Nuclear Deterrent Capability (Hansard, 21 June 1991)

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, it is fundamental to our security that our strategic nuclear deterrent remains credible. The Trident force will provide the minimum capability necessary to maintain an effective independent deterrent into the next century.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, does not the noble Earl agree that we already have the capacity to inflict unacceptable damage on an adversary? Why are the Government not content just to maintain that? Why are they now building a very much more powerful fleet for the mid-1990s, a fleet with greater range, accuracy and penetration, and independently targeted war-heads? Why are we seeing this great lift in Britain's strategic nuclear capability? What world events have made it necessary?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord's questions with three points. First, as I said in my Answer, the Trident operation will be a minimum deterrent. Secondly, Soviet defences are increasing and will increase further. Thirdly, Trident must last well into the next century.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that by the year 2005, if nothing happens, British and French nuclear weapons will, according to a US Congress Research Service report published in 1989, be equivalent to some one-fifth of US nuclear forces as opposed to 2 per cent. in 1985? Does that not upset the balance between Britain and France and the United States; and does it not argue for participation by Britain and France in the START negotiations?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, we cannot determine our deterrent needs by reference to the size of superpower arsenals. Even after the envisaged START 1 cuts are implemented, the United States and the USSR will each retain more than 6,000 strategic warheads. Our Trident force will be in no way comparable.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, has not the maintenance over several decades of a nuclear deterrent by the United States, ourselves and our allies had a beneficial effect on the peace of the world by making the Soviet Union think again about the possibility of nuclear war? Is my noble friend aware that the Soviet navy is at present being re-equipped on a very large scale? Should not that factor be taken into consideration?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend. Nuclear weapons are for war prevention and 45 years of peace in Europe prove the success of nuclear deterrence. In answer to my noble friend's second point, I believe that he is right about the increase in the Soviet navy.

§ Lord Grimond
My Lords, have the Government any evidence that the Soviets are increasing their nuclear capability? Is the re-equipment of their forces primarily conventional or nuclear?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, as far as I understand it, the increase is nuclear rather than conventional.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is the Government's commitment to a bigger deterrent related to the deterrent forces of the great powers? In reply to me the Minister justified the Trident fleet on the ground that the Soviet deterrent had increased in size. Is he not aware that President Bush said a few days ago that the United States and the Soviet Union are 96 per cent. of the way towards drastic cuts in their strategic nuclear deterrents? Is not a great deal of the new submarine construction and naval construction in the Soviet Union defensive in the sense that it is aimed against the very many naval vessels capable of delivering nuclear missiles against the Soviet Union?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, I repeat what was stated at the London summit on 5th to 6th July last year when the alliance leaders met. It was stated: We will remain a defensive alliance and would never in any circumstances be the first to use force. None of our weapons will be used except in self-defence". The main factor that must be remembered and one which is of fundamental importance is the defence of the realm.