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.
1945, August 6, 8.15am. Slicing through the clear blue sky, a previously unknown “absolute evil” is unleashed on Hiroshima instantly searing the entire city, Koreans, Chinese, Southeast Asians, American prisoners of war, children, the elderly and other innocent people are slaughtered. By the end of the year 140,000 are dead.
Witness, a boy of 17: “Charred corpses blocked the road. An eerie stench filled my nose. A sea of fire spread as far as I could see. Hiroshima was a living hellWitness, a girl of 18: “I was covered in blood. Around me were people with skin flayed from their backs hanging all the way to their feet – crying, screaming, begging for water”.
– Taken from the Peace declaration of the City of Hiroshima’s Mayor.
Never again must something like this happen. Yet those who have stuck rigidly to a policy of multilateral disarmament have not been successful in bringing about the nuclear-free world they profess to seek, and they show little sign of doing so.
It is my contention that British possession of nuclear weapons is immoral and that the UK should be leading by example in scrapping Trident and not replacing it with nuclear alternatives.
Nothing I have heard or read during the meetings of the Nuclear Weapons Policy Working Group has convinced me otherwise.
Britain has only 1% of the world’s nuclear weapons, yet our government pretends it is one of the big boys in the nuclear playground and that our nuclear weapons give us some sort of special leverage.
The evidence to back that claim is not convincing.
I recall the former Chief of Defence Staff Lord Carver asking the question “Trident? What the bloody hell is it for?”
Tim Farron and others have referred to it as “a relic of the cold war”. So why on Earth are we even considering the
possibility of spending, maybe, up to £200billion on it in future?
The savings from moving to a part-time fleet, the party’s current policy, are said to be not that significant in the scheme of things.
Former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo said Trident is “completely past its sell by date”, and he is right.
With new technologies becoming available, Trident is increasingly likely to become vulnerable to cyber-attacks and drones, making it even more of a white elephant.
Of the five options suggested in the Nuclear Weapons Policy Consultation Paper, two relate to Trident and one relates to free-fall nuclear bombs (which to my mind conjures up images from the Doctor Strangelove movie). The aircraft and the bombs they would carry are vulnerable to being “taken-out” before reaching their target. The paper notes: “in all likelihood there would not be significant savings because of the cost of developing a new platform”.
Of the remaining two options, one is “Virtual Capability”. There are questions as to whether there would be sufficient warning of need to move to production and operational training. Such a policy could also send wrong signals at a time of international tension in the future.
Which leaves us with just one option “The Zero Option” of cancelling the Successor submarine programme and retiring the existing Vanguard fleet.
It is the option that I recommend. The time has come for Liberal Democrats to lead the way. Let’s do it.
* Kevin White is Chair of LibDems Against Trident. He was a member of the last LibDem working group on nuclear weapons and was a member of the pre-merger Liberal Party's Defence and Disarmament Panel
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Mary Reid
Meg Thomas
Institute of Urban T
Tristan Ward
Mick Taylor
20 Comments
Kevin
You would recommend the unilateral option , you are apparently a unilateralist!
I respect your view , yet it is not my own . But my question is what do the French have ? As long as they have it , we in my view very much cannot rid ourselves of our role , which is more important than you say , nor can we saddle our closest ally geographically with that responsibility.In these time it is our main allies we need to liaise with as much as we do negotiate with possible enemies .
I do not agree with anyone who reduces this countries role to that of internationally a nonentity , 1% of weapons or not , we are at the top table and should be , as a force for good , and , agreed , real disarmament.
The position of unilateral nuclear disarmament is an honourable one and Kevin is quite right to point to the failure of multi-lateral disarmament to eliminate nuclear weapons. However there is a problem. We can safely eliminate our nuclear weapons as long as we shelter under the NATO nuclear umbrella, which in practice means US Trident. It will only take one US president who is as isolationist as Trump but not as crazy to decide that NATO is no longer in US interests and that protection is gone. Russia has already occupied part of Ukraine (which did give up its nuclear weapons) and is threatening the Baltic States. It flies its bombers across the North Sea, continuously testing our defences. If we did unilaterally disarm, then it would open us up to nuclear blackmail. If the Mayor of Liverpool had to say what the Mayor of Hiroshima did, would you consider that ‘a price worth paying’ to be on the moral high ground?
I don’t think that there is a simple answer; nuclear weapons can not be uninvented and when there are states which have them and are prepared to use them, we need to think long and hard about retaining them as a deterrent.
I agree with Laurence.
Fundamentally, the article here is arguing that the use of nuclear weapons is a great evil. And that is not disputed. It might be said that the use of conventional weapons, particularly in large quantities is also a great evil.
The central question, which Laurence addresses, and Kevin does not, is how do we minimise the risk that these uses will come about (not just our use, but any use)? Now maybe there is a case to be made here for unilateralism, and if so, let’s see it. As it stands this article shows all the signs of a logically weak position by just focusing on one point that is not actually disputed and claiming sole ownership of it.
In my opinion we should be actively pursuing multilateral disarmament talks, not just saying we believe in it and doing nothing about it. If talks fail we should be prepared to lead the way by unilaterally disarming, that is if we’re serious about ending the nuclear era.
I also wouldn’t mind investing the savings in our conventional forces, particularly the navy, if it means getting people on board.
I agree with Kevin. What others must explain is why keeping a nuclear weapons system, which no-one intends to use, keeps us safe.
For 61 years unilateralism has failed to rid a single country of nuclear weapons. Only Ukraine unilaterally gave up nuclear weapons and since they weren’t even a bit player no-one else did. What is needed is a lead from a country that had nuclear capability from the beginning and now is the perfect opportunity. With Trident fast becoming obsolete the UK can show the way to disarmament and save billions of pounds into the bargain. What’s not to like?
All the multilateralist guff about France or other nuclear states is just that. Germany has no nuclear weapons and neither have the vast majority of countries on the planet. What makes the UK so special that we have to? NOTHING.
I hope that when we eventually get to vote on this policy that there will be a unilateralist amendment to vote for. Up to now the FCC has conspired to ensure this never happens.
The party may not vote for unilateralism, but it has the right to have a choice to do so, rather than the leadership preventing that option being considered for fear it might actually get supported.
Ooops. I meant unilateralism in line 3 not unilateralism!
This site has a gremlin. I have now typed multilateralism twice and it has turned up as unilateralism
IN VIEW OF THE PROBLEMS WITH MY LAST POST HERE IT IS AGAIN
I agree with Kevin. What others must explain is why keeping a nuclear weapons system, which no-one intends to use, keeps us safe.
For 61 years multilateralism has failed to rid a single country of nuclear weapons. Only Ukraine unilaterally gave up nuclear weapons and since they weren’t even a bit player no-one else did. What is needed is a lead from a country that had nuclear capability from the beginning and now is the perfect opportunity. With Trident fast becoming obsolete the UK can show the way to disarmament and save billions of pounds into the bargain. What’s not to like?
All the multilateralist guff about France or other nuclear states is just that. Germany has no nuclear weapons and neither have the vast majority of countries on the planet. What makes the UK so special that we have to? NOTHING.
I hope that when we eventually get to vote on this policy that there will be a unilateralist amendment to vote for. Up to now the FCC has conspired to ensure this never happens.
The party may not vote for unilateralism, but it has the right to have a choice to do so, rather than the leadership preventing that option being considered for fear it might actually get supported.
Mick, tell me if I’m mistaken, but didn’t Ukraine get invaded after it gave up its nuclear weapons?
David. Yes, but the question remains, would it have used them against Russia. I think not, so it’s irrelevant if they had them or not.
Mick, you say you think not, but to be honest, you don’t count in that decision. The question is would Putin have thought not and been prepared to take the risk?
The simple fact is that the one country that gave up its nuclear weapons has been invaded. Those that haven’t given them up, have not.
World Wide Facts 1 Mick Taylor’s Opinions 0?
Kevin, It’s good to hear your voice of sanity….. it takes me back to the days of Jo Grimond’s leadership when we actually were a radical party and when he spoke out about the ludicrous nature of a ‘so called independent nuclear deterrent’ – which of course then and now is effectively under American control.
The notion that we should have one because France has one and French politics is still in the post Imperial dream world of Charles De Gaulle is really quite bizarre. It does nothing to actually address the issues you and Mick Taylor raise.
Incidentally, on the electoral front, opposing Trident has done nothing to diminish the support of the SNP and the Greens (who have more MSP’s than we do) here in Scotland….. so what those in the party who support Trident out of electoral fear are worried about I don’t know.
On the substantive issue your arguments are morally right and make sense. It will be interesting to see if you get a fair hearing in the party from the fearsome ones who pulled out all the stops to manoeuvre things at Bournemouth last September.
“The simple fact is that the one country that gave up its nuclear weapons has been invaded. Those that haven’t given them up, have not.”
South Africa gave up its nuclear weapons and hasn’t to my knowledge been invaded. So it’s 1:1 and I happen to know Mick is a pretty mean penalty taker 🙂
If Trident IS ever used it means the UK has already lost a war in which there will be no winners…Trident is not a strike weapon it is a ‘dead man’s weapon’….
As for a ‘future’ US president who considers Europe expendable in a nuclear war; there hasn’t been one who didn’t….The reason Kennedy would not allow Russian missiles on Cuba was that it made the US as vulnerable as Europe. Without Cuban missiles the USA believed a nuclear war could be won with minimal US casualties as Russia did not have an ICBM programme comparable to the US…
Anyway let us take the worst case scenario and surmise that a future Russia decides to invade Europe, all diplomacy has failed, the US will not help, etc., etc….Russian conventional forces will win so they have no need to escalate; will we be the first to use a nuclear weapon knowing that for every one of ours the Russians have 100 and Europe, especially the UK, will be a nuclear wasteland?
So tell us more about this nuclear blackmail, how does that work exactly ?
Even if the UK unilaterally disarmed, it wouldn’t make any difference. South Africa did the same, and the world didn’t joyfully surrender its bombs in the face of their superb moral example.
Even if the US fired their entire stockpile into the sun tomorrow and invited the rest of the world to do the same, it wouldn’t make a difference. Russia, China and North Korea keep their weapons partly to negate the US’s overwhelming advantage in conventional forces.
States have nuclear weapons because of hard facts about their mistrustful, antagonistic relationships with other states, not just because we’re stuck in a nuclear Mexican standoff and someone just needs to have the guts to put their gun down first.
The only path to a nuclear free world is multi-lateral disarmament, which unfortunately will require a fundamental change in relations between, at a minimum:
– The US/Europe and Russia
– The US/China’s neighbours and China
– India and Pakistan
– Israel and the rest of the middle east
– North Korea and the rest of the bloody world
So don’t hold your breath waiting for any of that.
In the meantime we have a lot to lose and comparatively little to gain by unilateral disarmament.
The practicalities of a realistic path to zero are hard, messy, and have long time horizons. Unilateralists should recognise that if they care about outcomes as well as displays of principle.
@Caractus
Russia invades one of its neighbours to prevent it re-aligning away from Russia and towards the EU.
The entire European continent is horrified at borders being redrawn by force in 21st century Europe, and the European countries closest to Russia are also scared.
They are unable to come to Ukraine’s aid in the name of self-defence because doing so risks escalation to a nuclear exchange.
That’s nuclear blackmail.
Conor Clarke 31st Aug ’16 – 7:41pm………………. (1)Even if the UK unilaterally disarmed, it wouldn’t make any difference. (2) South Africa did the same, and the world didn’t joyfully surrender its bombs in the face of their superb moral example…………..
(1) It would in terms of what alternative use the £billions could be put to…
(2) It didn’t lower their ‘standing’ in the world. And no-one invaded them!
@ Conner Clarke – it seems to me that you are describing the situation when we have trident – isn’t your argument that we need Trident (or a replacement) to prevent nuclear blackmail? @David Evans says that Ukraine was invaded after it gave up its nuclear weapons – I am not convinced there is any connection between the two events. Is anyone really suggesting that had Ukraine had nuclear weapons there would have been no conflict ? Or that the Ukraine should have launched a nuclear strike on say Moscow and see how it went from there ?