How much will the UK's new nuclear submarines really cost?

Campaigning with the Glasgow Branch of CND around the Clyde estuary, we often hear arguments about the economic benefits of, let’s be frank, preparing for Armageddon. We are also told it’s worth it for the jobs. There are a lot of jobs. There is a lot of money being spent in the economy that is directly attributable to the nuclear weapons industry.

But those of us campaigning against nuclear weapons are so horrified at the morality of the industry that talk of “cost” and or “jobs” devalues the reality that these weapons are “intrinsically evil at any cost”, and we almost ignore the economic story.

READ MORE: Rishi Sunak panned after 'desperate' £75 billion defence spending pledge

Time to get real and do the sums. What does it cost, and how many jobs does it actually create? This is especially important now with the next generation of nuclear-powered submarines, the “Dreadnought” class, starting construction.

When the UK Government announced the programme to replace the current Valiant class boats, the cost they announced in Parliament, £31 billion, was to build four submarines. This is as disingenuous as announcing the cost of a revamped NHS as the cost to build four hospitals. The total cost of ownership over the projected 30-year lifespan is much larger. We have reached a figure of over £600bn. Shocking? Indeed. Surprising? Compared to what, the HS2 rail link?

The terrible truth is that nobody knows how much this will cost. The annual report of the government’s own “Infrastructure and Projects” authority has a lot of bad news, including a “red” score for the development of the Dreadnought boats’ new engines. In short, this means it can’t be done. Sounds expensive.

The “Reclaim our Clyde” campaign, soon to launch in Glasgow next Monday, is organised by the Scottish CND branches in the Clyde estuary, and the Faslane Peace Camp. We have been working hard trying to determine the true cost. The government does not release the information we need. Our range of costs goes from £287bn to £630bn. Just for the sake of an example, let’s assume the cost is £400bn.

What about the jobs? What “deal” do we get from the UK Government for hosting all the UK’s atomic arsenal in Scotland for the last 60 years and the next 30?

There are many ways to do these calculations! There are roughly 10,000 people working in Faslane – for our example, let’s assume Scotland got 5000 jobs.

Gross cost for 30 years

£400bn

Scottish share at 8%

£32bn

Annual cost

£1bn

Five thousand jobs, cost per job, per year

£200,000

FIVE thousand jobs might be VERY generous. Navy recruitment in Scotland mirrors our 8% share of the UK population.

So, we get £200,000 per job, per year, for 30 years, to pollute the Clyde for 20,000 years. This is not good value for money … but there is more…

Our nuclear weapons use tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, you cannot store it, and you must continually make more. The Canadian supply of tritium that the UK has used for decades will end soon.

The UK will have to build new nuclear power stations just to make the tritium, of course they will pitch it as “keeping the lights on” – but in reality, it is about keeping the bombs working. In the process chucking another £50bn on the fire.

The launch event for Reclaim our Clyde will take place from 6-8pm on Monday, April 29, in the conference room on Floor 5 of the Unite the Union building, John Smith House at 145-165 West Regent Street, Glasgow G2 4RZ. We would love to see you there, explain our case, and ask for your help.

David Kelly is vice-chair of Scottish CND and the Glasgow Branch