number of their air
:08:04. > :08:07.forces are committed and ready to be But if anyone attacked Germany
:08:08. > :08:14.or threatened Germany, you are suggesting that Nato,
:08:15. > :08:17.or particularly America, Yes, the point of the Nato Alliance
:08:18. > :08:23.is we would all come to each other's aid in the event of an armed
:08:24. > :08:26.attack on one another. But the same would go,
:08:27. > :08:32.we don't have to have a Nato weapon to be protected on our
:08:33. > :08:38.behalf by America, do we? No, but we do have nuclear weapons,
:08:39. > :08:40.we can't disinvent them. We happen to have nuclear weapons
:08:41. > :08:49.and by stopping having nuclear weapons we would be sending out
:08:50. > :08:53.a signal to the rest of the world that we're not prepared to continue
:08:54. > :08:55.as part of that nuclear Can you see any scenario,
:08:56. > :09:01.if we didn't have nuclear weapons, that America
:09:02. > :09:03.wouldn't come to our aid? Well, we would certainly be a much
:09:04. > :09:07.weaker part of Nato if we decided Why should the United States defend
:09:08. > :09:11.the rest of Europe when it is not So you think there is a scenario
:09:12. > :09:18.in which a Britain without a nuclear weapon could be left
:09:19. > :09:20.high and dry by America? We would certainly be
:09:21. > :09:23.downgraded by America, America would be bound to ask
:09:24. > :09:26.questions, why it should defend Europe if Europe is not
:09:27. > :09:30.prepared to defend itself. Let's talk specifically
:09:31. > :09:33.about Russia. Is Vladimir Putin in this
:09:34. > :09:35.incarnation more dangerous Well, we have seen something
:09:36. > :09:40.we didn't think, I didn't think We have seen him trying to change
:09:41. > :09:44.international borders by force in Europe, by annexing the Crimea,
:09:45. > :09:49.by his aggression in the Ukraine, we have seen intimidatory long-range
:09:50. > :09:51.aviation around the edges of our airspace, around the edges
:09:52. > :10:01.of the Baltics and Norway. And we have seen an increase
:10:02. > :10:04.in submarine activity. And we see him
:10:05. > :10:05.modernising his conventional weapons If he's modernising his nuclear
:10:06. > :10:12.weapon, he's threatening all of us, frankly, and that is why we have
:10:13. > :10:15.to keep the nuclear and conventional Let's talk about what kind
:10:16. > :10:19.of nuclear weapon, do we need Do we need to continue thinking
:10:20. > :10:34.about the Moscow criterion? We have looked into all of this
:10:35. > :10:37.and nuclear weapons carried by airplanes, it makes them much
:10:38. > :10:39.more overt and obvious, And, indeed, they
:10:40. > :10:42.are more expensive. Moscow is a city
:10:43. > :10:45.of 12 million souls. Well, I am not go into the targeting
:10:46. > :10:49.of our nuclear weapons We're not aiming them
:10:50. > :10:52.at Russian cities. But the whole purpose of having
:10:53. > :10:54.nuclear weapons is that any of our adversaries,
:10:55. > :10:56.whether they are rogue states or those countries that have nuclear
:10:57. > :10:59.weapons at the moment, should be left unsure
:11:00. > :11:01.as to the precise circumstances The problem is that people
:11:02. > :11:07.in the United Kingdom think broadly We have the capability to hit a jeep
:11:08. > :11:16.with huge precision and we've got But right now, with fewer
:11:17. > :11:20.than 100 cruise missiles, we don't have the ability to mount
:11:21. > :11:22.another conventional war, At the last strategic review
:11:23. > :11:35.we were expanding our expeditionary We could certainly mount a Gulf War
:11:36. > :11:41.operation again because we're We're increasing the size of them
:11:42. > :11:49.and the power of them. Last year, the cost
:11:50. > :11:51.of replacing the four subs rose It sits at ?31 billion
:11:52. > :11:56.and suddenly there is another Suddenly we are at ?41 billion
:11:57. > :12:06.to replace these submarines, does it matter what the cost is,
:12:07. > :12:09.you are going to do it anyway? We need to get good value for money
:12:10. > :12:14.for this, it is a big programme. Can you guarantee that that
:12:15. > :12:17.would not go up from ?31 billion between now and putting this
:12:18. > :12:19.all into practice or before Well, I hope we will not be
:12:20. > :12:23.using the contingency and we're setting up a new delivery
:12:24. > :12:26.body to deliver these submarines So it's ?41 billion, if you need it,
:12:27. > :12:43.that is ring-fenced? Absolutely, it's part
:12:44. > :12:47.of our equipment programme, it is built in to the Ministry
:12:48. > :12:49.of Defence budget. For people who are hard pressed
:12:50. > :12:52.and worried about hospitals, schools and whatever,
:12:53. > :12:53.they want to know, presumably, if, indeed, they support this,
:12:54. > :12:57.that the cost is not going to spiral and it is not going to be at
:12:58. > :13:01.the expense of conventional forces? It's around 6% of the defence
:13:02. > :13:07.budget in a normal year. The Defence Select Committee
:13:08. > :13:10.says get on with it. If you don't make a decision
:13:11. > :13:15.in 2016, what happens? We want Parliament to endorse
:13:16. > :13:18.the decision to have a contingency deterrent and to deliver
:13:19. > :13:20.it through four boats. We want that decision this year
:13:21. > :13:22.so that Parliament is behind it. within weeks and by the numbers
:13:23. > :13:29.the Government are expected It is official Labour policy
:13:30. > :13:33.at the moment to support the government, but it is clearly
:13:34. > :13:35.not that straightforward. Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has
:13:36. > :13:37.thrown that policy into question. And Labour has historically had
:13:38. > :13:40.difficulties with backing nuclear weapons, as our Political Editor,
:13:41. > :13:52.David Grossman, reports. They are the focus of evil
:13:53. > :14:09.in the modern world. Over the past seven decades
:14:10. > :14:13.of nuclear drama, in the background and sometimes in secret,
:14:14. > :14:16.it has often been the Labour Party building, updating and sustaining
:14:17. > :14:24.our nuclear weapons. It has been pragmatic
:14:25. > :14:28.and it needed to be. There have been times in recent
:14:29. > :14:31.history where Labour has adopted, for example, a unilateral
:14:32. > :14:33.disarmament policy and the voters have told us what they think
:14:34. > :14:37.of that and rightly so. But I think for most of the period
:14:38. > :14:40.where we have had nuclear weapons, the Labour Party has
:14:41. > :14:42.supported the acquisition It is a defensive system
:14:43. > :14:46.to protect our national security, And to be willing, as the last
:14:47. > :14:53.Labour government was under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown,
:14:54. > :14:57.to make effective steps to make sure our nuclear weapons
:14:58. > :15:01.are the minimum we need Well before Blair, it was Attlee's
:15:02. > :15:08.government who built the first In 1964, Harold Wilson could have
:15:09. > :15:17.cancelled our first submarine system, Polaris,
:15:18. > :15:19.before it was built. He hinted he might, but in secret
:15:20. > :15:21.he gave the go-ahead. And his successor as Labour leader,
:15:22. > :15:24.Jim Callaghan, fought the '79 election on a promise
:15:25. > :15:26.not to renew Polaris. But away from the gaze
:15:27. > :15:29.of the public and colleagues, He commissioned studies, a big,
:15:30. > :15:37.secret study of the options On the grounds that whoever won
:15:38. > :15:40.the '79 election would have And on his last morning
:15:41. > :15:44.in Number 10 Downing Street, and I have seen the document,
:15:45. > :15:46.he leaves written instructions for Mrs Thatcher to be given
:15:47. > :15:49.the research and the R and the possibilities
:15:50. > :15:51.and the options because there is a rule in Whitehall that
:15:52. > :15:54.you don't see the papers But Jim said Mrs Thatcher
:15:55. > :15:59.needs to see this. So, Jim had to keep it away
:16:00. > :16:02.from the full Cabinet and even from his Cabinet
:16:03. > :16:03.committee structure. Michael Foot, his deputy
:16:04. > :16:05.in the Cabinet, wasn't Like Michael Foot, Jeremy Corbyn
:16:06. > :16:11.favours Britain giving But the polls suggest voters don't
:16:12. > :16:16.agree consistently by about two This could present Jeremy Corbyn
:16:17. > :16:25.with two electoral problems. And secondly, it plays
:16:26. > :16:28.into the hands of the Conservatives, who will simply use that to enforce
:16:29. > :16:38.the broader narrative that That trust may not have been helped
:16:39. > :16:45.by the Labour leader's recent nuclear submarines to preserve
:16:46. > :16:48.jobs but not arm them It has also been suggested that
:16:49. > :16:55.Labour may give MPs a free vote when the issue comes before
:16:56. > :17:01.the Commons, possibly next month. People are still entitled to ask
:17:02. > :17:03.of the Labour Party as the official opposition, what is your
:17:04. > :17:04.official position? What is your policy
:17:05. > :17:11.in relation to the retention And I think we have got
:17:12. > :17:18.to have an answer to that question. conscience to decide whether we do
:17:19. > :17:20.or don't retain nuclear weapons. We have to have a policy,
:17:21. > :17:24.to be clear to the country about how we will defend this country
:17:25. > :17:26.against nuclear threats and members and sell
:17:27. > :17:48.unilateralism to voters. Joining me now is Emily Thornberry,
:17:49. > :17:51.Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary and the person leading Labour's
:17:52. > :18:06.review into the party's policy you are against Trident and you have
:18:07. > :18:12.attended CMD rallies, while a Jeremy Corbyn bring you in and remove Maria
:18:13. > :18:17.Eagle? You must ask Jeremy that. As to why he gave me that position. I
:18:18. > :18:22.will begin my review by saying I am sceptical about Trident but
:18:23. > :18:26.everything is on the table, nothing has been taken off and we will
:18:27. > :18:32.follow the evidence. You are not simply sceptical, but have been
:18:33. > :18:36.committed as a campaigner? I voted against Trident renewal in 2007 and
:18:37. > :18:41.the main mother went to Greenham Common, I did not go with because I
:18:42. > :18:45.thought nuclear weapons were necessary, I was frightened by the
:18:46. > :18:49.Russians but I think things might have moved on. The review is what
:18:50. > :18:54.will be the 21st century threats to Britain and how to keep written safe
:18:55. > :18:57.and we need to ask honest questions and to do a proper review. It will
:18:58. > :19:04.be about Trident at all of the threats. This review will not be
:19:05. > :19:10.available and ready in time for the vote next month? It will be an
:19:11. > :19:15.interim report? Yes. I launched a review within a few days of getting
:19:16. > :19:21.the post, it is Labour Party policy to have a review and we're having a
:19:22. > :19:24.review. If the vote takes place next month, presumably Labour will vote
:19:25. > :19:29.with the government? We have to make that decision, we don't know what
:19:30. > :19:33.the government wants us to vote on, they talk about this as a main gate
:19:34. > :19:38.decision, the point of no return but the strategic defence review says
:19:39. > :19:42.they will not have a main gate decision so they might be asking for
:19:43. > :19:47.another vote in principle which is the same thing as in 2007. I think
:19:48. > :19:53.they are just trying to kick the can find the road. If it is a main gate
:19:54. > :19:59.vote, you don't know that for sure, but... They say it will not be. If
:20:00. > :20:05.it was... It still could be, you would have to vote for it because
:20:06. > :20:10.you are for replacing Vanguard submarines. On the submarine vote,
:20:11. > :20:14.you will vote for it? The policy is to have a review at this stage. I
:20:15. > :20:19.would need to get this straight, they have said they are not going to
:20:20. > :20:24.have a main gate vote, they say it is too collocated, you want a vote
:20:25. > :20:32.in principle. And they want to set up this arms body which will need
:20:33. > :20:38.primary legislation. It is important we understand they are playing
:20:39. > :20:41.games. You want the new submarines? We want the best thing for us to be
:20:42. > :20:48.doing in terms of making Britain safe. What are you considering? All
:20:49. > :20:53.of the options, we're also looking at the wide range of new threats,
:20:54. > :20:58.such as the best way to respond to terrorism, failed states, cyber
:20:59. > :21:00.attacks, there are many different things and be spending money in the
:21:01. > :21:06.right way when it comes to conventional forces? We have 60
:21:07. > :21:10.strikers at the moment and the electrics keep going. We can put a
:21:11. > :21:14.destroyer in a dangerous place and it can stop going. The fundamental
:21:15. > :21:20.decision for you will be whether or not you support the Trident
:21:21. > :21:25.programme or not. Can you conceive of the outcome of any review which
:21:26. > :21:29.says that you support replacement submarines for Trident and keeping
:21:30. > :21:35.Trident? In your conscience, can you think that would be any outcome of
:21:36. > :21:39.this? The Labour Party is split. I can say honestly this review is
:21:40. > :21:42.being done in an open way, it is to be done whereby we look at all of
:21:43. > :21:48.the evidence and follow the evidence. It is really important
:21:49. > :21:51.that we have a proper base in this country to look at this really
:21:52. > :21:55.important decision. Are you seriously suggesting that there
:21:56. > :21:59.could be one option which I gather Jeremy Corbyn has floated that you
:22:00. > :22:04.would have the submarines without any warheads? There are a number of
:22:05. > :22:11.possibilities. Is that a go? I will not starting out -- I will not start
:22:12. > :22:16.talking about hypotheticals, this will take as long as it takes. It
:22:17. > :22:19.might be helpful to the Labour Party to do an interim report at the
:22:20. > :22:26.beginning of the summer which will feed into party policy, which will
:22:27. > :22:30.be at the conference in the autumn. Would you be disappointed if it was
:22:31. > :22:33.renewed and how could you be Shadow Defence Secretary, standing up in
:22:34. > :22:40.support of Trident if you personally disagree? We will make a decision
:22:41. > :22:44.collectively on the evidence. I wonder why you are shying away from
:22:45. > :22:47.saying this because you have been adamant in the past that your
:22:48. > :22:54.anti-Trident and you now supposedly are free to discuss this and yet,
:22:55. > :22:58.following your conscience, you could stand there as Shadow Defence
:22:59. > :23:04.Secretary, possibly at the end of this review, and say, miraculously,
:23:05. > :23:08.Trident is right. No, I'm a pragmatist and in the 1980s I was in
:23:09. > :23:13.favour of nuclear deterrence and since then, in 2007 I voted against
:23:14. > :23:18.because it seemed at that stage that it was out of date and it was a
:23:19. > :23:23.20th-century weapon not necessary for the 21st century. But before we
:23:24. > :23:25.make of the decision, it is quite right for the opposition to look at
:23:26. > :23:31.all of the evidence and ask questions. If you look at the
:23:32. > :23:35.opinion polls, I cannot see why Labour should terror itself apart
:23:36. > :23:40.when this is not an issue, it will happen anyway if the government puts
:23:41. > :23:46.it through unless it is some bold from the blue. Why choose this
:23:47. > :23:51.subject? Is this ideology? Do you think it is appropriate for the
:23:52. > :23:56.opposition to wade through a decision of ?41 billion at a time
:23:57. > :24:02.when we don't have enough aircraft to be able to patrol our shores? We
:24:03. > :24:07.can see nuclear submarines on the coast of Scotland and we don't have
:24:08. > :24:10.the aircraft to follow them, we are making serious decisions about
:24:11. > :24:14.conventional forces and we're not looking at whether or not this
:24:15. > :24:18.replacement is the appropriate platform for the 21st century to
:24:19. > :24:25.make us safe. People talk about an insurance policy at the death --
:24:26. > :24:29.difficulty is, you can get caught in thinking that this is all we need
:24:30. > :24:32.and in the 21st century there are some very big threats out there and
:24:33. > :24:35.we need to make sure we are taking them seriously and making the
:24:36. > :24:38.appropriate decisions. Thank you. With me to discuss
:24:39. > :24:39.are Admiral Lord West, former First Sea Lord
:24:40. > :24:42.and Security Minister. John Woodcock, Labour MP
:24:43. > :24:44.for Barrow-in-Furness, Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP
:24:45. > :24:49.and vice-president for the Campaign And Brendan O'Hara, SNP
:24:50. > :25:04.defence spokesperson. John Woodcock, what do you make of
:25:05. > :25:10.what was just said? The one thing I think is clear that Labour members
:25:11. > :25:14.are looking at this, they must understand this is not just the
:25:15. > :25:18.Labour Party wading through a decision as if it has had no time to
:25:19. > :25:23.think, the Labour government in 2007 started this programme. We then
:25:24. > :25:29.looked at this extensively in opposition under Ed Miliband and at
:25:30. > :25:35.the time he was sceptical and took him some time to actually recommit
:25:36. > :25:40.to the policy of re-Newell with the submarine ballistic missile system.
:25:41. > :25:46.There was an exhaustive process going through the national policy
:25:47. > :25:53.forum. It has been done? And we have a manifesto commitment to do this
:25:54. > :25:56.and that was significant. That policy was reaffirmed at the last
:25:57. > :26:02.party conference and we will have a vote, let us hope, according to the
:26:03. > :26:06.industrial timetable, as soon as possible and certainly this year and
:26:07. > :26:09.myself and I think many of my Parliamentary colleagues are clear,
:26:10. > :26:17.we will be supporting the government. Brendan O'Hara, the SNP
:26:18. > :26:23.position is one that... You don't want to have Trident in Scotland and
:26:24. > :26:29.yet you would be happy and content to be under the umbrella of Nato if
:26:30. > :26:36.any attack came? Is that a preposterous position? Not at all.
:26:37. > :26:40.If you look at Norway and Canada, who are members of Nato, full
:26:41. > :26:46.members, they will not unlike nuclear weapons on their soil. What
:26:47. > :26:52.we have said quite clearly is postindependence, we will have these
:26:53. > :26:57.responsibilities, like any other country, we would be a member of
:26:58. > :27:01.Nato and we would want to be a member of Nato but under strict
:27:02. > :27:05.conditions that they are except we would not have nuclear weapons on
:27:06. > :27:10.our soil. Norway has never had weapons, it is different to be a
:27:11. > :27:13.member and then get rid of them, you would be the first country to do so.
:27:14. > :27:18.And that would send out a powerful signal that we do not need nuclear
:27:19. > :27:25.weapons, Scotland could use its influence for extreme goodbye
:27:26. > :27:30.getting rid of them. There is no contradiction between wanting to
:27:31. > :27:34.remain a member of Nato and not allowing nuclear weapons. Did you
:27:35. > :27:41.say that they are morally indefensible? To have them? Yet you
:27:42. > :27:49.want to snuggle in behind America with its protection? With the
:27:50. > :27:58.nuclear Alliance. And you think the morally revolted -- repugnant? Were
:27:59. > :28:08.pressing for nonproliferation and working towards... Norway made the
:28:09. > :28:17.case for nonproliferation. Let me bring in Lord West. That would be
:28:18. > :28:19.some towards disarmament. Lord West, you are the man in charge of Trident
:28:20. > :28:33.from 2002. You have said that you you are the man in charge of Trident
:28:34. > :28:37.think of us if we got rid of Trident? They
:28:38. > :28:39.think of us if we got rid of made it very clear, it will
:28:40. > :28:42.think of us if we got rid of extraordinary thing to do and we
:28:43. > :28:46.would be the first country to ever give up nuclear weapons. We have
:28:47. > :28:52.done more than any other country in the world to reduce our weapons
:28:53. > :28:58.stocks, to just one system, and it has had zero impact on stopping new
:28:59. > :29:02.nations getting them. The number of states are increasing. And therefore
:29:03. > :29:08.I think you have far more never rich, we have the minimum credible
:29:09. > :29:09.deterrent, you have more leverage in a multilateral
:29:10. > :29:12.deterrent, you have more leverage in those weapons and say, let
:29:13. > :29:18.deterrent, you have more leverage in how many we have got. If you are
:29:19. > :29:23.designing a weapon right now, Trident would not be the weapon you
:29:24. > :29:29.would design for this year? You are absolutely
:29:30. > :29:32.would design for this year? You are other systems you talk
:29:33. > :29:35.would design for this year? You are end up costing more, there would be
:29:36. > :29:41.treaty issues and actually, yes, it has the Moscow materia,
:29:42. > :29:41.treaty issues and actually, yes, it system but replacing something. It
:29:42. > :29:48.just happens system but replacing something. It
:29:49. > :29:51.else would cost more money. We have that fell in Britain is on
:29:52. > :29:51.else would cost more money. We have and becoming more aggressive. How
:29:52. > :30:03.would you In a system that sends out a signal
:30:04. > :30:07.that other countries should acquire a weapon because we have one. -- I
:30:08. > :30:12.would not be putting my faith in a system. And I certainly would not be
:30:13. > :30:15.doing it when 135 countries are currently
:30:16. > :30:18.doing it when 135 countries are nuclear treaty. To answer your
:30:19. > :30:18.doing it when 135 countries are question, I would not be blocking
:30:19. > :30:22.the question, I would not be blocking
:30:23. > :30:25.to put in place a nuclear question, I would not be blocking
:30:26. > :30:29.treaty. If we had that treaty, we question, I would not be blocking
:30:30. > :30:30.could start focusing... But unlike Brenda's position,
:30:31. > :30:34.could start focusing... But unlike that you do not want the umbrella of
:30:35. > :30:39.Nato. You are happy to fight it out on your own? Let's challenge the
:30:40. > :30:44.word deterrent. Let's call it weapons of mass destruction. We have
:30:45. > :30:48.talked about the deterrent, but it is not a deterrent. It is a
:30:49. > :30:50.talked about the deterrent, but it deterrent. You cannot prove
:30:51. > :30:55.something. This is incredibly important. You would have to be able
:30:56. > :30:59.to prove that by not doing something something else has happened and you
:31:00. > :31:01.cannot prove that. Somebody who smokes 100 cigarettes a day, and
:31:02. > :31:06.lives to an old age, smokes 100 cigarettes a day, and
:31:07. > :31:13.that that smoker... That is exactly what he is saying. I have no
:31:14. > :31:14.that that smoker... That is exactly if Japan had been able to drop
:31:15. > :31:19.atomic weapons. The arrogance of people who think they can say in the
:31:20. > :31:24.next 50 years that there will not be a country or somebody, a country
:31:25. > :31:27.that might threaten dropping a nuclear weapons. May I finish, the
:31:28. > :31:31.only thing you can be sure of is that if you have the ability to
:31:32. > :31:36.destroy the country that wants to bomb you, they will not drop it.
:31:37. > :31:41.Let's be honest, Trident is not a defensive weapon. It is a political
:31:42. > :31:44.weapon. It is there to keep the United Kingdom on the top table of
:31:45. > :31:50.the United Nations. It is a deterrent. Tony Blair is not someone
:31:51. > :31:54.I caught very often in these matters but he is in his memoirs said they
:31:55. > :32:02.looked at Trident and said as a military weapon it was useless but
:32:03. > :32:07.its cost was astronomical. I am glad to see I do not agree with
:32:08. > :32:12.everything Tony Blair says. But they would not do it. Is it really a
:32:13. > :32:20.deterrent? There is no certainty in any of this. Would we be safer with
:32:21. > :32:24.Russia's proliferation with other countries acquiring the bomb if we
:32:25. > :32:33.were to get rid of it? I think it is hard to... On that point. On the
:32:34. > :32:38.Tony Blair point, very briefly. Tony has changed his mind on this since
:32:39. > :32:44.he wrote those memoirs. Tony Blair said it would be a downgrading of
:32:45. > :32:51.Britain's status as a nation. The rise of Russia has made him change
:32:52. > :32:55.his mind. But do you buy the argument that, why should we be
:32:56. > :33:01.stopping other countries having nuclear weapons if we have them
:33:02. > :33:07.ourselves? We are not superior, it is because one is where one is. You
:33:08. > :33:11.are great you are. And you say, actually, if I were Germany, for
:33:12. > :33:14.example, to try to actually get a sensible nuclear weapons system, it
:33:15. > :33:20.would be a cost way beyond anything you could imagine. Brazil got rid of
:33:21. > :33:26.nuclear weapons. You can do it if the political will is there. Do you
:33:27. > :33:30.justify... In the next 50 years, none of us can predict, nobody can
:33:31. > :33:35.predict and the people who say they can predict are talking nonsense. I
:33:36. > :33:39.believe that this is an ultimate weight... Chatham House, a couple of
:33:40. > :33:43.years ago, they reported that since 1962 there have been 13 near misses
:33:44. > :33:48.because of human error, technological error. First of all,
:33:49. > :33:52.the rid the risk of accidents and secondly, underwater drones. --
:33:53. > :33:55.there is the risk of accidents. The idea that these Trident nuclear
:33:56. > :34:02.weapons are going to be safe, it is absolutely rubbish. Everything that
:34:03. > :34:06.goes into Trident comes out of a conventional defence system. Our
:34:07. > :34:09.conventional defences are being sacrificed at the altar of Trident.
:34:10. > :34:16.Anyone who says that is deluded. They honestly think in Whitehall, if
:34:17. > :34:19.they think the money from Trident will go into conventional defence
:34:20. > :34:23.they are deluding themselves. The Treasury have made it clear that
:34:24. > :34:27.will not happen. In the first four years, if you got rid of it, it
:34:28. > :34:31.would cost extra money. But on a single one of those four submarines,
:34:32. > :34:35.the missiles from that would kill 10 million civilians and Castor that
:34:36. > :34:40.area of the planet into a nuclear winter. Are we really thinking that
:34:41. > :34:48.is the best way in the 21st century to try to resolve our affairs.
:34:49. > :34:50.Whatever the decision is that is taken, it will not be taken in a
:34:51. > :34:50.vacuum. Our Nato allies have skin
:34:51. > :34:53.in the game, and as Michael Fallon said, we face a resurgent,
:34:54. > :34:56.aggressive Russia whose roar Without Britain, France alone
:34:57. > :35:07.in Europe would bear The French stockpile is 50% bigger
:35:08. > :35:18.than Britain's and whereas Britain now only has the Trident system,
:35:19. > :35:21.France keeps air launch nuclear Well, talk to decision makers
:35:22. > :35:31.from other Nato countries and they're not that keen
:35:32. > :35:33.on Britain renouncing Even France in the recent past has
:35:34. > :35:38.shown interest in joint submarine patrol plans, or developing new air
:35:39. > :35:48.launch weapons with the UK. Leaders in Germany or the countries
:35:49. > :35:50.of Eastern Europe tend to give strong support to the idea
:35:51. > :35:53.of Britain retaining a central role in European defence,
:35:54. > :35:54.with nuclear weapons. And recent examples of nuclear
:35:55. > :35:58.sabre-rattling by President Putin have just confirmed
:35:59. > :36:03.them in that view. TRANSLATION: This year our nuclear
:36:04. > :36:06.forces will get more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic
:36:07. > :36:10.missiles which are capable of overcoming any anti-missile
:36:11. > :36:12.systems, even the most technically Underlying much of this debate
:36:13. > :36:21.is an uncertainty in Europe as to whether they could really
:36:22. > :36:25.stand up to their Easter neighbour, and whether the United States might
:36:26. > :36:29.abandon them in an hour of crisis. Joining me now are Radoslaw
:36:30. > :36:31.Sikorski, former Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs in Donald Tusk's
:36:32. > :36:34.cabinet, and before that, Major General Patrick Cordingley,
:36:35. > :36:38.commander of the Seventh Armoured Brigade of UK troops in the first
:36:39. > :36:40.Gulf War. And Professor Malcolm Chalmers,
:36:41. > :36:43.Deputy Director-General of the Royal United Services
:36:44. > :36:48.Institute. And down the line from Florida
:36:49. > :36:51.is Nancy Soderberg, former US Ambassador to the United Nations
:36:52. > :37:02.and foreign policy advisor Good evening to you all. It is a
:37:03. > :37:08.Cold War weapon for a Cold War that does not exist any more. Well, I am
:37:09. > :37:11.glad you mentioned that because when I was the defence minister, I
:37:12. > :37:20.declassified some of our Polish Warsaw Pact era exercise maps. And
:37:21. > :37:25.they envisaged a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe, and
:37:26. > :37:32.Soviet nuclear strikes on Germany, Denmark, Holland. But significantly,
:37:33. > :37:36.not on France and not on the UK. Why do you think that was? So they would
:37:37. > :37:44.not think that actually we would come to their aid? I think the
:37:45. > :37:49.Soviets made a calculation which I think is confirmed by what has
:37:50. > :37:54.happened ever since. Countries have given up nuclear weapons. South
:37:55. > :37:57.Africa was mentioned, and also, most significantly, Ukraine. Ukraine gave
:37:58. > :38:01.up the third largest nuclear stockpile in the world in exchange
:38:02. > :38:06.for guarantees of its territorial integrity and we know what happened.
:38:07. > :38:11.But you talk about the classifying documents from the Warsaw Pact era.
:38:12. > :38:15.What do you think now, do you think Vladimir Putin, who we know is
:38:16. > :38:20.beefing up his nuclear arsenal, is he a threat to the West? Russia has
:38:21. > :38:23.a doctrine of the first use of nuclear weapons from a time when
:38:24. > :38:28.they felt conventionally weaker. And the exercise using battlefield
:38:29. > :38:35.weapons in a confrontation with Nato. In 2009, there was an exercise
:38:36. > :38:39.and in 2013. Vladimir Putin talks about using nuclear weapons. If he
:38:40. > :38:45.talks about it, it means he thinks about it. Nancy Soderberg, do you
:38:46. > :38:48.agree with that chilling statement, that Vladimir Putin is thinking
:38:49. > :38:52.about nuclear weapons and using them, and that he will more likely
:38:53. > :38:57.use them against us if we do not have our own Trident missiles? First
:38:58. > :39:02.of all, I think you have to recognise that we all have plans to
:39:03. > :39:07.use nuclear weapons. I can conceive of no conceivable realistic
:39:08. > :39:13.situation in which they would use them. Our intelligence says that the
:39:14. > :39:17.threat from a nuclear weapon would be a terrorist getting components.
:39:18. > :39:20.That argument is that there is less nuclear material out there, that
:39:21. > :39:23.that is better. In the US, we have been trying to reduce our numbers
:39:24. > :39:28.and the debate in Britain about the Trident submarine is not likely to
:39:29. > :39:33.change the politics. The politics are not there for it yet, but in
:39:34. > :39:38.terms of the longer term, the US has a vibrant nuclear umbrella over
:39:39. > :39:41.Europe and the Trident missile serves as a symbolic but not
:39:42. > :39:48.militarily significant addition to that. It is interesting that it is
:39:49. > :39:53.symbolic. Could we rely on the US to the same extent that we do now if we
:39:54. > :39:56.did not have Trident? Absolutely. Britain is not going to get rid of
:39:57. > :40:01.its Trident submarines any time soon. They will be upgraded but you
:40:02. > :40:04.have to recognise that only one of them is circulating at any time and
:40:05. > :40:09.I think there is a total of 16 weapons on there. It is not a
:40:10. > :40:15.massive retaliatory force. The larger picture here is that the
:40:16. > :40:19.world is moving towards reducing its nuclear weapons. The more countries
:40:20. > :40:23.that have nuclear weapons, the harder it is to convince Iran that
:40:24. > :40:26.it does not need one. Right now, there are nine and Iran might be the
:40:27. > :40:32.10th if the nuclear deal falls apart. Over time, Britain, maybe not
:40:33. > :40:39.in this cycle but maybe the next ten or 20 years, I think these weapons
:40:40. > :40:41.will be phased out. The is a lively debate about tactical nuclear
:40:42. > :40:47.weapons in the United States as well. Nancy Soderberg's view is that
:40:48. > :40:51.our contribution to the arsenal is symbolic rather than anything else
:40:52. > :40:54.and it will be phased out and actually America would still come to
:40:55. > :40:57.our aid if we did not have weapons of mass destruction. I think it is
:40:58. > :41:02.most unlikely that the UK arsenal would be phased out except in the
:41:03. > :41:05.context of multilateral disarmament. The idea we would have done that
:41:06. > :41:11.unilaterally, it would be a radical step. I would agree. No one is
:41:12. > :41:15.talking about doing it unilaterally. It would have to be negotiated over
:41:16. > :41:19.time. If we were to give up our weapons, we would be the first
:41:20. > :41:25.country in the world to give up our weapons. We know about Brazil and
:41:26. > :41:29.South Africa and Ukraine. What impact would that have on our
:41:30. > :41:34.standing in the world? Could come back to whether is symbolic? Lets a
:41:35. > :41:35.that deterrent works. I would not necessarily agree but let's assure
:41:36. > :41:42.them that it has. Why? necessarily agree but let's assure
:41:43. > :41:52.1500 ready nuclear warheads. necessarily agree but let's assure
:41:53. > :41:56.those, it would have no effect on the deterrent against Russia. Russia
:41:57. > :41:58.would still be deterred. I believe in Nato, and I think we are
:41:59. > :42:04.perfectly safe under the American umbrella. That is the standpoint I
:42:05. > :42:09.come from. And on that basis, you think we should scrap it?
:42:10. > :42:10.come from. And on that basis, you America wants us to do, it once
:42:11. > :42:14.asked to up our America wants us to do, it once
:42:15. > :42:28.weapons. At the moment, we are really going very close to actually
:42:29. > :42:31.weapons. At the moment, we are this weapon? The more important
:42:32. > :42:35.question to ask is if the UK, having been involved in this business for
:42:36. > :42:39.more than 60 years, since the Manhattan Project in the 40s, was to
:42:40. > :42:44.know decides to get rid of the system, firstly people would ask, in
:42:45. > :42:50.Russia and America or wherever, why have we made such a radical change
:42:51. > :42:56.in our policy? And those in this country most opposed to nuclear
:42:57. > :43:00.weapons are not doing it because they are particularly trusting of
:43:01. > :43:00.the Americans or because they want to up our
:43:01. > :43:06.the Americans or because they want they are doing it primarily
:43:07. > :43:09.the Americans or because they want these weapons are morally repugnant.
:43:10. > :43:11.But I wonder why we would still have, or if we would indeed have a
:43:12. > :43:15.permanent seat at have, or if we would indeed have a
:43:16. > :43:18.Council if we give up our nuclear weapons? Our power in the world
:43:19. > :43:23.would be diminished, our standing would be diminished. Why should we
:43:24. > :43:26.have a permanent seat? If the United Nations and the Security Council
:43:27. > :43:31.were designed today, the membership would be different. The European
:43:32. > :43:36.Union would perhaps be entitled to a seat. But not its member states. It
:43:37. > :43:42.would certainly have some other big countries like India and others.
:43:43. > :43:47.Yes, but that is history. What do you make of this idea that what the
:43:48. > :43:50.Americans want us to do is up our conventional warfare? That they will
:43:51. > :43:53.take care of the nuclear, but they want Britain to fight a more
:43:54. > :43:58.conventional war? That is like asking yourself whether you need a
:43:59. > :44:01.tank or a plane. You need both. We need to deter potential enemies at
:44:02. > :44:07.all stages and all levels. Can I come in on the UN Security Council?
:44:08. > :44:11.We became a founder member before we had nuclear weapons and there are
:44:12. > :44:16.multiple reasons why we can justify having a seat. We have the second
:44:17. > :44:19.largest aid budget in the world, the fourth-largest defence budget, maybe
:44:20. > :44:24.the sixth or seventh largest economy and one of two nuclear members.
:44:25. > :44:33.If somebody does give up nuclear weapons, it sends an enormous
:44:34. > :44:37.message to everybody that we are serious about the nonproliferation
:44:38. > :44:43.Treaty and why not make an example? To the world? What do you think that
:44:44. > :44:49.the response from Vladimir Putin would be if Britain gave up nuclear
:44:50. > :44:54.weapons? Would he be emboldened? That we would be more vulnerable? I
:44:55. > :45:01.do not think there is any chance that even if he keeps his tyrannical
:45:02. > :45:07.slide, he will seriously contemplate using nuclear weapons in Europe,
:45:08. > :45:13.there is no reason, no threat, and I go back to the earlier point on the
:45:14. > :45:21.conventional side, it is not like having one weapon or another, we
:45:22. > :45:25.need help with writing Isis and we need more British, our best partners
:45:26. > :45:31.in the battlefield, we need more help on the current fight with Isis,
:45:32. > :45:36.the Air Force, the intelligence and the drones, fighting the threat of
:45:37. > :45:40.terrorism and so I think the debate about whether to get rid of
:45:41. > :45:46.Britain's nuclear weapons will not be a huge shock outside of Britain,
:45:47. > :45:53.to be quite honest. Nobody is saying anybody will do any of this
:45:54. > :45:58.unilaterally, least of all the French, but increasingly the threat
:45:59. > :46:02.is, the terrorists get a hold of the Lewis betrayals and the answer is,
:46:03. > :46:08.yes. The less nuclear material that is out there, that would be a very
:46:09. > :46:10.powerful signal to move forward. Britain is not there right now, it
:46:11. > :46:11.is debating it. James O'Brien will be
:46:12. > :46:15.here tomorrow night.