In a reversal of policy, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair has submitted a proposal to the Parliament requiring twenty billion pounds for a new generation of submarines for the Trident missiles. He is unwilling to give up the independent nuclear deterrent and feels that the time is not yet ripe for Britain to engage in total disarmament. Blair wants to continue with the existing structure of nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) and is not looking for options like a land-based, or air-based nuclear weapons system. He intends to reduce the number of submarines from four to three and plans to reduce nuclear warheads by 20 per cent, implying that the stockpile of operationally available warheads would be no more than 160.The British plan is to replace four Vanguard nuclear-powered submarines, equipped with Trident D5 missiles manufactured in the United States. The vessels will begin to go out of service in 2022, and it is expected that the replacement could take around 17 years to design and build. Interestingly, the Labor Party (including Blair himself) had traditionally taken an anti-nuclear weapons stand and for many years was formally committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Britain fears the possibility of rogue governments helping terrorist organizations to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear devices and hence feels it needs to be prepared for any eventuality. Also, labor unions representing shipyard and engineering workers are happy with this decision because this new nuclear submarine programme would secure many skilled jobs.

Some critics of the plan have argued that the submarines' life expectancy should allow more time to assess future British security needs, but the white paper on which Blair his statement, argues that the time needed to design and deploy a new submarine requires a decision today and any further delay in decision is not advisable.

Interestingly over the years, Britain has sustained the rhetoric about the need for global disarmament but in reality it has done very little towards this end. It promised a lot during the 6th Review Conference (2000) of the NPT but has failed significantly on many fronts. Post 2000 it was envisaged that they would make a firm commitment towards not extending the life of their existing Trident system. Now in fact they have a "roadmap" ready for the future of their nuclear arsenal. Also, they have failed to significantly reduce the operational status of their nuclear weapons systems, for example, de-alerting and removing its nuclear warheads from their delivery systems. Currently one Royal Navy SSBN is always on patrol at any given time, carrying a maximum load of 48 warheads.

It has been reported that in the last few years Britain has recruited many scientists for its Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston and is apparently pursuing plans to upgrade nuclear weapons design and production facilities. For the last few years, a concern has been raised in some quarters that these developments would make it possible to design and develop a new generation of nuclear weapons.

During the last few years, particularly after the 6th Review conference, British authorities have started to show disrespect to the NPT regime. In fact, it has given a 'new' interpretation to the NPT. On November 20, 2003 the then Defence Secretary Mr Geoff Hoon - in reply to a Parliamentary question - told to the House of Commons that under the terms of the NPT, the US, the UK, France, China and Russia are legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons. Interestingly, the NPT does not even obliquely suggest that countries are legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons.

The British stratagem towards nuclear weapons has been of a deceitful nature during the last half century. Initially, they had nuclear weapons because of the Cold War, subsequently they refused to disarm and now they want to continue keeping them because of the threat from terrorism. Today, the threat from terrorism has increased particularly for them essentially because of wrong policies like joining the US for the Iraq invasion. In fact, by doing so they have significantly undermined the multilateral disarmament regime (like the NPT.) This is because in March 2003 they joined the US in the pre-emptive war against Iraq to allegedly disarm them of their supposed weapons of mass destruction.

Luckily, for Blair the domestic criticism is going to be minimum because this issue is directly related to nationalism and no politician would risk going against it. There would be some murmurs like he has put forth this proposal too early; it is too expensive and misdirected etc. However, he has the support of many who think that it is wise to scrap the submarines altogether as they reach retirement age.

This decision by the UK clearly indicates that national interests would always guide the nuclear policies of nation-states and essentially, non-proliferation is a tool used by the haves to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons to the have-nots.