Trident (Hansard, 31 March 1994)

§ Mr. Llew Smith
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reply he has made to the representations on the safety of Trident by Scottish CND; and if he will commission an evaluation of them.

§ Mr. Hanley
My right hon. and learned Friend has been sent copies of CND's document dated February 1994 entitled "The Safety of Trident". The document contains no new information of real significance, but includes many speculative assumptions and presents a misleading picture of the safety of the United Kingdom Trident programme.

§ Mr. Flynn
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration his Department has given to reducing the number of crews planned for the Trident submarines.

§ Mr. Hanley
Consideration is being given to the consequences of establishing a crewing level for the Trident force below the two crews per boat allocated to the Polaris force. No final decisions have yet been taken.

§ Mr. Flynn
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the differences between the Polaris and Trident systems in terms of their operational nature.

§ Mr. Hanley
It has been the policy of successive Governments not to comment on the operational or technical capabilities of our nuclear weapons.

§ Mr. Flynn
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional contribution to the United Kingdom's deterrent posture air-delivered bombs provide over and above that provided by Trident ballistic missiles.

§ Mr. Flynn
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the sub-strategic warhead intended for the Trident submarines is the same as its planned strategic warhead.

§ Mr. Aitken
It is not in the interest of national security to disclose details of the configuration of nuclear weapons.