By HANNAH K. STRANGE
UPI U.K. Correspondent
LONDON, March 15 (UPI) -- As the international community grapples with Iran over its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, one of the leading members of the charge against the Islamic Republic is locked in a domestic dispute over its own nuclear future.
Britain is gripped by an intense debate over whether to replace its ageing nuclear deterrent, the Trident missile system. But as analysts, campaigners and politicians go head to head over the merits and drawbacks of such a move, reports have begun to emerge suggesting the government has already begun developing a replacement in secret.
The Trident weapons system -- a ballistic system of missiles with multiple warheads housed on four submarines -- is expected to be obsolete by 2020. With any potential replacement requiring years of development, the government says a decision must be taken by the end of the current parliament, which ends in 2010.
The government insists that in an age of continuing security threats, it is essential for Britain to maintain a nuclear deterrent. But analysts and parliamentarians are divided on the issue, with many arguing that such a need evaporated with the end of the Cold War.
A replacement for Trident would also be extremely costly, with some independent estimates suggesting a figure of $35 billion. Opponents also argue that the move could violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which nuclear powers are obliged to take steps aimed at the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.
An influential committee of parliamentarians Tuesday began hearing evidence from analysts, campaigners and politicians, as it started its probe into the potential replacement of the Trident system. While the group has no direct say in government policy, a negative verdict could force the government to allow a vote in Parliament, a move it has so far refused to commit to.
Lee Willett, of defense think-tank the Royal United Services Institute, warned the committee would be dangerous for Britain to give up its nuclear weapons just as other countries moved to acquire them.
As many as 35 nations might now possess the "know-how" that would enable them to build a nuclear bomb, he said. "It is just in case for what we just don't know. We do not know what the future will hold. While others have nuclear weapons, the only thing that will deter a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon."
Sir Michael Quinlan, a former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defense, raised the possibility of nuclear-armed terrorists, which he described a "pretty horrific" thought.
He went on: "As far as deterring a state from using nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, there's clearly an option there."
However Quinlan said a replacement could prove too costly.
"The hard question is 'How much is it worth?' I am not an absolutist on this question at all. I want to know how much it is going to cost," he said.
"My own view is that there will be some cost that will be simply too much to pay for the insurance of staying in this business."
He warned however that it would be "very difficult" politically for any government to abandon Britain's nuclear weapons as long as France had them. "To leave the French as the only people (in Europe) with this, I think, would twitch a lot of very fundamental historical nerves," he said.
But many argue that in the current geopolitical framework Britain is so unlikely to act independently of the United States that it does not need its own missiles.
That is the view of Dan Plesch of the Foreign Policy Center, who told the committee that the idea Britain had its own independent nuclear deterrent even now was somewhat of a myth.
He said that previously neglected documents proved Britain relied on the United States for nuclear warhead material as well as missiles, contrary to the indications of successive British governments.
It was unlikely Britain would be able to use its nuclear weapons without U.S. agreement, he added.
"The U.S. would have every ability in the short and particularly in the longer term to prevent the system from being used because of our relationship," he said.
Plesch, who has authored a Foreign Police Center report recommending Trident be phased out, also warned it was essential to reverse the current global proliferation of nuclear weapons if a catastrophe was to be averted.
Anti-nuclear activists agree. Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said Britain "should be positioning itself as a global leader for peace by ending its nuclear weapons program."
She said Britain no longer faced a threat from any nuclear-armed nation, and noted that Prime Minister Tony Blair had said nuclear weapons were no use against terrorism.
But ministers insist Britain does face a nuclear threat. Defense Secretary John Reid has spoken of "the simple proposition that as long as a potential enemy has a nuclear weapon we should retain one," though he has not specified just who that potential enemy is.
The government also argues that replacing Trident would not breach the NPT, which it says does not commit member states to total disarmament but to negotiations on effective measures. It claims to have fulfilled that pledge by cutting its weapons capacity by 70 percent since the end of the Cold War. It no longer possesses bombs carried by aircraft and has reduced the operational readiness of its four Trident missile submarines, just one of which is now on patrol at any given time. The submarine's 48 warheads are no longer pre-targeted and it needs several days notice to fire.
However replacing Trident does leave Britain open to charges of hypocrisy as it works to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons capability. Leading international figures such as U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed El Baradei have spoken publicly of the need for nuclear-armed states to take greater strides towards disarmament, arguing that it is difficult to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while major world powers retain them.
Speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in December, El Baradei said the nuclear-armed states should "lead by example" and accelerate disarmament efforts, which he described as "very slow."
"This naturally is creating an environment of cynicism among the non-nuclear weapons states," he said.
But as the arguments for and against Trident's replacement are thrashed out, there are indications that the government may have secretly embarked on the development of a potential successor already.
A Ministry of Defense memorandum submitted to the parliamentary defense committee revealed that
1,000 extra scientists and engineered are to be hired by Britain's secret Atomic Weapons Establishment, which is also planning to build a laser to enable a new nuclear weapon to be tested without breaking the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
A recent test in the U.S. state of Nevada, codenamed Operation Krakatoa, was part of an effort to develop a new British nuclear weapon, the Times of London reported Sunday. It claimed both Britain and the United States were working on the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which could be tested by computer without the need for banned nuclear tests.
The government has refused to confirm or deny the reports, but insists a decision on Trident's replacement has not yet been taken. It is as yet unclear what influence Parliament will be able to have on that decision, with Blair promising a "full debate" on the issue but refusing to commit to a vote.
Any parliamentary debate is certain to be a vigorous one, with the issue resurrecting old divisions between the right and the left of the Labor Party over the need for a nuclear deterrent. It is by no means guaranteed that, should he allow a vote, Blair would secure sufficient backing from his own MPs to renew the system. With the alternative - allowing Trident to expire - a leap into the political unknown, it may well be that the government decides to leave nothing to chance, and bypass Parliament altogether.
