I have received a number of e-mails from constituents regarding the Government’s intention to commission a new generation of nuclear weapons, together with associated equipment, to replace the current Trident system.
The development and possession of nuclear weaponry is, and has long been, a matter of controversy. However, the position that all British governments have taken since the Second World War is that it is in this country’s interests for it to possess such weapons. In doing so, governments have been especially mindful of the fact that such possession provides a means whereby a potential aggressor – especially one armed with nuclear weapons – can be deterred from attacking this country, principally by virtue of the possibility that such an aggressor might face very serious retaliation.
I believe that the logic in question remains valid today. After all, several countries possess nuclear weapons, and it is possible that additional countries will acquire them in the future. Not all of the countries in question could be described as friendly and reliable, and a more hostile, and perhaps unstable, stance on the part of one or more such countries in the future cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, I believe that the deterrent ability of a fully operational and effective nuclear arsenal is a very valuable one, and one that might be of even greater value in the future. Specifically, I believe that this country requires, as a minimum, the ability to ensure the continuous at-sea presence of submarines armed with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. By extension, I support the Government’s intentions with regard to the commissioning of a successor to the Trident system, and intend to vote on the matter accordingly.