51³Ô¹ÏÍø

Danny Alexander speech on Trident Alternatives Review; Alexander speech SOT - Second, the Review has not addressed the question of whether or not the UK should remain a nuclear weapons power. There is a respectable tradition in this country of opposition to nuclear weapons, and that argument will continue to be made. Indeed, some people will take the opportunity of the debate I am launching today, to make that case. But I don't intend to do so today for the purposes of today's talk. Complete unilateral disarmament is not the stated policy of either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative parties. As we all know, in some parts of the world, we are not far from the possibility of a new round of nuclear proliferation. We do not know exactly what is at the other side of the hill, so it is right that the UK should retain some nuclear weapons capability. What is at issue today is not whether we should possess nuclear weapons, but how the scale and posture of our nuclear weapons capability can change. So the Review was tasked to answer three questions. First, are there credible alternatives to a submarine-based deterrent? Second, are there credible submarine-based alternatives to the current proposal? Third, are there alternative nuclear postures which could maintain credibility? The review has been thorough, detailed, extensive, and objective. Let me take you briefly though the alternatives considered. The analysis identifies specific combinations of platform, delivery vehicle and warhead design for detailed consideration, but excludes technologies that could not be ready by 2035. From a starting list of more than 700 potential options, the work was narrowed to consider a small number of credible and deliverable platforms and weapons systems. Variants of the current successor programme of SSBN and Trident ballistic missiles are included in the analysis. In terms of alternative platforms, the review considered large air...