Tag Archives: nuclear deterrent

Observations of an Expat: Nuclear Questions

The nuclear deterrent must be at the centre of Europe’s security policy. For nearly 80 years that deterrent has been in the hands of the US through its membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

Britain and France have also had nuclear arsenals. But they do not come close to countering the stockpile of Russian weapons. Their purpose is to give heft to the political power of the two former European colonial powers.

That is changing. It must change. Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw have made it necessary. The most recent is the most worrying. The US president went to war without consulting his NATO allies and without a clear goal or exit strategy. He inevitably ran into difficulties and called upon his NATO allies to extricate him from what looks like an unwinnable conflict. Not wanting to be dragged into a “forever war” in the powder keg Middle East, the NATO allies refused. Trump responded by heaping insult on insult and issuing his clearest threat yet to withdraw from the “most successful military alliance in world history.”

Of course, a Trumpian withdrawal from NATO would not be a simple matter of signing an Executive Order. Marco Rubio saw to that shortly before he was appointed Trump’s Secretary of State. While still in the Senate he co-sponsored a bill which requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate for US withdrawal from the NATO Treaty.

Trump has a one-seat majority in the Senate. But even if it were larger, it is unlikely that he could twist enough Senate arms to secure a two-thirds majority. Fourteen Republican senators — including his sycophantic ally Lindsey Graham — have said they would vote to stay in the alliance. So that route appears blocked.

But the president could still severely damage the alliance. As commander-in-chief he has operational control over all military units so he could simply order the 70,000 US troops in Europe to come home. It would be a stupid move and put him on a collision course with his party in the Senate, but it is just the sort of thing Trump would do.

Such a move would immediately put a big question mark over whether America’s nuclear umbrella would stay in place. Which is why the European members of the alliance are discussing how they could replace the American deterrent.

Posted in Europe / International | Also tagged and | 23 Comments

Mathew on Monday: Serious Times Demand Serious Leadership – Ed Davey needs to stop with the clowning around

These are not normal political times. These are not easy times. And they are certainly not times when large swathes of the electorate is crying out for gimmicks, distractions, or anything that looks remotely unserious. They are times of international instability, economic uncertainty, pressure on public services, and a deep distrust in politics. In moments like these, what voters are looking for above all else is seriousness, serious ideas. Serious tone, serious leadership.

Which is why, for many of us watching Ed Davey’s speech at Spring Conference in York yesterday, there was such deep frustration. Because there were good things in what he said. There were important themes about Britain’s place in the world, about security, and about the values we champion as Liberal Democrats.

But all of that was immediately overshadowed by what came next. The dancing.

At best it looked tone-deaf. At worst it looked profoundly inappropriate given the gravity of the times we are living through. To say it was inappropriate is an understatement.

Politics is about judgement. And leadership is about understanding the mood of the country. Voters who are worried about paying their bills, worried about the NHS, worried about global instability, are not asking whether politicians can dance (in Portcullis House or, indeed, the floor of Conference). They are asking whether they can lead.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 48 Comments

Jamie Stone writes: The UK’s nuclear deterrent

The question of the party’s stance on nuclear weapons has often been a hot topic at conference.

Our most recent policy was passed in 2017. It committed the party to supporting a step down the nuclear ladder – with a move away from the current continuous patrols of Trident submarines, to a stance where submarines are not continuously deployed. The thought was that this would require the construction of three new Trident submarines, rather than the planned four.

Spring 2017 now feels like a very long time ago – indeed, since that policy was passed we’ve had two elections (and three Prime Ministers), Brexit, the Trump presidency, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

I was asked by the FCC and the FPC to write a spokesperson’s paper, and an accompanying motion, to bring to Autumn Conference 2022. I consulted widely across the party and spoke to external experts too – thanks to everyone who helped inform the paper.

It was clear that the dramatic deterioration of security in Europe necessitated a review of our previous stance.

We have long been the most forward-thinking UK-wide party on global disarmament, and the 2017 policy is part of that tradition.

But we have also always argued for flexibility – indeed, our proposals always included the possibility that changes in the strategic environment might require steps up, as well as down, the nuclear ladder, were that necessary to keep the people of this country safe.

At a dangerous time such as this, we must be realistic. It’s clear that choosing to take a step down the nuclear ladder of the kind proposed in 2017 – in the face of Vladimir Putin’s veiled threats of nuclear use – would send entirely the wrong signal to that despot. It risks encouraging him to be even more gung-ho with his nuclear brinkmanship.

And it would send the wrong signal to our NATO allies, who are protected under our nuclear deterrent, about the UK’s willingness to come to their defence. At a time where we should be showing European leadership, it would instead send a message of insularity.

Nor would taking such a step in this environment do anything to improve the chances for global disarmament.

That’s why I am putting forward a new proposal – at the heart of which is for the UK to maintain the current posture of continuous, at-sea deployment. That would mean a Trident submarine patrolling UK waters at all times.

Posted in Op-eds | 40 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Dennis
    The government has achieved a lot of what it promised to do, and had been on track to achieve more policies stated in their manifesto. https://fullfact.org/gove...
  • Chloe
    I've little sympathy for Starmer. But what he did deserve was to deliver that deeply personal resignation speech uninterrupted by that usual borish oaf S.Bray...
  • Slamdac
    The appears to be some British exceptionalism in these comments. I accept that the EU can't force us to have a referendum, but we can't force them to accep...
  • Nonconformistradical
    "My fear is that Labour are just changing their captain and not their policy programme. What Burnham has said so far is very confusing and disappointing." Se...
  • Mick Taylor
    Kier Starmer is a decent man, who was wholly out of his depth as PM. Everyone should read Ian Dunt's assessment on his substack https://iandunt.substack.com/ ...