Scientists join debate about upgrading the UK’s nuclear deterrent

The UK government, which consists of a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, is split on how to handle the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent. Currently the system consists of 58 nuclear-armed Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles that are carried on four Vanguard-class submarines. One submarine remains on patrol at all times.

Each Trident missile contains between three and ten nuclear warheads that have a yield between 10 and 100 kilotons. Under the previous Labour government’s plan , three of the four submarines would be replaced in the early 2020s.

In the run-up to this year’s general election, the Liberal Democrats campaigned on getting rid of the Trident system, whereas the Conservatives supported upgrading and modernizing the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

Recently, the coalition government announced that they were going to defer the question over what to do about Trident until after the next election, which must be held by May 2015. The government opted for the delay partly for budgetary reasons and partly because of the stress any decision would put on its stability.

Threats to UK science

The government has resolved, however, that its next budget will include cuts of 20–25% in funding for scientific research. In response, a group of 36 scientists has written to Prime Minister David Cameron urging his administration to scrub the UK’s nuclear deterrent and invest the savings in civilian science.

Specifically, the scientists, who include ex-Royal Society president Michael Atiyah and Nobel Prize winner Harold Kroto, propose that the nuclear warheads be taken off the Vanguard submarines and put into storage; plans for an updated deterrent should be scrapped entirely.

The UK government currently spends £8 billion (US$12.8 billion) on R&D, of which 25% (US$3.2 billion) is spent on defense projects . “Much of this funding is used to support defence industry projects at a time when the industry is reaping bumper profits due to the massive increase in global military expenditure over the last decade,” say the scientists in their letter to the prime minister.

Replacing Trident is still someways off. However, to keep staff at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), which manages the UK warheads, up-to-date with techniques for modernizing and maintaining the warheads, the Ministry of Defence decided last year to spend an extra $1.6 billion annually over the next three years on the UK’s three most powerful supercomputers (two codenamed Willow ; one codenamed Blackthorn ) and on a new hydrodynamics facility (codenamed Hydrus ) that will conduct stockpile stewardship experiments.

“It’s completely irrational to cut scientific research into medical and environmental problems,” says Stuart Parkinson, executive director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, who coordinated the letter, “whilst pouring billions of pounds of research money into facilities for designing new nuclear warheads.”

Does the UK need nukes?

“The major security threats we will face in the coming years have their roots in problems like climate change and resource shortages,” says Parkinson. “These are the areas where more of our research should be focused, and yet the UK currently devotes 20 times more research funding to military projects than to renewable energy. If cuts have to come, it’s clear to us that [AWE] is where the axe should fall.”

Moreover, in their letter to the prime minister the scientists argue that by keeping its nuclear deterrent the UK is undermining progress toward multilateral nuclear disarmament, despite being a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. They write:

Paul Guinnessy

Open letter on public science funding and nuclear weapons research

As senior scientists and engineers, we are deeply concerned that while the government is threatening to cut public funding for research and development as a whole, it appears to be committed to maintaining high levels of military-related R&D. Of particular concern is the fact that world-class research into health and global environmental problems is under threat, while the government continues to fund the multi-billion pound research programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston.

Official statistics indicate that the total public spending on R&D is currently about £8 billion. Of this, the Ministry of Defence spends over £2 billion, more than 25% of the total. Much of this funding is used to support defence industry projects at a time when the industry is reaping bumper profits due to the massive increase in global military expenditure over the last decade. Our view is that current MoD R&D funding is not only disproportionate, it also includes expenditure on programmes which are of minimal benefit or counterproductive to the UK’s security. For example, funds for the redevelopment of the Atomic Weapons Establishment’s research facilities “to ensure that the existing warhead can be maintained for as long as necessary, and to enable the development of a successor warhead should one be required” (quoting from AWE’s mission statement) will, we firmly believe, undermine progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.

Our view is that the UK’s nuclear warheads should be taken off deployment and placed in secure land-based storage, and that the successor to the Trident system should be scrapped. The facilities at the AWE should be directed solely to monitoring and verification of arms control and disarmament agreements.

Overall, therefore, we believe that any cuts to public science spending should predominantly come from cuts to the MoD’s R&D.

However, there are some areas of security-related R&D that should be expanded, including those which support monitoring of arms control agreements, non-violent conflict resolution, and tackling the roots of conflict and insecurity.

The over-arching threats to international security arise from rising fuel and resource costs, the impacts of climate change and other environmental problems, and the widening gap between rich and poor. Nuclear weapons are of no help in dealing with these problems - indeed, they are likely to make matters far worse. On the other hand, a major shift of military R&D to civilian programmes of work will - if targeted carefully - help to tackle these international problems, improving the UK’s security and also leading to greater job creation and a faster emergence from the current recession. As an example of the current imbalance in resources, we note that the current MoD R&D budget is more than 20 times larger than public funding for R&D on renewable energy.

We therefore urge ministers to shift their priorities so that science and technology can contribute to tackling the real threats to the UK’s present and future security.

Sincerely

Sir Michael Atiyah OM FRS FRSEProfessor (Honorary) of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh

Keith BarnhamProfessor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London

Roy ButterfieldProfessor (Emeritus) of Civil Engineering, University of Southampton

David CaplinProfessor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London

Roland Clift CBE FREng FRSAProfessor (Emeritus) of Environmental Technology, University of Surrey

Anne-Christine DavisProfessor of Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge

David ElliottProfessor (Emeritus) of Technology Policy, The Open University

Christopher French FRSAProfessor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London

Leon FrerisProfessor (Visiting) of Renewable Energy Systems, Loughborough University

Jonathan HarwoodProfessor (Emeritus) of History of Science & Technology, University of Manchester

Alastair Hay OBEProfessor of Environmental Toxicology, University of Leeds

Robert Hinde CBE FRSProfessor (Emeritus) of Zoology, University of Cambridge

David InfieldProfessor of Renewable Energy Technologies, University of Strathclyde

Tim Jackson FRSAProfessor of Sustainable Development, University of Surrey

Tom Kibble CBE FRSProfessor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London

Sir Harold Kroto FRSProfessor (Emeritus) of Chemistry, University of SussexProfessor of Chemistry, Florida State UniversityNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1996)

Matthew Leach FRSAProfessor of Energy and Environmental Systems

Amyan MacfadyenProfessor (Emeritus) of Ecology and Environmental Science, University of Ulster

Aubrey Manning OBE FRSEProfessor (Emeritus) of Natural History, University of Edinburgh

Stephen MorseProfessor of Systems Analysis for Sustainability

Eike NagelProfessor of Clinical Cardiovascular Imaging, King’s College London

Jenny NelsonProfessor of Physics, Imperial College London

John F Nye FRSProfessor (Emeritus) of Physics, University of Bristol

Lawrence PaulsonProfessor of Computational Logic, University of Cambridge

Malcolm PoveyProfessor of Food Physics, University of Leeds

William PowrieProfessor of Geotechnical Engineering

Norman Sheppard FRSProfessor (Emeritus) of Chemistry, University of East Anglia

John Sloboda FBAProfessor (Emeritus) of Psychology, Keele University

Peter F SmithProfessor of Sustainable Energy, University of Nottingham

Tim ValentineProfessor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London

F J Vine FRSProfessor (Emeritus) of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia

Alex Warleigh-Lack AcSSProfessor of Politics and International Relations, Brunel University

David Webb FRSAProfessor of Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University

John Whitelegg FRSAProfessor (Visiting) of Sustainable Transport, Liverpool John Moores UniversityProfessor (Visiting) of Sustainable Transport, York University

Tom WoolleyProfessor of Architecture, Queens University Belfast (retired)

Peter YoungProfessor (Emeritus) of Environmental Systems, Lancaster University

NB all signatories have signed in a personal capacity: where institutions are listed, this is for information only.

This letter has been co-ordinated by Dr Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility, who is the main correspondent for the letter.