LETTER:Confusion over Britain's nuclear arsenal
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Dr Stephen Pullinger
Sir: While the level at which the Government has set its requirement for a minimum nuclear deterrent remains a matter of contention, Peter Melchett's accusation that it is increasing Britain's nuclear arsenal "threefold" ("J'accuse Malcolm Rif-kind", 12 June) is plainly incorrect. He appears to have completely ignored the total withdrawal of Britain's free-fall nuclear bombs by 1998 (of which there were probably about 170 in the 1970s).
Calculations based on other information released by the MoD this year point to a planned doubling of warhead numbers deployed on Trident submarines compared with their Polaris/ Chevaline predecessors.
However, this year's Defence White Paper states that once Trident is fully in-service, Britain will have 30 per cent less deployed or available warheads than it had during the 1970s. Although precise figures have not been provided, this probably corresponds to a reduction from roughly 300- 320 (original Polaris plus free-fall bombs) to 210-225 (Trident) warheads.
It would be unfortunate if the serious questions that remain concerning Britain's nuclear weapons policy were obscured or deflected because of exaggerated accusations of Government conspiracies. For its part, if the MoD was less opaque about its intentions, an informed debate would be more likely.
Yours faithfully,
STEPHEN PULLINGER
Executive Director
International Security
Information Service
London, WC2
12 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments