THIS week, the UK鈥檚 Atomic Weapons Establishment hopes to gain approval to build a 1000-terawatt laser called Orion at its headquarters at Aldermaston in Berkshire, about 100 kilometres west of London. One of the most powerful lasers in the world, Orion will recreate the extremely high temperatures and pressures at the heart of nuclear explosions.
The application comes on the back of some other important changes at Aldermaston. In 2002 it installed a supercomputer system capable of performing 3 trillion calculations a second. The system is designed to model the complex physical and chemical processes that occur inside nuclear warheads. In 2003 it launched a recruitment drive to attract hundreds of science graduates. And last month, the government revealed that funding for Aldermaston is set to rocket from 拢300 million in 2003-2004 to over 拢800 million in 2007-2008.
Doubtless the supercomputer, laser and hundreds of extra scientists will be put to work on Aldermaston鈥檚 avowed purpose: ensuring the safety of the UK鈥檚 ageing nuclear deterrent, a submarine-based missile system called Trident. But it beggars belief that with all this new money, brainpower and machinery, Aldermaston鈥檚 work will be limited to safeguarding the UK鈥檚 stockpile of only 200 warheads. Experts point out that the new machines would be ideal for designing new bombs. They could, for example, be used for experiments on low-yield mini-nukes and the highly controversial bunker-busters, in which Aldermaston is rumoured to share the Bush administration鈥檚 interest.
Advertisement
A new system may well be what Aldermaston has in mind. Trident was introduced in 1994 and is expected to come to the end of its life between 2020 and 2025. Because of the long lead times for developing and deploying a replacement, UK prime minister Tony Blair has said that a decision will be needed within the next five years.
The simplest option would be a refurbishment to extend the life of the existing warheads. But ministers will also be considering whether to develop a new generation of submarine-launched missiles, or whether to switch to a weapon that could be carried by aircraft, or fired from land.
Trident was conceived during the cold war, and times have changed; submarines equipped with nuclear weapons are rapidly becoming obsolete. A tour of duty aboard one of the UK鈥檚 four Trident-armed Vanguard-class nuclear subs is a job of mind-boggling futility. Always at sea, always in total secrecy, it is like an ancient virility ritual that has long since lost its point, if it ever had one.
鈥淎 tour of duty on one of the UK鈥檚 Trident-armed sub is a job of mind-boggling futility鈥�
Each submarine carries up to 48 nuclear warheads, each capable of obliterating a city. The missiles have a range of over 7000 kilometres but they are not targeted at anyone because even strategic planners accept that there are no legitimate 鈥渕ilitary鈥� targets. They cannot be used to seek out an Osama bin Laden in an Afghan cave, or any disciples in Riyadh or Leeds. Nor are nuclear weapons much of a deterrent to potential invaders. Witness Argentina鈥檚 invasion of the Falklands in 1982 and Iraq鈥檚 invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Replacing them seems pointless.
But there is another option 鈥� the UK could disarm. Under the United Nations鈥� Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the UK has given an 鈥渦nequivocal undertaking鈥� to accomplish the 鈥渢otal elimination鈥� of its nuclear arsenal. Its failure to achieve this so far, along with the US and France, was one of the main reasons why a crucial five-yearly review of the treaty ended without agreement in May.
If Blair now decides to order a replacement for Trident, he will stretch the treaty 鈥� one of the main barriers to the spread of nuclear weapons 鈥� to breaking point. Worse, he could fatally undermine attempts to persuade countries such as Iran and North Korea not to develop the bomb.
Blair is already having difficulty convincing Iran not to enrich uranium, a process that makes the metal suitable for reactors or bombs. Iran says that because the UK enriches thousands of tonnes of uranium at Capenhurst in Cheshire, it should be able to as well. Similarly, arguing that North Korea should not reprocess reactor fuel to extract plutonium has always sounded rich, given that this is exactly what happens at Sellafield in Cumbria.
Sadly, the decision about Trident looks like a fait accompli. 鈥淲e鈥檙e committed to retaining the UK鈥檚 independent nuclear deterrent,鈥� insists Blair. 鈥淎s long as a potential enemy has a nuclear weapon, we will retain ours,鈥� says the defence secretary, John Reid.
And the new work at Aldermaston raises suspicions that scientists at the UK鈥檚 bomb factory have begun investigating the options. They say little, of course, only pointing out that part of their mission is 鈥渢o maintain a capability to design a new weapon, should it ever be required鈥�.
Robin Cook, the UK鈥檚 respected former foreign secretary, argued just before he died in August that replacing Trident would not only be against Britain鈥檚 national interests, but would also breach the country鈥檚 international obligations. The UK now has a chance to break the deadlock over nuclear proliferation. It should take it.