THERE is currently a national debate surrounding our national security and whether we want to renew our fleet of Trident nuclear submarines – it is quickly becoming one of the most important and heavily contested for decades. 

The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, has suggested that one possible alternative to the current set-up, would be to renew the fleet at a reduced cost of £30 billion, protecting the defence jobs of those working on the submarines, but not arming them with nuclear missiles. In short, to renew the nuclear submarines but not to arm them with any missiles.

He has stated that as Prime Minister, he would direct his defence chiefs to never use nuclear weapons, and, if pressed, would not push the nuclear button, even if other states or enemies trained their missiles at the UK. 

His belief that the eight current states with nuclear capabilities could easily be persuaded to give them up seeing that we are no longer living in a Cold War, has been called by some, naïve at best.

The Conservatives pledged in our manifesto to replace Trident. It works as an effective ‘insurance policy’ against attacks and has guaranteed our security for generations. Trident remains the ultimate deterrent to any aggressor, and one of the best means at our disposal of ensuring longstanding peace.

While monitoring nuclear proliferation is desirable, in reality it is almost impossible to be sure and bilateral disarmament can never be guaranteed. It would be unwise for us to scrap our nuclear weapons and defences when potentially hostile states or enemy groups, or perhaps even allies, maintain or acquire nuclear capabilities.

Since 1945, every British government has agreed the necessity of having and maintaining a nuclear deterrent. While the expense of renewing the fleet is huge and its utility (hopefully) non-existent, there is common sense in the practical arguments against renewal, however, giving it up is just too big and too sudden of a downgrading of the UK’s status as a military and political power worldwide, a step which in today’s world, is too big a risk.

The cost of fully renewing all four Trident submarines is also a sticking point in the debate. £100 billion, in the days of continuing austerity would go a long way to funding the NHS and build more than 1 million new homes, but what price security? We are all asking ourselves if we are willing to forgo this investment for the sake of securing the long term safety and political clout of our nation, as a moral, leading democratic force. After all, a condition of our membership of NATO, which has never been a topic for contention, is that no less than 2% of our GDP must be spent of defence.

There are of course other options, renewal of only some of the fleet, renewal without nuclear capabilities, transferring missiles into the cheaper Astute submarine fleet, among others, all of which will in due course be further analysed and investigated.

MP’s will be debating this issue in detail over the coming months, and I would very much welcome your thoughts and comments on the issue, as I feel it is important for me to gauge the strength of opinion across my constituency before making a final decision on this most important issue. I would be extremely grateful for your thoughts; luke.hall.mp@parliament.uk.