The UK's Nuclear Program

Why is the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent being debated at themoment ?This is a rare opportunity to make a radical change to the UK's nuclear weapons system. Since 1994, the country's deterrent has been provided by four Vanguard submarines, each of which carries the Trident D5 missile, plus warheads. In 2016 - one year after the expected date of the next election - the UK must take a decision on whether to commit around £20bn in capital expenditure to replace these four submarines, which are approaching the end of their service. Is there a good reason to question the replacement of Trident witha like-for-like system?There are two reasons for the questions about Trident.  First, the £20bn capital cost is high. It could take up at least 30 per cent of the Ministry of Defence's equipment budget after 2020, according to experts. This may make it hard for the UK to pay for other items, such as the F35 Joint Strike Fighter.A second issue is changing nuclear doctrine. Trident is powerful enough to destroy a major capital city like Moscow - overcoming its air defences - in retaliation against any act of aggression against Britain. But this "Moscow Criterion" is coming into question. Does the UK really need such capability? Would it not be enough to threaten a potential aggressor with damage to less well protected cities? The Liberal Democrats believe this would be enough and that a less elaborate deterrent might be sufficient.Are there any cheaper options to Trident that would do the trick?The Lib Dems clearly believe there are cheaper options. But thereis no obvious alternative. A deterrent based on launching a cruise missilefrom a conventional submarine like the Astute is one possibility.But this has numerous practical difficulties. For example, an Astutefiring a nuclear warhead on a medium range missile would have to get muchcloser to its target than the current Vanguards that carry Trident. So itlacks the smack of being an ultimate guarantee of retaliation in the eventthat the UK were destroyed.Some have suggested that the UK could have a very minimal capability whichinvolved dropping a bomb from an aircraft. The UK possessed gravitybombs - the WE.177D - until they were scrapped in 1998. These couldbe carried by a Typhoon aircraft. But would such an aircraft be absolutelyguaranteed to get to its target? That is the question asked by critics.How will this debate develop ?A Cabinet Office report into alternatives will be completed at the end of this year. This will be a balanced report with no explicit recommendations to ministers about any one option. But hopefully it will provide much more analysis from withinthe secret world of Whitehall than we have seen before of the financialand strategic pros and cons of each alternative and enable a broader political discussion.Will this debate see a major clash between the Conservatives and LiberalDemocrats?The Tories and Lib Dems are clearly on different paths. The Tories will back full Trident replacement as the ultimate guarantee of UK sovereignty. The Lib Dems want something else, a policy that is distinct and radical.But there is no substantive decision to be taken this side of anelection. Where this debate is heading is for both parties tomake contrasting arguments in their election manifestos.What about Labour?Many in Labour are haunted by the damage that their commitment tounilateral disarmament did to their performance in the disastrous 1983election. Since Tony Blair's day, Labour's instinct has been to be toughon defence. But Ed Miliband has not conclusively shown his hand on thisissue since becoming leader - and some wonder whether he could explorecheaper alternatives.The margins for policy change here look pretty slim, don't they ?It seems so. It is hard to see any UK party advocating unilateraldisarmament while Iran and North Korea are pressing ahead with nuclearprogrammes. Nor is there any blindingly obvious alternative to Trident.That said, it is important to see what comes out of the Cabinet Officereview. Much of its material will be top secret but experts hope as much as possible can be published to allow an informed debate.

History of Public Debt

What happens if a large, high-income economy, burdened with high levels of debt and an overvalued, fixed exchange rate, attempts to lower the debt and regain competitiveness? This question is of current relevance, since this is the challenge confronting Italy and Spain. Yet, as a chapter in the International Monetary Fund's latest World Economic Outlook demonstrates, a relevant historical experience exists: that of the UK between the two world wars. This proves that the interaction between attempts at "internal devaluations" and the dynamics of debt are potentially lethal. Moreover, the plight of Italy and Spain is, in many ways, worse than the UK's was. The latter, after all, could go off the gold standard; exit from the eurozone is far harder. Again, the UK had a central bank able and willing to reduce interest rates. The European Central Bank may not be able and willing to do the same for Italy and Spain.