Trident (Hansard, 12 January 1995)

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people they estimate would be killed if only one of the 192 warheads which can be carried by a single Trident submarine were to be dropped today on the city of Hiroshima.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, Britain's nuclear weapons are a deterrent against aggression. Their value is in preserving peace, not fighting wars. No useful purpose would be served by attempting to answer a hypothetical Question of this sort.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, as the noble Lord is apparently unable to answer the Question, perhaps permit me to answer it for him. Will he consider the fact that the original bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed 200,000 immediately, and another 100,000 died subsequently—a total of 300,000? The bomb operated at about 15 per cent. of efficiency. Therefore, as there are 192 warheads on the Trident, each one of which is certainly no less efficient than the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima, it is probable that any one of those warheads could wipe out Hiroshima and all its inhabitants completely, although they now number just over 1 million.
Therefore, does the Minister agree that the vessel which is traversing the globe has a lethal capacity of incredible size? What on earth is the use of the thing? Or, to use the words of another noble Lord who is not here today but who put the matter more effectively than I can, what is the bloody use of the thing?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as I made clear in my original Answer, we believe that no useful purpose would be served by answering the hypothetical Question which the noble Lord asked. Perhaps I may correct one or two of the noble Lord's facts. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced as long ago as 1993, Trident will deploy with no more than 96 warheads and may have many fewer. Also, as I 291 announced yesterday, by the time Trident is fully operational the explosive power of our nuclear arsenal will be more than 25 per cent. less than it was in 1990.

§ Lord Dainton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Question, in the form in which it has been put, is quite unanswerable, even if it is hypothetical? I speak with almost 50 years experience of the subject, some of it as chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board. I should like to say to the House simply that damage could only be due to burn, blast and radiation, and unless one knows the height of burst, the precise position and the exact nature of the buildings which now exist—and which are not those which existed when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima—and unless one also knows something about the curative power of modern medicine for the hurt which may be caused, it is quite impossible to make an estimate that has any credibility, whether it be an official government reply or the best speculation of any amateur.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I can only thank the noble Lord for that most helpful piece of information. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also took considerable note of what the noble Lord had to say.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, what is the lesson to be learnt from this exchange? Neither the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, nor, I am sure, the Minister, is suggesting that anything less than many thousands or hundreds of thousands of people would be killed. The fact that we cannot give a precise answer to the Question does not mean that these weapons are less terrible.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, nobody said that they were not. But they serve a very useful purpose as a deterrent and they have provided for our security for over 50 years.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the deterrent is excessive? The lethality deployed is enormously overdriven. It is an enormous waste of taxpayers' money. Will he not look at the matter fairly and agree with that?
Is he aware that more accurate estimations have been made by the Japanese? Is he also aware that a reasonable, informed guess can be made? I shall be able to put that estimate in Written Questions to the noble Lord rather than taking up the time of the House this afternoon.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I believe that it is a minimum strategic nuclear deterrent, and that is all. As I said, the explosive power of our nuclear arsenal will, when fully deployed, be some 25 per cent. less than it was in 1990. As regards costs, Trident is expected to absorb less than 2.5 per cent. of the defence budget over its procurement period. It is coming into service well under its original estimates.