During Britain's recent parliamentary elections, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg argued that the U.K. should scrap the proposed "like-for-like" replacement of its
submarine-based nuclear deterrent, known as Trident, with a similar modernized system. As a possible alternative,
Clegg's party has suggested fitting Britain's Astute-class submarines with nuclear cruise missiles, or in the event of a crisis, arming these same submarines with Trident missiles. Although such proposals may lead to financial savings, they are deeply flawed and could have far-reaching strategic and political implications for both the United Kingdom and its NATO allies. With Clegg now part of Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government, he will hopefully "get real" about Trident, as
former Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged in the second prime ministerial debate on April 22.
Rather than enhancing U.K. and NATO security, the arming of submarines with nuclear missiles during crises is potentially destabilizing, since it could provoke an adversary to increase their own state of readiness. By contrast, continuous at-sea deterrent patrols virtually eliminate the risk of sending inadvertent escalation signals. Even if the nuclear-armed submarines may never be called upon, they provide a hedge against unforeseen threats while minimizing the risk of crisis escalation. ...