04/02/2016 Newsnight

Tonight, a special programme on Trident -

our nuclear weapon of choice.

We are fully loaded with all the key players, politicians,

international experts and the military.

It could cost as much as ?41 billion.

Labour is divided, the SNP is dead against it.

Trident is a weapon designed for a Cold War world.

In the? -- and who would attack us if we did not have it?

Time is of the essence the government says.

They need to get the renewal plan signed off this year,

so we, ahead of them, are debating all this tonight.

First here's our Diplomatic and Defence Editor Mark Urban.

Britain's Trident submarines are ageing. And the government wants to

replace them. That will cost ?31 billion, a massive amount for a

system capable of unleashing massive destruction. Obliterating cities

thousands of miles away in minutes. Trident Systems are the right choice

for the UK because of its own vulnerability, being under the

water. -- it's on in vulnerability. It is quiet, and continually in the

contact so it is ready to be used whenever it is required. Britain's

nuclear deterrent, for perhaps the next five years, blue steel is ready

and operational. In the 50s, Britain's ability to mount a nuclear

strike rescued with this bomber force. But despite spending on the

aircraft and missiles designed to beat enemy defences, the bombers

soon gave way to submarines. Impressive as the Vulcan may have

been, there was a recognition by the mid 1960s that it could no longer

play a key role in Britain's nuclear force. The feeling was that Soviet

air defences had become so dense around Moscow and other key targets

that he bomber would not be able to get through to them. And that

yardstick, the ability to hit key places in Russia must still remains

important today. Trident is a high-end system with a price to

match. Being submarine launched, it can lurk under the sea, invisible

and very hard to destroy. The missile's range is over 5000 miles,

and allows it to hit targets fire from the sea. And once it is

launched, it carries multiple warheads to the aiming point in less

than 20 minutes. Trident was chosen to meet the Moscow criterion, the

judgment central to British nuclear weapons decision-making for decades.

That is the ability to overwhelm the anti-missile defences around the

Russian capital. It is essential if Britain on its own is to be able to

threaten the target dearest to Russia, Moscow. It is about politics

more than it is about the military. Because it is about being close to

the Americans and the ability to strike at the very heart of the

Russian system. And we are talking about just Russia and just Moscow.

Abandon the requirement for continuous at sea deterrent, and you

can have three submarines instead of four. The saving would not be huge,

because most of the system would still have to be bought. But abandon

the Moscow criterion, and the choices widen further. You could,

for example, threaten St Petersburg, Murmansk or any other city on or

near a coast with submarine launched cruise missiles. So why not switch

the Trident border to a hunter killer submarine and armed them with

nuclear cruise missiles? The way the deterrent system operates is

different to a cruise missile. A cruise missile goes I and has a

limited range of 1000 miles. A deterrent rocket goes into space and

it has a completely different way of penetrating to hit targets. They are

completely different systems. You cannot compare them. The other

options discussed in recent years, the significant one is the idea of

arming jets with bombs or missiles. One of the options kicked around a

couple of years ago by the government in one of its papers was

reintroducing something like this. The WE177 free nuclear bomb taken

note of British service in 1998. It is certainly cheap, but its

effectiveness would have to be called into question if the aircraft

flying it had to go against any kind of sophisticated air defence system.

-- freefall nuclear bomb. With countries like Pakistan and Israel

owning sizeable nuclear countries like Pakistan and Israel

or others like North Korea, under dictators, Trident might have to be

credible in a variety of scenarios. But it is the Kremlin's recent

language, the development of new nuclear weapons, that keeps bringing

the calculus back to Russia. Russia is embarking on a substantial and

wide ranging modernisation programme that will replace its Soviet nuclear

systems, and as those programmes unfold, including new

intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is very difficult to avoid the

impression that the Russians are emphasising the role of nuclear

weapons in their national doctrine. But what of those emerging nuclear

powers? What possible missions might those forces have to perform at the

conventional level? Will the Trident replacement suck money out of the

rest of the fence? The judgment for Britain is therefore what

rest of the fence? The judgment for is willing to pay to forestall an

unlikely but potentially cataclysmic confrontation. In

unlikely but potentially cataclysmic much is it willing to underfund

unlikely but potentially cataclysmic ability to respond to more likely

emergencies. A little earlier I spoke

to the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, the man in charge

of delivering Trident's renewal I put it to him that Britain's

nuclear arsenal was an unnecessary Well, they are needed

now more than ever. Other states are trying to develop

nuclear weapons and there is always, thirdly, the risk that a state

developing nuclear weapons might give that nuclear weapon

to a terrorist organisation. So the end of the Cold War does not

mean the end of the need for the nuclear

deterrent, far from it. I want to come onto whether Trident

is fit for purpose more in a moment but let's just stick

with this idea that you have Germany doesn't have a nuclear

weapon, it's under the same But it's within the nuclear

umbrella of Nato. They live within the protection

of those countries. But France, the United States

and ourselves have nuclear weapons, the rest of Nato enjoys

the protection that that gives and, by the way, a number of their air

forces are committed and ready to be But if anyone attacked Germany

or threatened Germany, you are suggesting that Nato,

or particularly America, Yes, the point of the Nato Alliance

is we would all come to each other's aid in the event of an armed

attack on one another. But the same would go,

we don't have to have a Nato weapon to be protected on our

behalf by America, do we? No, but we do have nuclear weapons,

we can't disinvent them. We happen to have nuclear weapons

and by stopping having nuclear weapons we would be sending out

a signal to the rest of the world that we're not prepared to continue

as part of that nuclear Can you see any scenario,

if we didn't have nuclear weapons, that America

wouldn't come to our aid? Well, we would certainly be a much

weaker part of Nato if we decided Why should the United States defend

the rest of Europe when it is not So you think there is a scenario

in which a Britain without a nuclear weapon could be left

high and dry by America? We would certainly be

downgraded by America, America would be bound to ask

questions, why it should defend Europe if Europe is not

prepared to defend itself. Let's talk specifically

about Russia. Is Vladimir Putin in this

incarnation more dangerous Well, we have seen something

we didn't think, I didn't think We have seen him trying to change

international borders by force in Europe, by annexing the Crimea,

by his aggression in the Ukraine, we have seen intimidatory long-range

aviation around the edges of our airspace, around the edges

of the Baltics and Norway. And we have seen an increase

in submarine activity. And we see him

modernising his conventional weapons If he's modernising his nuclear

weapon, he's threatening all of us, frankly, and that is why we have

to keep the nuclear and conventional Let's talk about what kind

of nuclear weapon, do we need Do we need to continue thinking

about the Moscow criterion? We have looked into all of this

and nuclear weapons carried by airplanes, it makes them much

more overt and obvious, And, indeed, they

are more expensive. Moscow is a city

of 12 million souls. Well, I am not go into the targeting

of our nuclear weapons We're not aiming them

at Russian cities. But the whole purpose of having

nuclear weapons is that any of our adversaries,

whether they are rogue states or those countries that have nuclear

weapons at the moment, should be left unsure

as to the precise circumstances The problem is that people

in the United Kingdom think broadly We have the capability to hit a jeep

with huge precision and we've got But right now, with fewer

than 100 cruise missiles, we don't have the ability to mount

another conventional war, At the last strategic review

we were expanding our expeditionary We could certainly mount a Gulf War

operation again because we're We're increasing the size of them

and the power of them. Last year, the cost

of replacing the four subs rose It sits at ?31 billion

and suddenly there is another Suddenly we are at ?41 billion

to replace these submarines, does it matter what the cost is,

you are going to do it anyway? We need to get good value for money

for this, it is a big programme. Can you guarantee that that

would not go up from ?31 billion between now and putting this

all into practice or before Well, I hope we will not be

using the contingency and we're setting up a new delivery

body to deliver these submarines So it's ?41 billion, if you need it,

that is ring-fenced? Absolutely, it's part

of our equipment programme, it is built in to the Ministry

of Defence budget. For people who are hard pressed

and worried about hospitals, schools and whatever,

they want to know, presumably, if, indeed, they support this,

that the cost is not going to spiral and it is not going to be at

the expense of conventional forces? It's around 6% of the defence

budget in a normal year. The Defence Select Committee

says get on with it. If you don't make a decision

in 2016, what happens? We want Parliament to endorse

the decision to have a contingency deterrent and to deliver

it through four boats. We want that decision this year

so that Parliament is behind it. within weeks and by the numbers

the Government are expected It is official Labour policy

at the moment to support the government, but it is clearly

not that straightforward. Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has

thrown that policy into question. And Labour has historically had

difficulties with backing nuclear weapons, as our Political Editor,

David Grossman, reports. They are the focus of evil

in the modern world. Over the past seven decades

of nuclear drama, in the background and sometimes in secret,

it has often been the Labour Party building, updating and sustaining

our nuclear weapons. It has been pragmatic

and it needed to be. There have been times in recent

history where Labour has adopted, for example, a unilateral

disarmament policy and the voters have told us what they think

of that and rightly so. But I think for most of the period

where we have had nuclear weapons, the Labour Party has

supported the acquisition It is a defensive system

to protect our national security, And to be willing, as the last

Labour government was under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown,

to make effective steps to make sure our nuclear weapons

are the minimum we need Well before Blair, it was Attlee's

government who built the first In 1964, Harold Wilson could have

cancelled our first submarine system, Polaris,

before it was built. He hinted he might, but in secret

he gave the go-ahead. And his successor as Labour leader,

Jim Callaghan, fought the '79 election on a promise

not to renew Polaris. But away from the gaze

of the public and colleagues, He commissioned studies, a big,

secret study of the options On the grounds that whoever won

the '79 election would have And on his last morning

in Number 10 Downing Street, and I have seen the document,

he leaves written instructions for Mrs Thatcher to be given

the research and the R and the possibilities

and the options because there is a rule in Whitehall that

you don't see the papers But Jim said Mrs Thatcher

needs to see this. So, Jim had to keep it away

from the full Cabinet and even from his Cabinet

committee structure. Michael Foot, his deputy

in the Cabinet, wasn't Like Michael Foot, Jeremy Corbyn

favours Britain giving But the polls suggest voters don't

agree consistently by about two This could present Jeremy Corbyn

with two electoral problems. And secondly, it plays

into the hands of the Conservatives, who will simply use that to enforce

the broader narrative that That trust may not have been helped

by the Labour leader's recent nuclear submarines to preserve

jobs but not arm them It has also been suggested that

Labour may give MPs a free vote when the issue comes before

the Commons, possibly next month. People are still entitled to ask

of the Labour Party as the official opposition, what is your

official position? What is your policy

in relation to the retention And I think we have got

to have an answer to that question. conscience to decide whether we do

or don't retain nuclear weapons. We have to have a policy,

to be clear to the country about how we will defend this country

against nuclear threats and members and sell

unilateralism to voters. Joining me now is Emily Thornberry,

Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary and the person leading Labour's

review into the party's policy you are against Trident and you have

attended CMD rallies, while a Jeremy Corbyn bring you in and remove Maria

Eagle? You must ask Jeremy that. As to why he gave me that position. I

will begin my review by saying I am sceptical about Trident but

everything is on the table, nothing has been taken off and we will

follow the evidence. You are not simply sceptical, but have been

committed as a campaigner? I voted against Trident renewal in 2007 and

the main mother went to Greenham Common, I did not go with because I

thought nuclear weapons were necessary, I was frightened by the

Russians but I think things might have moved on. The review is what

will be the 21st century threats to Britain and how to keep written safe

and we need to ask honest questions and to do a proper review. It will

be about Trident at all of the threats. This review will not be

available and ready in time for the vote next month? It will be an

interim report? Yes. I launched a review within a few days of getting

the post, it is Labour Party policy to have a review and we're having a

review. If the vote takes place next month, presumably Labour will vote

with the government? We have to make that decision, we don't know what

the government wants us to vote on, they talk about this as a main gate

decision, the point of no return but the strategic defence review says

they will not have a main gate decision so they might be asking for

another vote in principle which is the same thing as in 2007. I think

they are just trying to kick the can find the road. If it is a main gate

vote, you don't know that for sure, but... They say it will not be. If

it was... It still could be, you would have to vote for it because

you are for replacing Vanguard submarines. On the submarine vote,

you will vote for it? The policy is to have a review at this stage. I

would need to get this straight, they have said they are not going to

have a main gate vote, they say it is too collocated, you want a vote

in principle. And they want to set up this arms body which will need

primary legislation. It is important we understand they are playing

games. You want the new submarines? We want the best thing for us to be

doing in terms of making Britain safe. What are you considering? All

of the options, we're also looking at the wide range of new threats,

such as the best way to respond to terrorism, failed states, cyber

attacks, there are many different things and be spending money in the

right way when it comes to conventional forces? We have 60

strikers at the moment and the electrics keep going. We can put a

destroyer in a dangerous place and it can stop going. The fundamental

decision for you will be whether or not you support the Trident

programme or not. Can you conceive of the outcome of any review which

says that you support replacement submarines for Trident and keeping

Trident? In your conscience, can you think that would be any outcome of

this? The Labour Party is split. I can say honestly this review is

being done in an open way, it is to be done whereby we look at all of

the evidence and follow the evidence. It is really important

that we have a proper base in this country to look at this really

important decision. Are you seriously suggesting that there

could be one option which I gather Jeremy Corbyn has floated that you

would have the submarines without any warheads? There are a number of

possibilities. Is that a go? I will not starting out -- I will not start

talking about hypotheticals, this will take as long as it takes. It

might be helpful to the Labour Party to do an interim report at the

beginning of the summer which will feed into party policy, which will

be at the conference in the autumn. Would you be disappointed if it was

renewed and how could you be Shadow Defence Secretary, standing up in

support of Trident if you personally disagree? We will make a decision

collectively on the evidence. I wonder why you are shying away from

saying this because you have been adamant in the past that your

anti-Trident and you now supposedly are free to discuss this and yet,

following your conscience, you could stand there as Shadow Defence

Secretary, possibly at the end of this review, and say, miraculously,

Trident is right. No, I'm a pragmatist and in the 1980s I was in

favour of nuclear deterrence and since then, in 2007 I voted against

because it seemed at that stage that it was out of date and it was a

20th-century weapon not necessary for the 21st century. But before we

make of the decision, it is quite right for the opposition to look at

all of the evidence and ask questions. If you look at the

opinion polls, I cannot see why Labour should terror itself apart

when this is not an issue, it will happen anyway if the government puts

it through unless it is some bold from the blue. Why choose this

subject? Is this ideology? Do you think it is appropriate for the

opposition to wade through a decision of ?41 billion at a time

when we don't have enough aircraft to be able to patrol our shores? We

can see nuclear submarines on the coast of Scotland and we don't have

the aircraft to follow them, we are making serious decisions about

conventional forces and we're not looking at whether or not this

replacement is the appropriate platform for the 21st century to

make us safe. People talk about an insurance policy at the death --

difficulty is, you can get caught in thinking that this is all we need

and in the 21st century there are some very big threats out there and

we need to make sure we are taking them seriously and making the

appropriate decisions. Thank you. With me to discuss

are Admiral Lord West, former First Sea Lord

and Security Minister. John Woodcock, Labour MP

for Barrow-in-Furness, Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP

and vice-president for the Campaign And Brendan O'Hara, SNP

defence spokesperson. John Woodcock, what do you make of

what was just said? The one thing I think is clear that Labour members

are looking at this, they must understand this is not just the

Labour Party wading through a decision as if it has had no time to

think, the Labour government in 2007 started this programme. We then

looked at this extensively in opposition under Ed Miliband and at

the time he was sceptical and took him some time to actually recommit

to the policy of re-Newell with the submarine ballistic missile system.

There was an exhaustive process going through the national policy

forum. It has been done? And we have a manifesto commitment to do this

and that was significant. That policy was reaffirmed at the last

party conference and we will have a vote, let us hope, according to the

industrial timetable, as soon as possible and certainly this year and

myself and I think many of my Parliamentary colleagues are clear,

we will be supporting the government. Brendan O'Hara, the SNP

position is one that... You don't want to have Trident in Scotland and

yet you would be happy and content to be under the umbrella of Nato if

any attack came? Is that a preposterous position? Not at all.

If you look at Norway and Canada, who are members of Nato, full

members, they will not unlike nuclear weapons on their soil. What

we have said quite clearly is postindependence, we will have these

responsibilities, like any other country, we would be a member of

Nato and we would want to be a member of Nato but under strict

conditions that they are except we would not have nuclear weapons on

our soil. Norway has never had weapons, it is different to be a

member and then get rid of them, you would be the first country to do so.

And that would send out a powerful signal that we do not need nuclear

weapons, Scotland could use its influence for extreme goodbye

getting rid of them. There is no contradiction between wanting to

remain a member of Nato and not allowing nuclear weapons. Did you

say that they are morally indefensible? To have them? Yet you

want to snuggle in behind America with its protection? With the

nuclear Alliance. And you think the morally revolted -- repugnant? Were

pressing for nonproliferation and working towards... Norway made the

case for nonproliferation. Let me bring in Lord West. That would be

some towards disarmament. Lord West, you are the man in charge of Trident

from 2002. You have said that you you are the man in charge of Trident

think of us if we got rid of Trident? They

think of us if we got rid of made it very clear, it will

think of us if we got rid of extraordinary thing to do and we

would be the first country to ever give up nuclear weapons. We have

done more than any other country in the world to reduce our weapons

stocks, to just one system, and it has had zero impact on stopping new

nations getting them. The number of states are increasing. And therefore

I think you have far more never rich, we have the minimum credible

deterrent, you have more leverage in a multilateral

deterrent, you have more leverage in those weapons and say, let

deterrent, you have more leverage in how many we have got. If you are

designing a weapon right now, Trident would not be the weapon you

would design for this year? You are absolutely

would design for this year? You are other systems you talk

would design for this year? You are end up costing more, there would be

treaty issues and actually, yes, it has the Moscow materia,

treaty issues and actually, yes, it system but replacing something. It

just happens system but replacing something. It

else would cost more money. We have that fell in Britain is on

else would cost more money. We have and becoming more aggressive. How

would you In a system that sends out a signal

that other countries should acquire a weapon because we have one. -- I

would not be putting my faith in a system. And I certainly would not be

doing it when 135 countries are currently

doing it when 135 countries are nuclear treaty. To answer your

doing it when 135 countries are question, I would not be blocking

the question, I would not be blocking

to put in place a nuclear question, I would not be blocking

treaty. If we had that treaty, we question, I would not be blocking

could start focusing... But unlike Brenda's position,

could start focusing... But unlike that you do not want the umbrella of

Nato. You are happy to fight it out on your own? Let's challenge the

word deterrent. Let's call it weapons of mass destruction. We have

talked about the deterrent, but it is not a deterrent. It is a

talked about the deterrent, but it deterrent. You cannot prove

something. This is incredibly important. You would have to be able

to prove that by not doing something something else has happened and you

cannot prove that. Somebody who smokes 100 cigarettes a day, and

lives to an old age, smokes 100 cigarettes a day, and

that that smoker... That is exactly what he is saying. I have no

that that smoker... That is exactly if Japan had been able to drop

atomic weapons. The arrogance of people who think they can say in the

next 50 years that there will not be a country or somebody, a country

that might threaten dropping a nuclear weapons. May I finish, the

only thing you can be sure of is that if you have the ability to

destroy the country that wants to bomb you, they will not drop it.

Let's be honest, Trident is not a defensive weapon. It is a political

weapon. It is there to keep the United Kingdom on the top table of

the United Nations. It is a deterrent. Tony Blair is not someone

I caught very often in these matters but he is in his memoirs said they

looked at Trident and said as a military weapon it was useless but

its cost was astronomical. I am glad to see I do not agree with

everything Tony Blair says. But they would not do it. Is it really a

deterrent? There is no certainty in any of this. Would we be safer with

Russia's proliferation with other countries acquiring the bomb if we

were to get rid of it? I think it is hard to... On that point. On the

Tony Blair point, very briefly. Tony has changed his mind on this since

he wrote those memoirs. Tony Blair said it would be a downgrading of

Britain's status as a nation. The rise of Russia has made him change

his mind. But do you buy the argument that, why should we be

stopping other countries having nuclear weapons if we have them

ourselves? We are not superior, it is because one is where one is. You

are great you are. And you say, actually, if I were Germany, for

example, to try to actually get a sensible nuclear weapons system, it

would be a cost way beyond anything you could imagine. Brazil got rid of

nuclear weapons. You can do it if the political will is there. Do you

justify... In the next 50 years, none of us can predict, nobody can

predict and the people who say they can predict are talking nonsense. I

believe that this is an ultimate weight... Chatham House, a couple of

years ago, they reported that since 1962 there have been 13 near misses

because of human error, technological error. First of all,

the rid the risk of accidents and secondly, underwater drones. --

there is the risk of accidents. The idea that these Trident nuclear

weapons are going to be safe, it is absolutely rubbish. Everything that

goes into Trident comes out of a conventional defence system. Our

conventional defences are being sacrificed at the altar of Trident.

Anyone who says that is deluded. They honestly think in Whitehall, if

they think the money from Trident will go into conventional defence

they are deluding themselves. The Treasury have made it clear that

will not happen. In the first four years, if you got rid of it, it

would cost extra money. But on a single one of those four submarines,

the missiles from that would kill 10 million civilians and Castor that

area of the planet into a nuclear winter. Are we really thinking that

is the best way in the 21st century to try to resolve our affairs.

Whatever the decision is that is taken, it will not be taken in a

vacuum. Our Nato allies have skin

in the game, and as Michael Fallon said, we face a resurgent,

aggressive Russia whose roar Without Britain, France alone

in Europe would bear The French stockpile is 50% bigger

than Britain's and whereas Britain now only has the Trident system,

France keeps air launch nuclear Well, talk to decision makers

from other Nato countries and they're not that keen

on Britain renouncing Even France in the recent past has

shown interest in joint submarine patrol plans, or developing new air

launch weapons with the UK. Leaders in Germany or the countries

of Eastern Europe tend to give strong support to the idea

of Britain retaining a central role in European defence,

with nuclear weapons. And recent examples of nuclear

sabre-rattling by President Putin have just confirmed

them in that view. TRANSLATION: This year our nuclear

forces will get more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic

missiles which are capable of overcoming any anti-missile

systems, even the most technically Underlying much of this debate

is an uncertainty in Europe as to whether they could really

stand up to their Easter neighbour, and whether the United States might

abandon them in an hour of crisis. Joining me now are Radoslaw

Sikorski, former Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs in Donald Tusk's

cabinet, and before that, Major General Patrick Cordingley,

commander of the Seventh Armoured Brigade of UK troops in the first

Gulf War. And Professor Malcolm Chalmers,

Deputy Director-General of the Royal United Services

Institute. And down the line from Florida

is Nancy Soderberg, former US Ambassador to the United Nations

and foreign policy advisor Good evening to you all. It is a

Cold War weapon for a Cold War that does not exist any more. Well, I am

glad you mentioned that because when I was the defence minister, I

declassified some of our Polish Warsaw Pact era exercise maps. And

they envisaged a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe, and

Soviet nuclear strikes on Germany, Denmark, Holland. But significantly,

not on France and not on the UK. Why do you think that was? So they would

not think that actually we would come to their aid? I think the

Soviets made a calculation which I think is confirmed by what has

happened ever since. Countries have given up nuclear weapons. South

Africa was mentioned, and also, most significantly, Ukraine. Ukraine gave

up the third largest nuclear stockpile in the world in exchange

for guarantees of its territorial integrity and we know what happened.

But you talk about the classifying documents from the Warsaw Pact era.

What do you think now, do you think Vladimir Putin, who we know is

beefing up his nuclear arsenal, is he a threat to the West? Russia has

a doctrine of the first use of nuclear weapons from a time when

they felt conventionally weaker. And the exercise using battlefield

weapons in a confrontation with Nato. In 2009, there was an exercise

and in 2013. Vladimir Putin talks about using nuclear weapons. If he

talks about it, it means he thinks about it. Nancy Soderberg, do you

agree with that chilling statement, that Vladimir Putin is thinking

about nuclear weapons and using them, and that he will more likely

use them against us if we do not have our own Trident missiles? First

of all, I think you have to recognise that we all have plans to

use nuclear weapons. I can conceive of no conceivable realistic

situation in which they would use them. Our intelligence says that the

threat from a nuclear weapon would be a terrorist getting components.

That argument is that there is less nuclear material out there, that

that is better. In the US, we have been trying to reduce our numbers

and the debate in Britain about the Trident submarine is not likely to

change the politics. The politics are not there for it yet, but in

terms of the longer term, the US has a vibrant nuclear umbrella over

Europe and the Trident missile serves as a symbolic but not

militarily significant addition to that. It is interesting that it is

symbolic. Could we rely on the US to the same extent that we do now if we

did not have Trident? Absolutely. Britain is not going to get rid of

its Trident submarines any time soon. They will be upgraded but you

have to recognise that only one of them is circulating at any time and

I think there is a total of 16 weapons on there. It is not a

massive retaliatory force. The larger picture here is that the

world is moving towards reducing its nuclear weapons. The more countries

that have nuclear weapons, the harder it is to convince Iran that

it does not need one. Right now, there are nine and Iran might be the

10th if the nuclear deal falls apart. Over time, Britain, maybe not

in this cycle but maybe the next ten or 20 years, I think these weapons

will be phased out. The is a lively debate about tactical nuclear

weapons in the United States as well. Nancy Soderberg's view is that

our contribution to the arsenal is symbolic rather than anything else

and it will be phased out and actually America would still come to

our aid if we did not have weapons of mass destruction. I think it is

most unlikely that the UK arsenal would be phased out except in the

context of multilateral disarmament. The idea we would have done that

unilaterally, it would be a radical step. I would agree. No one is

talking about doing it unilaterally. It would have to be negotiated over

time. If we were to give up our weapons, we would be the first

country in the world to give up our weapons. We know about Brazil and

South Africa and Ukraine. What impact would that have on our

standing in the world? Could come back to whether is symbolic? Lets a

that deterrent works. I would not necessarily agree but let's assure

them that it has. Why? necessarily agree but let's assure

1500 ready nuclear warheads. necessarily agree but let's assure

those, it would have no effect on the deterrent against Russia. Russia

would still be deterred. I believe in Nato, and I think we are

perfectly safe under the American umbrella. That is the standpoint I

come from. And on that basis, you think we should scrap it?

come from. And on that basis, you America wants us to do, it once

asked to up our America wants us to do, it once

weapons. At the moment, we are really going very close to actually

weapons. At the moment, we are this weapon? The more important

question to ask is if the UK, having been involved in this business for

more than 60 years, since the Manhattan Project in the 40s, was to

know decides to get rid of the system, firstly people would ask, in

Russia and America or wherever, why have we made such a radical change

in our policy? And those in this country most opposed to nuclear

weapons are not doing it because they are particularly trusting of

the Americans or because they want to up our

the Americans or because they want they are doing it primarily

the Americans or because they want these weapons are morally repugnant.

But I wonder why we would still have, or if we would indeed have a

permanent seat at have, or if we would indeed have a

Council if we give up our nuclear weapons? Our power in the world

would be diminished, our standing would be diminished. Why should we

have a permanent seat? If the United Nations and the Security Council

were designed today, the membership would be different. The European

Union would perhaps be entitled to a seat. But not its member states. It

would certainly have some other big countries like India and others.

Yes, but that is history. What do you make of this idea that what the

Americans want us to do is up our conventional warfare? That they will

take care of the nuclear, but they want Britain to fight a more

conventional war? That is like asking yourself whether you need a

tank or a plane. You need both. We need to deter potential enemies at

all stages and all levels. Can I come in on the UN Security Council?

We became a founder member before we had nuclear weapons and there are

multiple reasons why we can justify having a seat. We have the second

largest aid budget in the world, the fourth-largest defence budget, maybe

the sixth or seventh largest economy and one of two nuclear members.

If somebody does give up nuclear weapons, it sends an enormous

message to everybody that we are serious about the nonproliferation

Treaty and why not make an example? To the world? What do you think that

the response from Vladimir Putin would be if Britain gave up nuclear

weapons? Would he be emboldened? That we would be more vulnerable? I

do not think there is any chance that even if he keeps his tyrannical

slide, he will seriously contemplate using nuclear weapons in Europe,

there is no reason, no threat, and I go back to the earlier point on the

conventional side, it is not like having one weapon or another, we

need help with writing Isis and we need more British, our best partners

in the battlefield, we need more help on the current fight with Isis,

the Air Force, the intelligence and the drones, fighting the threat of

terrorism and so I think the debate about whether to get rid of

Britain's nuclear weapons will not be a huge shock outside of Britain,

to be quite honest. Nobody is saying anybody will do any of this

unilaterally, least of all the French, but increasingly the threat

is, the terrorists get a hold of the Lewis betrayals and the answer is,

yes. The less nuclear material that is out there, that would be a very

powerful signal to move forward. Britain is not there right now, it

is debating it. James O'Brien will be

here tomorrow night.