Edition: English | 中文簡體 | 中文繁體 Монгол
Homepage > World Video

British MPs back renewal of Trident program

Reporter: Richard Bestic 丨 CCTV.com

07-19-2016 14:45 BJT

British MPs have voted to renew the country's nuclear armed submarines programme. 472 members voted to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent, which consists of four Royal Navy submarines armed with Trident missiles. Controversial as well as expensive, the decision marked the first outing for the UK's new Prime Minister Theresa May.

It is in the view of the British government the UK's ultimate safeguard. At a cost of some $55 billion dollars over two decades, successors to these nuclear submarines will carry the country's independent nuclear deterrent. In her first speech to Parliament as Prime Minister, Theresa May said to abandon it would be a reckless gamble.

"We must continually convince any potential aggressors that the benefits of an attack on Britain are far outweighed by their consequences. And we cannot afford to relax our guard or rule out further shifts, which would put our country in grave danger. We need to be prepared to deter threats to our lives and our livelihoods and those of generations who are yet to be born," said Theresa May.

Since 1969 according to government records a British submarine carrying nuclear weapons has always been on patrol somewhere in readiness for nuclear war.

The ultimate deterrent, because even if conventional defence capabilities were destroyed, the submarines could launch nuclear warheads with a 7,000 mile range each with an estimated power of eight Hiroshima bombs.

Opponents say the cost is a drag on Britain's wider defense budget and the Trident nuclear warhead belongs to another era, hopeless against 21st century military threats.

The British government has in one form or another approved these new nuclear submarines three times, so the latest Parliamentary vote appeared more a signal to the world than a domestic legal requirement.

They have though raised again those ancient arguments: Is mutually assured destruction really a coherent military plan or is the possession of such massively destructive weapons merely a national virility symbol. Thankfully, so far, the answer is purely academic.  

Follow us on

  • Please scan the QR Code to follow us on Instagram

  • Please scan the QR Code to follow us on Wechat