Before the end of last year the British government proposed, and obtained the general support of the House of Commons, that Britain should build a new generation of submarine-based nuclear weapons.
The basic argument is that the country already has nuclear weapons, and as other countries show no signs of giving up theirs, Britain should not do so either.
During the wretched Cold War I was a strong and active supporter of the United Kingdom having its own nuclear weapons. There was a good case for one Western European NATO member to have a nuclear deterrent. It was just possible that the Soviet Union did not believe that the United States had a total commitment to come to the aid of Western Europe. I had been to see the French nuclear capability and was impressed. But for years France had a clear policy of noncommitment to Alliance strategy, so the United Kingdom was the obvious choice.
In January 2007 the international scene looks so very different. The United Kingdom would like to have an insurance policy in our divided, troubled and turbulent world. But what are the dangers it could face? Neither Russia nor China, at present, can be regarded sensibly as potential users of nuclear weapons against the United Kingdom. The nuclear might of the United States is going to remain in place. I would expect that superpower to be able and willing to stand alongside the United Kingdom.
The horrendous attack on America on Sept. 11, 2001 suggested that the new, modern threat was of a totally different nature to those in former years. It was not about a terrifying nuclear exchange that would kill countless millions, or battleships or tank armies.
It was about ruthless, despicable international terrorism which could only be tackled by international cooperation, improved intelligence, particularly electronic, and tedious work over many years by the security services.
It is possible such unstable and unpleasant regimes as those in North Korea and Iran will want to have nuclear bombs and rockets — particularly the former.
But would they seriously seek to use them against the United Kingdom or have the future capacity to do so? That would be most unlikely.
If the United Kingdom gave up its nuclear weapons would that persuade either of those two countries to turn off the nuclear path?
I don’t think so. One is left with the vague, general feeling that it would be good, and the world safer, if fewer countries had nuclear weapons.
It has been suggested in the British press that some Gulf states might want to take the nuclear route, if Iran one day has nuclear weapons. There is no good evidence for such a suggestion, and I do not think any such possible decision would be influenced by a move by the United Kingdom to give up nuclear weapons.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has denied suggestions that the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations to disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He has pointed out that Britain’s nuclear stockpile has been reduced, and will be reduced further to “fewer than 160” warheads. (Israel is believed to have some 200). What is the British taxpayer going to have to pay for a nuclear insurance policy? According to The Economist (Dec. 9, 2006): “This kind of insurance does not come cheap. The government reckons it will spend £15 billion — £20 billion at current prices to build four new submarines, warheads and other infrastructure, plus £1.5 billion to replace the American-made Trident D5 missiles after 2042. Running costs will remain 5 percent-6 percent of the defense budget, or £1.6 billion — £1.9 billion a year at current prices. Savings may be possible if the fleet can be reduced to three boats”.
There are defense experts who claim such sums could be spent better in the defense budget, which is under great strain. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown up embarrassing shortages of equipment. Britain needs more frigates — as always. Britain needs more infantry battalions — as always. There is a powerful case for improved anti-missile defenses. Away from defense there are many excellent ways of spending the odd billion!
Opinion polls suggest there is still majority support for the renewal of Trident. Populace in December put that majority at 52 percent to 43 percent who opposed. The Labour and the Conservative parties are in favor, although the former has a considerable number of MPs against. The Liberal Democrats doubt whether a decision has to be taken now under Prime Minister Blair who leaves No. 10 in a few months.
The government’s decision is no surprise; the case for and against are now closely balanced.
