Don’t Bomb Iran

Tony Blair has ignored a much cheaper system in his rush to renew Britain’s Trident nuclear missile submarines. Israel has recently established a fleet of nuclear missile ‘deterrent’ subs, built in Germany for about 350 million pounds each. Like Blair’s proposed Trident replacements - costing over 2750 million each - they can stay underwater for weeks, but use 21st century propulsion technology and do not have nuclear reactors. They can be built in less than 7 years, so a decision would not be needed for a decade, and would provide more work for British workers. Blair’s White Paper does not mention this little known option.

Israeli Dolphin nuke-capable submarine (from www.israeli-weapons.com)
Germany has already built Israel three diesel-electric Dolphin class submarines, but the two ordered in 2006 use cutting edge technology - fuel-cell propulsion - and are being built in Germany for a total of US$1.37 billion, according to a report last year in the Jerusalem Post. The article, which cites Janes defence analysts, says “In the face of Iran’s race to obtain nuclear power, Israel signed a contract with Germany last month to buy two Dolphin-class submarines that will, according to foreign reports, provide superior second-strike nuclear capabilities”. Germany will pay one third of the cost, slightly less than it did with the earlier Dolphins.The UK government says that British foreign policy must rest on the credible threat of wiping one hundred and fifty cities from the face of the earth with nuclear weapons, and to keep protecting Britains ‘vital interests’ until 2050, the UKwill need new subs to put its missiles into by 2025. He claims, contrary to expert opinion, that it will take 17 years to design and build them, so a decision is needed now.
Whatever you think of this position, he has failed to offer the British public a much cheaper way of thus wiping the earth’s face. He will spend over 15 billion on buying Trident’s replacement, and over thirty years the cost will be about 75 billion pounds (1,250 per person). The submarines Israel has recently ordered can be built in about 5 or 6 years - not the 17 years it will take to build Blairs proposed subs, which are essentially 1970’s technology. Blair’s White paper did not even cost such an option for the UK, but misleadingly says it would be more expensive. Israel’s subs cost about 20% of those which Blair wants to build.

Blair seeks parliamentary approval now to build new submarines in seventeen years time; asks approval to build a new generation of warheads in a few years; and says the UK will ‘work with’ the USA to build a new generation of missiles in the 2030s.

The four nuclear-powered submarines will cost over 11-14 billion pounds (2.7 billion each,) says the White Paper; Israel’s two latest ‘air-independent propulsion’ (AEP) fuel-cell-powered submarines don’t need to surface frequently for air as diesel electric boats do, but cost about 350 million pounds each.

The Israeli subs are fitted with special oversize torpedo tubes, and can fire long-range cruise missiles, which defence analysts believe are fitted with nuclear warheads. For more on the Israel’s Dolphin submarines, see Israel’s nuclear weapons submarines: Germany builds two more Dolphins. Some reports indicate that the diesel-electric Dolphins may be retrofitted with fuel cell engines.
At 350m pounds each, the UK could buy four of them for 1.5 billion pounds, not the 11 to 14 billion in Blair’s White Paper - perhaps 10 billion pounds saved. The UK already buys conventional long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles from the USA , which are much cheaper than ballistic missiles; Britain also has its own stealth missile, the Storm Shadow, which France has adapted for maritime use. So getting missiles to put in such a system would not be difficult, and would be readily adaptable as such technology develops (India apparently now has supersonic cruise missiles). As Blair proposes that the UK builds a new generation of warheads in the near future, there would be few extra costs in building them to fit cruise missiles instead of Trident missiles. The Israeli subs are much smaller than Trident’s Vanguard class, and one would have to assume the running costs are much much less, but little is known about that.

If Britain were to decide to build fuel-cell subs, not only would it save huge amounts of money and delay the ‘necessary’ decision for years, it would be good for British jobs - the UK cannot sell nuclear-powered subs to other countries, but it could sell fuel-cell driven ones, and open more defence markets to the country’s shipbuilders. British industry would gain experience in eco-friendly fuel cell technology, and the 10 billion pounds saved could create thousands of jobs in other industries. However, the profits for shipbuilding and missile companies would probably be lower.
Clearly Blair has promised the US to remain in perfect step, as America too builds new warheads (as announced last week), new ballistic missile submarines, and new ballistic missiles. He says these machines are necessary to “defend Britain’s vital interests”, and to give it freedom to operate in foreign policy - it is hard to see how tying onself to US nuclear weapons technology and posture does that. What a price for the UK to pay for Blair’s American obsession: not only will modernising Trident destroy the non-Proliferation treaty, with huge foreign policy costs, it will also cost the UK taxpayer maybe 40 billion pounds more than buying a truly independent, 21st century way of wiping out whole countries.
For more on the Israel’s Dolphin submarines, see

Israel’s nuclear weapons submarines: Germany builds two more Dolphins

aa