Whoever forms the next government, the renewal of Trident is set to be an explosive issue. Despite saying they will launch a Strategic Defence and Security Review shortly after the election to establish the required level of defence spending for the future, the Conservatives would currently exclude the question of the Trident replacement programme from it. From the perspective of the Conservatives and Labour this is understandable. Both parties have backed without reservation the continued use of the Trident submarine nuclear deterrent. But will they be able to hold out against the clamour for severe cuts throughout Whitehall?

Replacing Trident will incur an estimated lifetime cost of more than £80 billion. This will have long-term consequences for the military and the defence equipment budgets. The National Audit Office and the Defence select committee call the current defence budget “unaffordable” and have identified a £36 million black hole in funding. According to the previous government this was to supposedly be bridged by reforming procurement, cutting civilian staff and spending less on headquarters costs, travel and consultancy. Given Labour’s dismal record on making efficiency savings one wonders how realistic these plans are. Major Gen Buster Howes recently claimed that “Our current defence aspirations are unaffordable, so very hard choices will have to be made.” Whether the “very hard choices” he refers to are cutting civilian staff and spending less on travelling is unclear. Having said that, an article of a recent Chatham House debate between the defence spokesmen of each of the three major parties reports that one of the most hotly debated issues was whether military chiefs should travel first or second class.

A fully costed Strategic Defence and Security Review that looks critically at all significant planned defence spending is crucial to achieving efficient allocation of resources and obtaining the best outcomes for the military. But there are two points. First, the issue of Trident should be included in this Review. There is growing international consensus for a nuclear-free world. In April 2010 US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a pact to cut substantially the nuclear arsenals of both nations in the most comprehensive arms control treaty in two decades. The Lib Dem stance on Trident and security appears to echo these developments. They have committed to halving the UK’s stockpile of nuclear warheads as a prelude to kick-starting multilateral disarmament. The rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system and urge the consideration of alternatives to Trident coupled with greater pan-European cooperation. The second point is that whatever the decision made on Trident, allowing the military’s views to be excluded from the Strategic Defence and Security Review would be a grave mistake.

However coalition talks pan out, it will be interesting to see how these issues are handled, particularly given the differing ideological positions of the parties and the overwhelming pressure for cuts to all Whitehall budgets. The Review must feature the following question, put by four former senior military commanders in a recent letter to the Times, “Is the UK’s security best served by going ahead with business as usual; reducing our nuclear arsenal; adjusting our nuclear posture or eliminating our nuclear weapons?” Brushing ideological positions aside and granting the military a strong voice in the review is paramount to arriving at the most sensible and effective answer.