how Britain's obsession with nuclear weapons became a part of election campaigns

With a campaign slogan of “change”, Keir Starmer is on a mission to persuade the electorate that the Labor Party of 2024 is different from that of 2019. This is partly explained by his unequivocal “triple lock” commitment to Trident, the British nuclear power station. weapon system.

At a time when the risk of a major European war is higher than it has been in decades, Starmer reiterated his support for a massive program to replace the Trident system (submarines, warheads, missiles and infrastructure), initiated by the former Labor Prime Minister. Tony Blair, in 2006. The Triple Lock is a commitment in the current program to build four new ballistic missile submarines, keep one of the four still at sea on operational patrol and keep the system up to date.

Starmer objects to Tory claims that Labor is “weak”, “cannot be trusted” and poses a “danger to national security”, accusations which plagued his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, an opponent of still with nuclear weapons.

Ideas about British national identity and Britain's place in the world are linked to a commitment to nuclear weapons. This identity is also linked to the idea of ​​Britain as a military power in Europe and the current identity of the Labor Party, strong on defence.

Future Prime Ministers are in fact required to publicly declare that they would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. Commitment to nuclear deterrence has become a de facto criterion for access to number 10.

Corbyn found out in 2017 when he told the BBC's Andrew Marr that he would never use nuclear weapons first, and perhaps never, if he were prime minister. In an unprecedented intervention, the former chiefs of defense said Corbyn's response showed he “should not be trusted… with the defense and security of the nation” and that he was unfit to be Prime Minister. Corbyn's opposition to Trident is still used to attack Starmer and the Labor Party years later.

Starmer first signaled his commitment to Trident in 2021. Two years later, shadow defense secretary John Healey and shadow foreign secretary David Lammy declared their “unwavering” commitment to nuclear weapons as making part of the “Labour legacy”. But concerns about the morality and effectiveness of using nuclear weapons have long divided Labor.

This is very different to the way nuclear weapons, based in Scotland, are designed by the Scottish National Party. In their conception of Scotland's independent national identity, nuclear weapons are associated with an imposed and undemocratic conservative “imperialism”, in which Labor has been complicit, and in contrast to the SNP's version of progressive internationalism. The SNP has said it will remove nuclear weapons from Scotland in the event of Scottish independence.

The nuclear debate is also part of a gendered discourse that views commitment to nuclear weapons as strong, sensible, rational and masculine, and anything else as weak, irrational and feminine.

The nuclear “consensus”

This Whitehall nuclear consensus ends the democratic debate on whether, how and why the Prime Minister might use nuclear weapons. But opinions in the country are far from settled.

A recent poll shows that 53% support or strongly support the UK having nuclear weapons, with around 30% opposed or strongly opposed. For women, the distribution is 50:50. For those under 25, it is 28% for and 43% against. In Scotland, it is 35% for and 41% against (the others say they don't know).

The British Prime Minister is one of the few people in the world with the power to inflict truly catastrophic levels of violence on another society. Nuclear weapons should therefore be subject to intense scrutiny and debate, particularly in a liberal democratic society. Starmer should understand this as a human rights lawyer, since virtually any use of nuclear weapons would violate international humanitarian law and human rights law.

The nuclear program is also extremely expensive. At a time when public services, notably health and education, are under great pressure, this arguably makes democratic debate even more necessary.

In March 2024, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee reported that the cost of the MoD's 10-year capital plan was over budget by £17 billion, despite a budget increase of £46.3 billion. billion pounds sterling. The main cause is the nuclear programme, whose costs have increased by £38.2 billion (62%) since the last plan. The nuclear program now represents 34.5% of the £288.6 billion Defense Equipment Plan, which itself represents 49% of the MoD's total budget.

In particular, the delivery program for the new Dreadnought missile submarines has become the top priority of the Ministry of Defense. The department will redirect funds from conventional military programs to support it if it fails to secure more money from the Treasury. Labor and the Conservatives have both pledged to increase the defense budget, particularly for conventional forces, but have not said where the money will come from.

There are other political reasons why Starmer came out in favor of Trident. In particular, the thousands of jobs supported by the production and maintenance of nuclear-powered submarines in England and Scotland, as well as the power of unions within the Labor Party. The “triple lock” language also reflects the triple lock commitment on pensions. This could appeal to older voters, who are more likely to vote (and vote Conservative).

Starmer’s “triple lock” may make political sense from his perspective, but it is symptomatic of a nuclear consensus within Whitehall politics that tolerates little dissent. The result is that the debate over these difficult and serious security, economic, legal and moral choices regarding nuclear weapons is regularly interrupted and reduced to political performance. In the words of General Sir Richard Shirreff, a retired senior British army officer, this infantilizes an extremely serious problem.