Members of the Nuclear Weapons Working Group are presenting their personal views as part of a wider consultation process into the party’s future policy on nuclear weapons. The full consultation paper can be found at www.libdems.org.uk/autumn-conference-16-policypapers and the consultation window runs until 28 October. Party members are invited to attend the consultation session at party conference in Brighton, to be held on Saturday 17 September at 1pm in the Balmoral Room of the Hilton.
Last year, Conference agreed to review our nuclear weapons policies. As a party member committed to achieving a nuclear weapons free Britain in a nuclear weapons free world, I am honoured to serve on the working group established by the Federal Policy Committee.
The group has heard from a range of experts, and two things have been very clear to me. First, the case for replacing Trident with Trident hasn’t been made; many of the strategic and operational criticisms I laid out in Retiring Trident (March 2015) remain valid, and since it was published, the capital costs have increased by 25% and now total at least £41bn.
Second, the evidence sessions have confirmed my view that multilateralism remains the most viable route for delivering global disarmament. We have heard no evidence that one-sided / unilateral UK nuclear disarmament would make any of the other nuclear weapons states give their weapons up. But it would leave the UK free riding on the nuclear weapons capabilities of six other NATO members, which would be likely to damage the UK’s relationship with Europe and with NATO. Doing this at any time would be unwise, but after Brexit, when the UK needs to make greater efforts to strengthen and deepen relationships with our NATO allies, it seems especially foolhardy.
The usual riposte is that multilateralism hasn’t delivered on President Obama’s vision of a nuclear weapons free world, as set out in his 2009 Prague speech. Such claims miss the point that between them the USA and the former Soviet Union accounted for a staggering 70,481 warheads at their peak in 1986, representing more than 95% of nuclear weapon production; France in the late 1980s was next with 540 warheads. Today, the US and Russia each have around 1,550 strategic warheads, with another 7,000 warheads in reserve, being dismantled – or crucially, in Russia’s case, as unregulated tactical nuclear weapons.
Our aim should be to bring these numbers down further. It is clear that both the US and Russia could achieve their deterrence postures with fewer warheads – a figure of around 750 per side with China capped at around 400 warheads – more than they’ve ever fielded – appears technically deliverable if the political will exists. Sadly, in Putin’s Moscow, this will doesn’t exist at the moment.
But Putin will not be in power forever: it is wholly conceivable that in the late 2020s/early 2030s, as the new Trident submarines would be coming into service, the UK could be in a position for China, Russia and the US to move to these much lower levels of strategic warheads.
In parallel, this would give the UK and France – which, in the late 2020s when they have to replace their missile submarines, will be facing the same issues of affordability as the UK is currently – a role in trading our nuclear weapons, and those NATO nuclear weapons operated by Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, for Russia’s 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons. This would be a win – win – win: but as a Russian arms controller put it to me, “getting Britain and France to give up their weapons would really help us present such a package at home”.
This was a really important insight for me. The UK needs to help our negotiating partners down the nuclear ladder, too. And that is why I favour a major step down the nuclear ladder by moving to a true minimum deterrent, based on dual use aircraft as I outlined in Retiring Trident, but one which is much cheaper. Crucially, my proposal is much more disarmament friendly because it would be comparatively cheap to negotiate away: the nuclear-specific costs would be less than 10% of buying Trident.
These, along with the other steps discussed in the group’s consultation document, would be concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament and a safer world. I urge you to read the consultation document and respond to the questions raised; this is difficult policy and members’ input is invaluable. I look forward to meeting and discussing these points with as many of you as possible in Brighton.
* Toby Fenwick is a Research Associate of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), has written extensively on the UK Trident programme, and served on the party’s last Trident Working Group. This article is written in a personal capacity.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
84 Comments
In a debate in the Commons on Trident the PM said that she would be willing to use it. As we are a member of NATO this carries the risk that an action by the UK would affect any or all of the other member states. Communications are at issue. Please see Bill Clinton’s memoir “My Life” ISBN 0 09 179527 3 (Random House, 2004) in which he mentions a total communications blackout, which was thought might lead to the adverse use of nuclear weapons. It was actually caused by sunspot activity.
Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons when Yeltsin was President of Russia. Belarus remains a Stalinist dictatorship. Ukraine has been divided and contains the contaminated former nuclear energy plant at Chernobyl. They have been saying that they are threatened by more modern non-nuclear weapons.
As someone who will be abroad unable to attend conference this year, I will use Lib-Dem Voice to say what I would have said if I had been in the country on 17th September at that meeting in Brighton.
The case for Trident is as weak as is the case for new nuclear power generation and the planned facility at Hinkley Point. Hopefully Theresa May will not only review the project, but will hopefully halt it altogether.
Having witnessed the aftermath of Chernobyl on the ground I will never be convinced that the risks of generating electricity with nuclear reactors are worth taking especially in an age when they will become the number one terrorist target to ransom a country. The new untried or tested proposals for Hinkley are an accident waiting to happen. If such reactors were so safe, the natural place to build them would be where the demand for electricity produced by them is greatest – in or near London!
It is only worth having a nuclear deterrent if you are prepared to use it and if you are prepared to use it, you are either insane, or if sane, you should not be allowed anywhere near it. The same terrorist related risks exist with nuclear weapons as with nuclear power stations.
It should not be beyond the imagination of those who develop our policies relating to both to produce an alternative way of providing the defence the country needs and the electricity we require – without the risks and financial costs associated with nuclear programmes.
Well of course it would be wonderful if we can assist in the US and Russia reducing their nuclear arsenal further, but what you do not explain is how the UK getting possession of half a dozen or so of our own will make any difference. You say you are a multilateralist but the real negotiations are between Russia and the US and other countries like the UK and France having their own nuclear weapons simply complicate matters. And since the US and Russia can destroy the world many times over there is really no point being able to destroy it again.
Germany manages perfectly well without nuclear weapons and is still a member of NATO.
As we are about to enter a new Brexit inspired recession then this is a luxury we cannot afford.
And I think it is a real travesty that we are asked to consider this to be the main security threat to the UK when really it is global warming. I recall how hard we had to fight in government just to get a £billion for the Green Investment Bank, yet Trident replacement will dwarf that. I would really like to know – although I don’t expect a reply – why having nuclear weapons takes priority over tackling global warming?
Trident is not a strike weapon; it is to be used against civilian targets if/when the UK has been attacked with nukes…
We are told it is a deterrent, but against who/how is always glossed over…Any foreseeable global war will include the ‘big boys’ where our few nuclear weapons will not enter the equation; it won’t deter any terrorist group nor any mad/bad regime….
To my mind, anyone who would authorise a launch of a ‘dead hand’ nuclear retaliation, thereby making things even worse, should not be considered sane…
Toby , I agree with much of this very strongly. I like the timely aspect , many decisions are effected by the referendum, I am a multilateralist anyway , but as the international situation is more precarious , we need policy to reflect that.
I think we can and should of course emphasise negotiation with hostile nations . Yet if we and France could reach some agreement to withdraw from independent deterrents , both , and come to an arrangement with NATO and especially , the US, a nuclear free Europe , or , rather , fewer individual arsenals could arise.
But we cannot have no seat in the negotiating tables if France has one. This is not competition with them. It is co operation based on common sense !
Yet if we and France could reach some agreement to withdraw from independent deterrents , both , and come to an arrangement with NATO and especially , the US
I would point out that one of the candidates for the US presidential election has, as a policy, withdrawing from NATO.
Okay, he’s not going to win (but then that’s what we said about Jeremy Corbyn…) but surely that proves we cannot always rely on the Americans to have our back? We can’t guarantee that they won’t, say, elect an isolationist President in 2038 who will declare that the US will only use its nuclear weapons to retaliate against attacks directly on the US, not against its allies.
That is why we need an independent deterrent.
We can think about reducing it as part of multilateral disarmament after other countries have reduced their holdings. We should not be first.
@Richard Underhill – using Ukraine as an example of the benefits of unilateralism is a curious example indeed.
Is it possible to land a strike on a nation with advanced defence capabilities with aircraft rather than submarines?
I’m interested in scrapping Trident, but the option that makes most sense to me is buy more equipment that we’d actually use, such as drones and other conventional weapons.
The problem with getting rid of Trident is it opens us up to risk of nuclear blackmail, but non-nuclear powers have defeated nuclear powers in wars in the past, so we don’t necessarily need nukes to defeat a big country in a war.
I didn’t back the scrap nukes motion last time because it didn’t say what would go in its place. Realistically we still need to meet the Nato 2% target so it is hard to see how lots of money would be freed up for social programs. Yes the 2% target can be reduced in future, but not now and we still have need for weapons. After the Chilcott report was published senior Lib Dems criticised Labour for not giving the troops the right equipment, as if the Lib Dems would have funded the military by more!
Our defence policy needs to be about the defence of innocents around the world, so we need a military with “global reach”, despite what Corbyn has said in the past.
Thank-you to all for your interest.
Richard: For deterrence to work – and there is clear historical evidence that it has, most notably in deterring JFK from invading Cuba in 1962 – the public position must be that a leader will use it: this is a key reason why Corbyn’s position is so hopeless.
On the question of the likelihood of interstate conflict between the nuclear powers, even the government sees “an attack on the UK or its Overseas Territories by another state or proxy using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons” as a Tier 2 threat (2010 National Security Strategy, p.27.) This is a key reason I oppose Trident replacement – the capabilities and costs are disproportionate to the threat.
John: See above on deterrence. We may not like it, but NATO is premised on nuclear deterrence, and in fact is prepared for first use. There’s a reason for this.
Geoffrey: With respect, the article precisely addresses the role of a more limited UK nuclear force in multilateral disarmament: it provides domestic political cover for negotiating partners who are making much more significant reductions. So, far from complicating matters, a small UK nuclear force could provide critical political cover for deeper multilateral cuts than bilateral negotiation may be able to deliver. UK unilateralism has no track record of helping anyone to disarm, however.
Climate change is of course a real problem, but no-one is saying that you can’t have a defence programme and have a climate change programme. Moreover, with defence spending held at 2% of GDP in line with the NATO target, and the nuclear programme funded from within it, unilateralism per se will not release any funding for the rest of government.
On a point of fact, Germany of course continues to operate nuclear weapons under the NATO Dual Capable Aircraft progamme, detailed on pages 42-44 of my CentreForum “Retiring Trident” paper. This facet of NATO nuclear burden sharing is central to the Alliance, and beyond the nuclear armed aircraft operated by Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, other NATO countries contribute to the mission under the SNOWCAT (Support of Nuclear Operations with Conventional Air Tactics) programme. See footnote 190 of Retiring Trident on page 97 for a description.
expats: Trident – and indeed any nuclear system – is difficult but not impossible to use within the laws of war. It is about targeting and proportionality, as the International Court of Justice made clear in 1996.
Lorenzo: Thank-you.
Eddie: Yes, it is, though it would be less capable than Trident, which is in of itself part of the point: it’s a step down the nuclear ladder. You’ll find an attack on Russia / St Petersburg with an evolved SA-21 defensive shield described in detail on pages 67-70 of “Retiring Trident”.
it’s a step down the nuclear ladder
We are already pretty much as close to the bottom of the ladder as we can get, without having one foot on the ground (the aeroplane-launched plan in the ‘Retiring Trident’ paper seems to be pretty much one foot on the ground).
Why should we take a step down the ladder, when we are so near the bottom and there are others much farther up than us? Should they not be the ones to step down, not us?
If we don’t intend to use the weapon then keeping it is a waste of money. I don’t often agree with John Barrett but he’s spot on this time. If you really believe that deterrence works then you need your head examined. Putin will not be deterred by the threat of Trident from a submarine. Non government insurgents don’t actually get deterred by anything and in any case how will we know where they are to strike back?
We don’t need Trident, we can’t afford Trident, it’s immoral to even consider using it. We should spend the minimum we have to on defence and that should be in defence we can actually use.
I say scrap Trident now and don’t replace it. Maybe no-one will follow us, but then again setting an example might just start the ball rolling.
The big problem for multilateralists now is that there is no prospect of any more negotiations till Russia & China are restored to Democracy & we have no idea when that will be. We just have to keep reminding ourselves that Negotiation has massively reduced the Worlds Nuclear arsenals & will do so again. Unilteralism has achived nothing except make a lot of nice people feel good about themselves.
Putin will not be deterred by the threat of Trident from a submarine
You really think that Putin wouldn’t be deterred by Moscow going up in smoke? Why? Do you think he’s so mad he is willing to sacrifice Moscow? Do you think that he is absolutely 100% certain that May’s letters of last resort don’t contain instructions to retaliate?
Or do you know more than anyone else in the world about the capabilities of Russia’s anti-missile shield?
Dav: As proposed by the Government, Trident replacement provides much more capability than the minimum-deterrence posture that they claim the UK needs, even when measured against the 1978/82 Duff-Mason criteria. This is described in some detail in “Retiring Trident” pages 24-29. As a result, there is scope for a reduced capability system that meets minimum deterrence, and is more disarmament-friendly by having smaller nuclear-specific sunk costs.
Mick: the whole point of deterrence is that possession is use, not the actual firing of the weapon. And I oppose Trident – largely on capability and cost grounds – and its replacement with the system I outline in “Retiring Trident”.
Paul: Yes, but the choices that we make now to 2020 will dictate UK policy through to 2060. That’s why a dual-use disarmament friendly approach is in my view the optimal position for the UK today.
As with the EU debate I think this issue is bigger than party politics. There are clear differences of opinion in most parties though the weighting clearly differs within each party. So I think trying to score points or justify a position on this issue by references to Corbyn is ill-advised.
If we get rid of our few missiles will there be a shift in any ‘balance of power’? I think not. I believe our contribution to the global nuclear arsenal is negligible and in any event certainly not independent.
Is there any prospect achieving full multilateral nuclear disarmament? I think not. But in any event even if there were genuine moves by the ‘Super-powers’ towards multilateral disarmament our missile arsenal is neither here and will have no influence on any of the big players.
Can we afford to retain nuclear weapons of any kind? We’ve had new aircraft carriers without aircraft, we’ve sent forces into battle with insufficient/inadequate equipment and, following Brexit, there is an additional £700m annual hole in our already stretched budget.
But for me the bottom line is in reality nothing will happen if we get rid of our nuclear weapons tomorrow. The ‘World Order’ will not change and nothing will be destabilised.
However, if we did scrap nuclear missiles we could use the money which would otherwise be spent keeping missiles in a submarine never to be used, to deal with immediate needs; housing, health care, the demands of an ageing population and modernising our defence capability to deal with today’s threats and protecting people and property from the effects of global warming.
As has been said if Germany and most of Europe can get by without nuclear weapons then why can’t we? To spend this huge amount of money on what is little more than a gesture, is a terrible waste when it could put to valuable use improving the quality of life of our citizens.
Simon McGrath 16th Aug ’16 – 3:06pm My existing views are multi-lateralist as LDV shows. We should have a strong and detailed response to what Farage says about Ukraine or other countries in Russia’s ‘near abroad’ facing Putin. Moldova, Georgia, etc, he seems to like partition. We need modern arguments. Obama cannot control his successors, whoever wins or whatever policy changes occur. Bill Clinton’s promises to Northern Ireland depended in reality on Al Gore winning the presidential election.
Toby Fenwick 16th Aug ’16 – 3:41pm I have not read the entire paper yet, nor have I read the whole of Bill Clinton’s book. I was just lobbing in a few facts. Please consider the point about communications. If solar activity can occasionally put satellites out of action, can it also put out ground based communications or undersea cables?
Here is another fact from the same book. NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade with accurate (non-nuclear) weapons, killing three Chinese and injuring others. The Chinese were very annoyed. President Clinton apologised to the Chinese, explaining that accurate weapons had been used with faulty maps. He concludes that the Chinese simply did not believe that a sophisticated country such as USA could make that mistake.
Attacking a nuclear power station with non-nuclear weapons is a risk. There is a letter in The Times today asking “Would it be possible to incorporate tidal turbines for energy supply in the proposed causeway linking the mainland with the Isle of Wight?
@Richard “. There is a letter in The Times today asking “Would it be possible to incorporate tidal turbines for energy supply in the proposed causeway linking the mainland with the Isle of Wight?”
did this get mixed up with another post ?
So we have Trident and have had an ‘independent’ nuclear weapons system for about 70 years, none of which have ever made any contribution to nuclear disarmament and the author wants us to believe if we just waste another £4 billion on some more nuclear weapons, everyone else will suddenly disarm. No wonder he used to work for Centreforum – the people who brought the party tripling tuition fees and funding UKIP.
Simon McGrath 16th Aug ’16 – 7:16pm No. The issue should be abut nuclear war, not just the possession of nuclear weapons. Military advice to the PM has been about Hinckley. Tidal power is a base-load alternative to nuclear power and ample.
I’m afraid the Liberal Democrats are deeply divided on Trident – and frankly I thought the manoeuvreing that went on at Bournemouth twelve months ago was pretty shabby. This whole ‘experts’ report looks like a potential stitch up.
To get what I think we’re going to get is a bit like the pregnant Victorian housemaid saying to the Mistress of the house, “It’s only a little one”.
Dave Orbison and Mick Taylor talk a lot of sense in their posts….. with yet again the question being posed ‘if Germany can manage without it, why can’t we’ not getting an answer. A post Imperial delusion is a fair description.
It’s also an expensive folly at a time when the economy is already fragile post Brexit… and at a time when we have an increasing need for social and infrastructure spending.
Latest figure £ 179 billion (H of C debate, 2016).
It’s the modern equivalent of the old Roman Emperors’ ‘bread and circuses’ but with not a lot of bread.
@richard -you seem confused
“Caracatus”: are you suggesting that the UK’s nuclear weapons are not operationally independent? What evidence do you have?
@ Toby Fenwick
And can you envisage a scenario when the UK would use it/them independently ?
David: in the 1980s, yes. Today, it is mich more difficult, but not impossible. This is why I favour the air launched option from dual-role aircraft.
The numbers matter too: CND’S £205bn through life is premised on an erroneous understanding of how the defence budget works. The same mistake was made for the £179bn – I’m no supporter of Trident but the correct figure is c £130bn to 2060. If we want to stop Trident, we need to make sure we don’t leave an open goal for the Tories to rear our numbers apart.
David: and to be clear Germany does operate nuclear armed aircraft, and along with the rest of NATO, is a member of the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) setting NATO nuclear targeting policy.
The logic of the unilateralist case is that the UK should not be defended by a nuclear umbrella, which points to us leaving NATO.
There are 28 members of NATO most of whom don’t have nuclear weapons. Is Toby saying that those that don’t should leave ?
I agree absolutely with all the points Mick Taylor made.
I find it extraordinary that there can be more than one opinion about whether it can be justifiable to possess weapons that would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. These days, it is considered to be a war crime to deliberately target civilians. Nuclear weapons inevitably target civilians.
The argument that retaining these weapons gives us “a place at the negotiating table” is not logical. How can we persuade other nations to get rid of nuclear weapons if we have chosen to retain them ourselves? We would do far more for the cause of world peace by putting our beliefs into action, and unilaterally scrapping nuclear weapons.
It should be remembered that the British public have never been given a choice on this issue, with both the major parties supporting the “nuclear deterrent”.
The main argument must be the moral, humanitarian one, but the cost is an important issue too. If we scrapped trident, we would save billions of pounds, and this time the money actually could go to the NHS, to save life rather than destroying it.
There are 28 members of NATO most of whom don’t have nuclear weapons. Is Toby saying that those that don’t should leave ?
Those that think nuclear weapons are inherently immoral clearly should, because if it is immoral to hold nuclear weapons then it must also be immoral to expects other to hold them on your behalf, and that is the essence of NATO.
Membership of NATO is incompatible with a stance that says nuclear weapons are immoral so we should get rid of them, because the same logic then says that all NATO countries should get rid of them.
@ Toby Fenwick, you say,
“The logic of the unilateralist case is that the UK should not be defended by a nuclear umbrella, which points to us leaving NATO”.
I’m sorry, but with the greatest respect that is complete ………………………
By your logic every other member of NATO not possessing an ‘independent nuclear weapon’ will have to leave too. Your comment does nothing to inspire any confidence in the intellectual quality of the document you are working on……
So ‘logic of the unilateralist case is that the UK should not be defended by a nuclear umbrella, which points to us leaving NATO’ applies to moral-based unilateralism.
If your unilateralism is, on the other hand, cost-based — you have no moral problem with us holding nuclear weapons, you just think the money they cost would be better spent elsewhere — then scrapping the deterrent but retaining NATO membership would be your perfect solution as you get to enjoy nuclear protection (well, until the US elects an isolationist President) without paying for it.
Whether the other members of NATO would be happy with us deciding to become free riders in this way, of course, is a whole other issue.
@ Toby Fenwick “The same mistake was made for the £179bn – I’m no supporter of Trident but the correct figure is c £130bn to 2060”.
Here we go again…….
The figure of £ 179 billion… and rising…. was given in the House of Commons in July 2016 by the Conservative chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It was NOT challenged by the Minister replying to the debate.
I hope members meeting at conference in Brighton (nearly 500 miles from where I live) refer this document back.
@ Dav you say : “Whether the other members of NATO would be happy with us deciding to become free riders in this way, of course, is a whole other issue”.
The logic of your comment is that all the other twenty five non nuclear members of NATO are already free riders……….
The logic of your comment is that all the other twenty five non nuclear members of NATO are already free riders
No, because some of them provide other necessary resources: conventional forces, say, or strategic bits of territory.
But, historically, the point of NATO was to provide a ‘line in the sand’ that the USSR could not cross. As such, there were the countries that were part of the line — Canada, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Greece, Turkey, etc — and the countries which provided the ‘muscle’ to back up the threat, basically the USA, Britain and France. And a few other countries which were neither but joined to show solidarity, like Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, etc.
Nobody ever expected the smaller nations to contribute much; they can’t afford it.
It’s quite socialist in its way: from each according to its ability, to each according to its need. Luxembourg doesn’t have the ability to provide nuclear weapons, so nobody expects it to, but as a small nation it needs protection, so that is what it is given.
But the deal was always that Britain, as a major power, would provide both conventional and nuclear force. To renege on that deal, I think, would not would be taken well by those we would be forcing to shoulder more of the burden (the USA and France, basically). We can provide NATO ‘muscle’; so we should.
For Britain to want to ditch is nuclear weapons while remaining in NATO would be like a very rich person wanting to move to a tax haven but still get to use the NHS.
@Mick Taylor “If we don’t intend to use the weapon then keeping it is a waste of money”
I assume on this basis you don’t bother insuring your house
Operationally independent ? I can see no circumstances when unilateral use of nuclear weapons by the UK would be either justified or anything other than counter productive. Still, you ignored the main point of my post, UK nuclear weapons have done nothing to promote disarmament and have never been put forward in any multilateral negotiations – so your whole premise is based on a fantasy.
I can see no circumstances when unilateral use of nuclear weapons by the UK would be either justified or anything other than counter productive
Can you see fifty years into the future?
This decision isn’t just about the world as it is now; it’s about ensuring the UK is defended in all possible worlds fifty years and more from now.
In 1966, could you have predicted the current geopolitical situation?
Lorenzo Cherin 16th Aug ’16 – 2:00pm: UK Law Lords said that “common sense” is a starting point not an end point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus
They are of course an elite, but this subject is becoming more like a game of three-dimensional chess using computers.
Technology is constantly changing, so the question was asked in the Commons by Caroline Lucas “How long will Trident submarines be undetected or undetectable?” to which I did notice an answer. See also The Economist about detection of ripples in seawater by sattellites.
The USA did invade Cuba at The Bay of Pigs during the Kennedy presidency. It was a disaster. That did not prevent Fidel Castro queuing up to shake hands with William Jefferson Clinton at the end of Bill’s presidency and wish him well.
The USSR did not have ICBMs in Kruschev’s time, so they decided they needed a base for medium range missiles (in Cuba). For the USA to intercept supply ships would not be a relevant strategy now.
Deterrence tends to assume a rational opponent. Allies need rational allies.
The quip the unilateralism never achieved anything is beside the point. We have never had a government that has tried it.
Of course the case was much harder to make during the cold war when it could be argued that the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism. However today Russia has no desire to invade us.
I know Toby dismissed my arguments in a couple of sentences but I would argue his position still does not make sense. When the US and Russia negotiate arms reductions with their huge nuclear arsenals and then the US decides to add in our tiny number, why would that make any difference to Russia at the negotiating table? I don’t see the point in saying it will be included in the negotiations, my question is what difference would it make if it is? As I pointed out before, we can already destroy the world many times over already.
Of course in the 1980s both the Liberal party and SDP opposed Trident, the main argument back then was about stationing cruise missiles in Europe and the UK. It seems to me the only reason we support Trident replacement today is a political one, that we do not want to be labelled as unilateralists. Yet the economic cost of the policy is huge and at a time when we can least afford it.
Given that Trident replacement is of no military use I do not see why if we decide to press ahead we should be tied to the 2% spending commitment to military spending. Other Nato countries do not meet it. We should instead work out what it should be in terms of what we require rather than stick to an arbitrary number. And Toby does not say anything about what our spending commitment to tackling global warming should be despite this being the most important threat to our national security. Now why is that? What percentage do you reckon Toby? 3%, 4%? And where will the money come from? After all, most scientists agree we are not doing nearly enough to tackle this problem.
@Toby Fenwick – “On a point of fact, Germany of course continues to operate nuclear weapons under the NATO Dual Capable Aircraft progamme” and “David: and to be clear Germany does operate nuclear armed aircraft, and along with the rest of NATO, is a member of the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) setting NATO nuclear targeting policy.”
For clarity I think it’s worth pointing out that Germany, Italy and the Netherlands operate nuclear-capable aircraft. However, the weapons are free fall bombs belonging to the USA, are firmly under the USA’s control, and are guarded by US armed forces personnel in the host countries.
It wouldn’t surprise me if those countries haven’t ever actually flown their own aircraft carrying the real, live US-owned nuclear bombs, or at least not for a very long time.
As a number of contributors have said, most NATO countries not only do not possess their own nuclear weapons, but will not allow nuclear weapons on their soil (e.g. Liberal
Canada). Scrapping the minuscule British “independent deterrent” but staying within NATO used to be our policy until we were muscled out of it by the Alliance leadership in the 80s. It was a policy that made sense then and still does so – and some of the money saved could go on better equipping our existing forces to be able better to keep the peace in trouble spots – which is something we do well.
@Kevin White
Kevin, as we’ve discussed numerous times, there are the DCA states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands) who directly operate nuclear forces, SNOWCAT operations are mounted my many more and *all* are members of the NATO Nuclear Planning Group (NNPG). In so doing, all are directly contributing to either the direct operation of nuclear weapons, or support to these operations.
You’ve made your pro-unilateralism position clear: as you’ve repeatedly said on the Working Group, in your view nuclear weapons are immoral. Given that position, why would it be morally acceptable in your view to be defended by an alliance which is predicated on the first use of nuclear weapons if required? As Dav says, “if it is immoral to hold nuclear weapons then it must also be immoral to expects other to hold them on your behalf, and that is the essence of NATO.” You’ve never answered that question, Kevin.
@Catherine Jane Crosland: there can be more than one opinion, firmly and sincerely held, that nuclear deterrence stopped conflict between the major powers in the Cold War. I want to see a nuclear-free world, but having studied it closely I have concluded that multilateralism as I’ve set it out is more likely to get us there. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, I’m afraid.
@David Raw: The document in September is a consultation, not a report. If you can’t make Brighton, please send your thoughts on the document to HQ and they can pass them to Neil Stockley, the WG’s chair. There will be a motion to Spring Conference next year.
On, “The logic of the unilateralist case is that the UK should not be defended by a nuclear umbrella, which points to us leaving NATO”, perhaps you could explain why this is nonsense. If you’re a unilateralist based on the notion that nuclear weapons are dreadful, how can you be a member of a nuclear alliance ?
Re: the £179 billion figure, I’ve spoken to Crispin Blunt about this, and he accepts that the figure is too high because it assumes that Trident’s operating costs will be a fixed proportion of a growing defence budget. This isn’t correct, it should be a fixed amount rising with inflation. (Oh, and the reason the Minister didn’t comment is the same reason as usual: the MoD don’t like to talk about the through-life costs – it doesn’t mean that they agree with this particular figure.)
@ “Caracatus” – I hope your reply means that you accept that UK nuclear force is operationally independent; if not, please provide some evidence of this. I’m looking at future UK policy, and I fully endorse the steps the paper outlines in the UK moving to a leading role in confidence-building measures, pushing for an FMCT, setting up special IAEA regime for naval nuclear propulsion fuel. These would all be new and useful steps, and I’m very keen that the UK returns to the leading role it played in arms control: London was the key to getting both Washington and Moscow on board in 1963 for the Limited Test Ban Treaty.
@RichardUnderhill: Khrushchev did have SS-6 SAPWOOD ICBMs in 1962 – the same rocket that boosted Sputnik in 1957. Though they were few in number, but were enough to deter the Kennedy Administration. The recent scholarship on the crisis is fascinating precisely because it shows that superpower deterrence occurred before MAD.
Detection of SSBNs is a problem. That’s one of the reasons that I oppose replacing Trident with Trident. Paul Ingram over at BASIC has done some good work in this area.
@Geoffrey Payne: I have consistently opposed replacing Trident with Trident: it was for that reason I voted in favour of George Potter’s amendment and put a card in to speak in favour of the amendment; sadly, I wasn’t called.
We need to be clear about unilateralism – it has been tried here in the UK – every reduction in UK nuclear weaponry has been unilateral, from the withdrawal of the WE.177 in the late 1990s, the progressive reductions in the number of deployed warheads and the operational stockpile through successive strategic defence reviews and the (perhaps ironically titled) Trident Value for Money study in 2010 were all unilateral UK initiatives. They had no discernible impact on the other nuclear powers. It is hard to see that scrapping the UK’s nuclear force will achieve this. On the other hand, providing a “win” for negotiation partners is a key part to putting a negotiation of this sort together.
On climate change, I support spending to move the UK to a zero carbon economy, starting with the decarbonisation of electricity through renewables and a new generation of nuclear stations. I oppose Hinkley Point C because it is a rotten deal for the UK – I’d much prefer the UK government to select a design, fund the construction and operate it as a public utility; indeed, I wrote a CentreForum paper on this in 2014.
@Nick Baird: DCA is a key part of NATO’s nuclear posture and nuclear burden sharing. The US and these four nations take it very seriously, which is why the US is spending c. $10bn on the B61-12. In order to remain operationally certified, all four nations’ squadrons have to demonstrate their proficiency in the nuclear mission on a regular basis (quarterly or six monthly, if I recall correctly.) Indeed, were it not for the NATO-Russia agreement, it is quite clear that Poland (and potentially Hungary) would be keen to host B61s and participate. That’s why SNOWCAT is important to all NATO states.
@Mike Falchikov: For the reasons I outline in this article and in the Retiring Trident paper, I oppose a Trident-based replacement for Trident and would spend the savings on the conventional forces, which, as you say, do their job well and are in need of re-equipping in the same period that Trident will be procured. I also reject unilateralism for the reasons I outline – I just don’t think it will achieve what its proponents suggest.
@ Toby Fenwick
You ask why I think your statement, “If you’re a unilateralist based on the notion that nuclear weapons are dreadful, how can you be a member of a nuclear alliance ?” is nonsense. The answer is because not renewing a nuclear weapong capability puts us in the same category as the twenty five NATO countries who do not possess such weaponry. Are you advocating they should leave NATO because they don’t have a nuclear weapon equivalent ?
Not renewing an ‘independent deterrent’ does not mean leaving NATO. Trident (or equivalent) is not just dreadful…. it’s too expensive. I understand the old Asquith/Lloyd George technique of agreeing to four future dreadnoughts to buy off opposition to social welfare, but as it happens, apart from a brief flurry at Jutland the dreadnoughts sat in Scapa Flow for most of WW1….. and they didn’t have to cope with detection by modern ripple technology.
Please correct me, but I can’t find the names, qualifications or stated views of the members of the working group anywhere. Who are they, on what basis were they selected, what are their qualifications and did they come to the issue with an open mind ? It doesn’t look like it.
There is an impression that the party hierarchy (led by Paddy & Shirley) pulled every string in the book at Bournemouth to retain the multilateral status quo – the classic technique of kicking it into the long grass with a ‘Commission’ led by a ‘reliable’ Chair. Those of us who have served in Cabinet in local government are familiar with this type of Sir Humphrey technique.
If this is the case it is unwise and will rebound on future party membership renewals.
@simon Mcgrath. Sorry but I insure my house and contents against known risks like burglary, fire, accidental damage, not in case the Russians or the Chinese might bomb us. [In any event that risk is specifically excluded!] I can’t see a parallel with not having Trident missiles that we will never use. The idea that having nuclear missiles is some kind of insurance is completely bizarre. Everyone knows that it’s all a bluff and an expensive one at that.
@ Geoffrey Payne
“However today Russia has no desire to invade us.”
Never try and guess Russia’s intentions. Remember the Crimea?
@Geoffrey Payne: there’s no secrecy about who is on the working group- Mark Pack put it on his blog http://www.markpack.org.uk/137157/lib-dem-trident-policy-working-group/ As I said in previous comments, it has members from all points of view, and has been very fairly chaired by Neil Stockley. As far as I’m aware there are no grounds to assert that Paddy, Shirley, Tim or anyone else ate pulling any, let alone “every” string.
The unilateralist point I was making was narrowly that if you believe it is immoral for the UK to have nuclear weapons, then it is hard to argue we should stay in NATO defended by someone else’s nuclear weapons.
@ Toby Fenwick
So the names are on Mark Pack’s blog – but their names, qualifications and how/why they were selected are not disclosed in the publication itself. Open government, accountability, expertise ? Answer came there none.
Interesting that Alistair’s name is there – I remember Jo Grimond saying in October, 1962 (in the middle of the Cuban missile crisis) just how futile the British independent nuclear deterrent was. We were a radical party in those days.
Incidentally, Jo was sensible enough to make his statement in Orkney rather than in the H of C.
I can’t see a parallel with not having Trident missiles that we will never use
But we do use them. We are using them every day.
@David Raw: you said that the WG’s names were secret and
“that the party hierarchy (led by Paddy & Shirley) pulled every string in the book at Bournemouth to retain the multilateral status quo”
Given that a couple of minutes with Google would’ve produced the names, perhaps you like to reconsider your slur on Paddy and Shirley.
On the question of members’ qualifications, I didn’t select the group so I don’t know who applied, and why those who were selected were selected.
In the interests of openness, I:
– was an HM Treasury civil servant, and was involved in the first national risk register and was part of the HMT team dealing with the 7/7 and 21/7 bombings;
– worked for the NAO in their defence value for money team, as well as for DFID overseas;
– served in the RAF reserve as an intelligence officer between 1995 & 2009, with operational experience in support of a range of theatres;
– have written two well received papers for CentreForum on UK nuclear policy, as well as on other defence and foreign policy issues;
– have a chapter in Dr Andrew Futter’s new collection of essays “The United Kingdom and the Future of Nuclear Weapons” published last month;
– hold a BA in Politics (Middlebury College VT USA); an MSc in International Relations and Government from the LSE; an LLB from Birbeck; an LLM in International Law and the use of force from UCL, and am currently taking an MSt in International Relations and International Law at Cambridge.
Toby I think you are mixing me up with someone else. I never said anything about secrecy on who is on the working group.
@Geoffrey my apologies, it was David Raw. Editing faff on my part.
Please see Bill Clinton’s memoir “My Life” ISBN 0 09 179527 3 (Random House, 2004) in which he mentions a total communications blackout, which was thought might lead to the adverse use of nuclear weapons. It was actually caused by sunspot activity.
@Richard Underhill: I’ve read the book. What makes you think that lessons weren’t learned? As I understand it, it also did not affect landlines, which would be the principal means of C2 for the land-based aircraft option.
@ Toby Fenwick
I gather you have legal qualifications so you will know the difference between your comment addressed to me, “you said that the WG’s names were secret”, when I said nothing of the sort. What I said was,
“Please correct me, but I can’t find the names, qualifications or stated views of the members of the working group anywhere. Who are they, on what basis were they selected, what are their qualifications and did they come to the issue with an open mind ?”
A more professional introduction in what you must have known would be a controversial document dealing with the issues I raised would have avoided this.
Another “Editing faff” on your part ?
@DavidRaw: and your substantive view is?
@tim. No we’re not using them. We play at having a deterrent by having submarines ‘at sea’. No-one has used a nuclear weapon since 1945. At the same time despite over 70 years of talk of giving up nuclear weapons only the odd state in the former Soviet Union has done so and at least 3 states have got them. This gives the lie to the multilateralist argument, because none of the original nuclear states has given up the bomb nor do any of them intend to. You can’t tell states they shouldn’t have a nuclear bomb if you have one yourself. Time to abandon Trident, not replace it.
No-one has used a nuclear weapon since 1945
So if someone is going around threatening people, including an unarmed bobby, with a samurai sword, and a police armed response unit turns up and, after they surround him and point their weapons at him, he surrenders, you reckon they didn’t ‘use’ their guns just because they didn’t discharge them?
What an odd definition of the word ‘use’!
You can’t tell states they shouldn’t have a nuclear bomb if you have one yourself
So you reckon the police can’t tell criminals to hand over their guns as long as armed response units exist?
What an odd view of how the world works!
Toby Fenwick 18th Aug ’16 – 7:39am The book is 957 pages long and my version is printed. There is an inadequate index, so other readers might use lots of bookmarks or go for a digital version which allows electronic searches, if it exists. There are four references in the index to nuclear non-proliferation treaty and none to sunspot activity, so I am working from memory and, of course, military secrecy may apply. Solar activity is reportedly capable of knocking out communications satellites and ground-based electricity supply. Are the submarines in contact with undersea cables transmitting information?
Richard I’m not proposing using submarines. My copy of the book is in storage, I thought it was a dreary apologia when I read it.
Before the cold war ended, I was persuaded by multilateralism. After all, the UK, with its population crammed into a tiny area compared to the USA, USSR, China or even France, would tend to be at least a moderating influence on brinkmanship. I now can’t see that throwing our tiny deterrent into a nuclear charity sale would make a blind bit of difference and in a world no longer divided into two hostile halves (plus relatively weak neutrals), it’s no longer so meaningful to say “We’ll get rid of 15% of ours if you get rid of 15% of yours”.
I can see no circumstances in which the UK would use its “independent” deterrent independently. We contribute proportionately more military strength available to NATO than most European countries and there are fields where we are expert, such as irregular warfare and special forces. Whatever nuclear option we try to preserve, the money could be better spent elsewhere, either within the defence budget or outside it. And maybe, just maybe, as the list of countries that do have nuclear weapons edges upwards, one unilateral nuclear disarmament, however small, could encourage more.
Mick Taylor
I am not of your view , though I respect your unilateralism your case needs bolstering !
We have , in recent decades since the Cold War stopped, i.e., after the fall of Soviet Communism and the break up and independence of the Eastern European states in the Soviet Union and beyond , actually had a massive elimination of numbers of missiles , by the former Warsaw Pact countries , and our NATO allies , particularly the USA.
Many do not realise the effect of the relationship that developed between Reagan and Gorbachev. To far too many American Republicans of very right wing Conservative tendencies , Reagan is the embodiment of the right wing . To anyone other than them , he became the embodiment of do the right thing ! For he did just that . Instinctively , and unusually , the American president liked and , to the extent these things are possible , trusted , Gorbachev. The right wing advisers , journeymen , placemen , or genuine staunch ideologues, thought Reagan had become a loony lefty!
Just as President Kennedy is , wrongly , claimed by moderate rightwingers today as a conservative , which he was not , but was a self described Liberal , so President Reagan could, correctly ,be claimed by many as a liberal when compared to todays rightwingers!
The numbers of war heads and weapons has indeed massively decreased. This is as nothing compared to their elimination of course , but it is something important .
And we should not compare ourselves so much with other countries. On why we should not be compared to so many countries we are compared with , it is because we are not like them ! We are the fifth largest economy , yes , important .
We are , in addition one of the most important countries in the history of the human race for the advancement and defence of liberty ! As Liberal Democrats, some , like me of part origin from countries that have known dictatorship, indeed , many of us ,are aware of this . Sometimes, this means we are at war, tragically . At others , that we win the peace , thankfully.
At all times it means we cannot retreat into isolation and shirk our responsibilities for leadership. We need to liaise with France for and with , who does what ,with our weapons . For we are not irrelevant. In the EU or out!
I can see no circumstances in which the UK would use its “independent” deterrent independently
Not even if the US elects an isolationist President who withdraws from NATO and announces that from now on the USA will only use its nuclear weapons to retaliate against attacks directly on the USA; its former allies are, from now on, on their own?
This is not, as this year has shown us, beyond the bounds of possibility; if not now then perhaps in 3038 or 2046.
You must admit in that circumstance that the UK needs an independent deterrent?
@ Lorenzo
1. To follow the logic of your argument, do you think Italy ought to have it’s own independent nuclear deterrent ? If not, why not ?
2. Do you accept that during the war in Iraq (see Chilcott) and later in Afghanistan orthodox British forces were ill equipped and under equipped. Do you accept that this was because resourceswhich could have been used to deal with this were directed to Trident and also to the two new aircraft carriers being built for which we have no aircraft ?
To those who serious envisage a UK Prime Minister authorising the use of nuclear weapons I can only say that you have a strange idea of how the world works. It is accepted that there would be no first strike because every government since the war has said so. So the only possible use is for retaliation. Is the UK really going to hit back by sending Trident Missiles to bomb the country that bombed us in a first strike, when the majority of those who would die would be innocent civilians? And what use will retaliation be against a terrorist group whose whereabouts are not known? Yes, I’m a Quaker and a pacifist, so for me the clear answer is no retaliation.
The point has been well made by others that whilst the number of warheads has been reduced the nuclear countries like USA, Russia and China still have sufficient warheads to destroy the world. We are no nearer dismantling nuclear weapons that when I was born and we will never do so unless and until someone starts the process by disarming first. By cancelling the trident replacement we would send a signal to the other nuclear powers and those aspiring to be that we want to step back from the brink and we would then speak with real moral authority in the cause of disarmament.
I don’t know if things have changed, but NATO used to have a policy of first use of nuclear weapons. During the cold war there was a fear that Soviet bloc conventional forces outnumbered and would soon overun NATO, so the plan was to stop them by dropping nukes on them within Europe (probably in Germany).
That is presumably what the US free-fall bombs in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands were for, as their aircraft would never make it to Moscow.
@Nick Baird: NATO maintains a first use doctrine including in the defence of the Baltic States.
David Raw
I am half Italian . That country has done many great things . But it has not been one of , if not the, unlike Britain ,strongest international nation for the advancement and defence of liberty , for much of its history. Even though it has , internally , contributed a lot to Liberalism , or did , of the classical variety you are not , really ,much of a defender of .Indeed its history as a unified country is quite recent . Apart from a brief period under the premiership of Aldo Moro, the decent progressive Christian Democrat ,in the 1970s, put to an abrupt halt by his murder by the Red brigade terrorists , another later under the decent Romano Prodi,Italy has been in quite a state ! Often of corruption ! It has , under Matteo Renzi , restored its reputation as in the mainstream , and very principally, engaged. I think with this history the answer to your question is a resounding no, but wait a second .
If you factor in the period some very few years after Italy had been our staunch ally in the first world war , when , Mussolini , took over for two decades ,and Italy fought us in the second world war , then , the partisans having killed the tyrrant , fought with us. After the war , the country was in a state for sure ! So a resounding no to your question based on that period alone !
Why ? A personal reason to say this that is political too. My late father was a conscripted member of the Mussolini Youth , he saluted Il Duce himself on parade , forced into it . He saw the bodies of partisans hanging from lamposts at times having been executed and displayed for public view. He also , as a mid teens energetic fellow , and brave , took food to the partisans at night ! After the war , he served in the British military police , stationed in Trieste , his city. He came here attracted to this country and America , met my mother , and here I am . And I married an American.
I am aware of the greatness and goodness of many nations . But this country , and the USA , and , at times , France , have a so, different history and role . It is why our nuclear weapons are maintained . It is why we are permanent members of the security council of the UN. It is why , if I had to , and as an ex Labour member many years ago in my youth , if I had to choose between Corbyn and May , I would have to choose May.
I d not have to . I choose this party . I believe it should choose multilateral disamament and mean it .
David Raw
So having answered you as to why the comparison of Britain and any other country , Italy the one you interestingly asked about , on nuclear weapons ,brings my answer that no , they do not feel the need to have them , nor should they , I shall briefly answer your second question.
We do not have to choose between conventional forces and nuclear weapons . We are a rich nation that can afford both and should greatly improve our support for our troops. I am actually what the Americans amongst others , would call a peacenik , who is also a patriot , who backs our military . I joined this party because I believed , it correct on Iraq. It has, under the leadership of good spokespeople , been solid on those matters.And I joined when I was dissolusioned with Labour , having left them earlier. I support a return to a genuinely strongly supported armed forces , and disarmament process as well.
Gaitskell, with Grimond , is one of my heroes. They held similar and differing views . On this , I would accept either, if we as a nation , as Grimond wanted , truly play our part with the USA deterrent. But , Trump ?! I think as long as France is a nuclear power , we must be , or Europe is dominated by one country on weapons as it is another on economics !
Lorenzo Cherin 19th Aug ’16 – 2:06am………………We do not have to choose between conventional forces and nuclear weapons . We are a rich nation that can afford both and should greatly improve our support for our troops………..
So we can afford both? The £200 billion is not needed for the NHS, action on poverty, education, housing, etc. because, as a rich country, we can adequately fund these essentials alongside Trident…
I was an SDP member in the 1980. One reason for opposing the Labour Party at the time was it’s unilateralist approach to Nuclear weapons. After leaving the Liberal Democrats around 1994 I was happy to vote Labour and support its defence strategy, apart from the fact that I opposed the second Iraq War. However as time went by I started to question the need to replace Trident. Why spend an enormous amount of money on something we will never use and the consequences of us ever doing so don’t bear thinking about. I do however think the country needs to be defended properly. We need to stay in NATO and maintain the 2% spend on conventional defences. Is there a cheaper, less aggressive nuclear deterent if we need one? How long can we keep the existing deterrent for? Can someone explain Lib Dem Policy here. I know 7 out of 8 MPs voted against Trident in the last vote? Now Corbyn is Labour leader I don’t support him and it is the Lib Dems I am looking to. Our defences are best served by an air force, navy, army capable of rapid reaction, and efficient intelligence services. Having Nuclear weapons is no defence against terrorism. If we need a nuclear deterrent it has to be a lesser, cheaper one than Trident, something that is purely defensive.
The world is now spending more than $4 billion on its weapons of war every day.
The US, Europe and the UK spend around 70 percent of that money, with nearly half of the total global military spending being done by America.
All rogue states, the so-called perceived enemies of the West ie North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, and Libya, and finally al Qaeda and ISIS, reportedly spent less than one percent of the total global military spending.
We do not need to join in with this massive overspend on the military on the basis of so called “Defence spending”. The defence of the nation does not require such levels in order to deal with the threats that exist. There are many other threats to the planet which need those scarce resources.
We should provide enough spending for a well equipped force to defend of the nation along with enough to provide a fair share of international responsibilities and peace-keeping forces.
We should provide a lead on this and not just follow the herd, or the lead of the many retired military generals who now have links to the defence industry and are still in the front line – not of military action – but selling the hardware to their former employers.
Expats
I have not been in favour of renewing Trident , if a small and defensive capability can be sourced , therefore support current policy .
I think there are many ways we could find the money for what we need:
A new internationally advanced tax settlement in which off shore , is no more . At least, not the norm.
An increase on the tax of unearned wealth , set at a high threshold, not penalising enterprise or small bequests, but collected !
A heath tax as a percentage of income to fund the NHS , with more input from the patient , or client more in control ,and more tax collected for the service .
A genuine clear out of advisers and middle managers and a public sector that employs based on need not cronyism at local and national level
A halt to all publicly funded projects assessed as a waste of money , with money saved put into more useful or essential commitments that make a real difference to peoples lives
A cap on the lottery jackpot at one million a win , all extra money to good social causes in partnership between government and charity
A tax on mass ownership of land , based on the amount and extent , instead of a mansion tax based on the value of a single property
Lorenzo….. 1. If (according to you) Italy shouldn’t have an independent nuclear deterrent – though we are both members of Nato – why should we have one ? Is Britain some sort of superior country to Italy and therefore more entitled to have one, or is it that we still have a few imperialistic illusions about how important we are. ?
2. “Italy was a staunch ally in WW1″…………………. ?
Sorry, it was a bit more opportunist position than that. They were allies of Germany and Austria, but waited to see which way the wind was blowing and who would offer the best deal up until May 1915. They joined Britain and France when Asquith offered them Trentino, South Tyrol to the Brenner Pass, the Austrian Littoral (with Trieste), Gorizia, Gradisca and Istria less Fiume, parts of western Carniola and north-western Dalmatia with Zara and most of the islands.
They were also wanting the port of Valona, Antalya in Turkey and part of the German colonies in Africa. In fact, not much different to Il Duce’s ambitions.
Apart from old Squiff being a crafty operator there’s not a lot of’ staunch’ in any of that.
The defence of the nation does not require such levels in order to deal with the threats that exist
Maybe not. But what abut the threats that might exist, in thirty to fifty years?
Much, much better to have nuclear weapons and not need them, than to find out too late that we need them and don’t have them.
‘The commonwealth of Venice in their armoury have this inscription, “Happy is that city which in time of peace thinks of war,”‘ — The Anatomy of Melancholy
Dav – and what if the threats which exist now and might exist in the future cannot be dealt with because there are no resources left after the nuclear option has used them up?
Many threats exist now which cannot be dealt with by nuclear weapons and probably the same will be true in the future.
@ Dav And did the city of Venice have nuclear weapons ?
And did the preparations do them any good ?
After Constantinople fell to Sultan Mehmet II, he declared war on Venice. The war lasted thirty years and cost Venice much of its eastern Mediterranean possessions
Please follow the money in detail! Please consider the following which comes from an article in Global Research headed “Britain’s Trident Nuclear “Deterrent”: How the Banks Have their Fingers on the Button” (29/02/16: Steve Topple).
The Russian equivalent of Trident is the Dolgorukly class submarine.
It is made by the Sevmash company.
Sevmash is financed by the Russian State owned VEB bank.
In 2011 VEB signed an agreement for a syndicated loan worth 2.4 billion dollars from 19 banks outside Russia.
These banks included Barclays, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
We, the public, own 84 per cent of RBS.
RBS invests in 10 companies which are involved with Trident.
Thus, our banks don’t just bat for “our team” and, courtesy of RBS, we pay for Russia’s nuclear deterrent as well as our own.
Mick Taylor 18th Aug ’16 – 7:34pm: “We are no nearer dismantling nuclear weapons that when I was born and we will never do so unless and until someone starts the process by disarming first.” Is it wise to use the word “never” in politics? How certain can we be?
The USA had three atomic bombs, tested one and dropped two on Japan, seeing the alternative as one million American dead in an invasion. Japan surrendered, not knowing that the USA had no more atomic bombs.
There were several assumptions made about the necessary conditions for the abolition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but different and opposite conditions applied when abolition happened. Stalin planned to occupy the whole of Europe including Gibraltar, but Gorbachev agreed to the peaceful removal of 400,000 Soviet troops from Germany.
David Raw 18th Aug ’16 – 6:23pm “during the war in Iraq (see Chilcott)”.
This brings up the issue of how and why a British Labour Prime Minister decided he needed to have such a strong relationship with Republican US President George W Bush.
The hanging chads in Florida were only part of the story. There are a lot of Cubans in Florida and they have strong views about Fidel Castro. In his book ‘My Life’ Bill Clinton reports that he spent 8 years trying to win them over, with some success showing in opinion polls until their opinions were inflamed by the plight of a boy called Elian Gonzalez. “.. his mother had fled Cuba for the United States in a rickety boat. The boat capsized and she drowned after putting Elian in an inner tube to save his life. The boy was taken to Miami and put in the temporary custody of a great-uncle, who was willing to keep him. His father in Cuba wanted him back.
The Cuban-American community made Elian’s case a crusade, saying that his mother had died trying to bring her son to freedom and it would be wrong to send him back to Castro’s dictatorship. …” “Eventually it became an election issue. Al Gore publicly disagreed … a small boy had become a pawn in the never-ending struggle against Castro. … concerned it could cost Al Gore Florida in November.” (pages 904-906).
Pages 932-934 “Governor Bush immediately appealed to the US Supreme Court to stop the recount, the mechanics of elections were a matter of state law unless they were used to discriminate against a group of citizens”. “Bush v. Gore will go down in history as one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made, along with Dred Scott case, which said that a slave who escaped to freedom was still a piece of property to be returned to its owner, …Plessy v. Ferguson, .. Korematsu .” Basically Bill Clinton is arguing that the US Supreme Court is politically biased and therefore severely flawed. His personal popularity was high because of the economy, more people in work etc.