By Cernig
The world is approaching a tipping point on nuclear weapons. Recently, we've seen senior US foreign policy "realists" argue for a massive reduction in the nation's nuclear stockpile and other experts in the field argue for complete multilateral disarmament - in both cases because nukes just ain't what they used to be.
Now comes this from the UK's conservative Daily Mail tabloid:
Britain's decision to spend �20billion on renewing its independent nuclear deterrent was today challenged by a group of retired senior military officers, who branded the Trident system 'completely useless' against the threats of the modern world.
The former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued in a letter to The Times that the nuclear deterrent is no longer truly independent and does not guarantee Britain a seat at the top table of international diplomacy in the United Nations Security Council.
The large sums being spent on replacing the ageing submarines which carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used on conventional weapons which are much needed by the armed forces, they suggested.
'Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism,' the letter stated.
'Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics.'
Paradigms change. There was a time when in Britain having a few drinks then driving was still seen as socially acceptable (in a way that it still is in, for instance, Texas) but a decade and more of zero-tolerance campaigns changed that forever. When I was a member of CND back in the 80's, the public view was that nukes were useful for their deterrence effect, the only thing stopping the Soviet Union from advancing to the Atlantic. Now we know that was rubbish. Over the next decade, it looks like the notion that nuclear weapons are of any cost-effective military use will go the same way. After that, nukes will be seen as expensive power games by politicians, unsupported by public opinion, and their days will finally be numbered.
In 1969, if Moscow decided to nuke London and England had no response of its own, there wasn't much of a reason not to pull the trigger assuming England pissed Russia off enough.
ReplyDeleteIn 2009, if Moscow decided to nuke London, it would throw the entire world into economic panic crippling economies across the globe and doing terrible horrible things to international business interests of the Russian higher social circles and allied states.
No one in power really wants a new world war, much less a new nuclear world war, if it puts major capitalist centers at risk. Nukes were, at the end of the day, a way to go to war with nations operating in completely different global spheres. If we saw a complete trade collapse between England and a rival nation, THEN nukes might come back on the table. But now?
Well they're not completely useless. They do provide a certain amount of busy work for weapons technicians and such. Zifnab beat me to the economic argument. The globaliztion of trade has now made the superpowers so economically interdependent as to make war, much less nuclear war, an unrealistic proposition. That doesn't mean there are not countries that wouldn't care to join the nuclear club. It's more of a regional intimidation thing. I can't see Pakistan giving up their weapons in the face of India's growing military and economic power. At least not any time soon.
ReplyDeleteI hate to generalize too much when reading the article so I won't. The article merely presents an argument for the elimination of the Trident based cold war era nuclear deterrent system and not nuclear weaponry as a whole. I do agree with the gist of Cernig's other links (and Cernig himself) that the stocks of nuclear weaponry should be downsized based on two (actually three) observations: 1); They are no longer even remotely relevant in fighting 4th generation conflicts; and 2) how can we expect other nations to give up their dreams of threatening their neighbors with a super weapon when the world powers are fine with it; and 3) nuclear war is immoral...
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm expecting we will see some Obama international leadership concerning this and other issues largely being driven by economic necessity as well as by the desire to make the world a safer place...
Hi Jemersaon. Yup - but even that argument wouldn't have been made by such senior generals a decade ago. Getting rid of Trident was unthinkable. Now it isn't.
ReplyDeleteRegards, Steve
A hammer will be looking for nails, especially when it costs billions of British pounds, and adjusting military forces for "fighting terrorism" will mean commitment to plenty of Wars on Terror and various other small-scale warfare shenanigans in the future, however counterproductive that may be. I think I prefer the NATO countries pulling out of Afghanistan in a couple of years, then deciding not to do something like that again ever, and adjusting military forces accordingly, instead of adjusting military forces to the current mess we have.
ReplyDelete