Deterring Trident
The British government’s plans to create a successor to the Trident nuclear-weapons system will intertwine British foreign policy with that of the US for decades to come. Britain’s ‘independent’ deterrent will rely on US parts, personnel and firms for its operation. Moreover, as foreign policy expect Dan Plesch points out, “through NATO the US military keeps track of the Trident submarines and has every military, technical and political means of preventing Britain from using the weapons if ever the UK faces a repeat of the predicament of 1940 and ‘stands alone’”.
According to Plesch “The political implication for British citizens is clear. If they wish to support a Trident successor then they surrender their right ever again to complain about having to follow US policy on any issue”. A sobering thought in the wake of the Iraq war and the resulting increase in the terrorist threat to Britain.
It should also be noted that, as security expert Paul Rogers recently argued, attempts to present Trident purely as a "deterrent" mask the fact that the possibility of tactical and first use of nuclear weapons has been central to half a century of western military planning.
Finally, any attempt to upgrade Britain’s nuclear weapons capability would be a clear and dangerous breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran is currently being put under enormous pressure to comply with. Efforts to counter proliferation are bound to fail so long as the established nuclear powers break the same rules they demand that others adhere to. Moreover, any upgrade in capability on the part of one state naturally leads to a ripple effect whereby its rivals upgrade their own capabilities in order to maintain the balance of power. For example, any US-UK upgrade can be expected to prompt China and Russia to do likewise, provoking India to upgrade in turn, then Pakistan, then Iran, then Israel. With nuclear weapons systems around the world on hair-trigger alerts (and some of those systems e.g. that of Russia in low states of repair) the chance of an accident or an incident that quickly escalates out of control leading to a grave catastrophe is real and ever present.
Britain currently faces no credible military threat that justifies its retaining nuclear weapons. And any minimal, theoretical benefits are far outweighed by the risks, i.e. the continuation of our relationship with the US in its disastrous current form, and the real danger of nuclear catastrophe. In a recent MORI/Greenpeace poll 54% of the British public said they would oppose a costly replacement of Trident. Please sign the online CND petition today calling for the UK government not to upgrade its nuclear weapons capability. The petition must be signed by 14 July 2006.
posted by David Wearing at 3:14 PM
18 Comments:
"the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran is currently being put under enormous pressure to comply with"
It may seem pedantic, but I think it is actually crucially important, to point out that this is strictly incorrect.
Iran is not being pressured "to comply with the NPT". In fact, Iran is, so far as we are aware, wholly in compliance with the NPT, which is more than one can say for the nuclear weapons state signatories, who have shamelessly flouted their own side of the bargain by failing to take any serious steps to get rid of their nuclear weapons, as required by Article VI of the NPT.
In fact, the US, Britain and France are doubly at fault by virtue of their blatant attempt (in breach of Article III (3) of the NPT) to prevent Iran from continuing with development of civilian nuclear power.
"Britain currently faces no credible military threat that justifies its retaining nuclear weapons. And any minimal, theoretical benefits are far outweighed by the risks, i.e. the continuation of our relationship with the US in its disastrous current form, and the real danger of nuclear catastrophe."
The fact that we face no immediately (or even foreseeably) credible military threat is no reason to assume that we will not face such a threat in the next few decades. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Britain renouncing our deterrent force will in any significant degree reduce the ever-present threat of nuclear catastrophe.
My personal view is that I do not want the suggested replacement of Polaris, because it will be similarly tied to the US. That link, together with NATO as a whole, is a relic of past circumstances which we should have put behind us when the Soviet threat disappeared.
In fact, I want a deterrent force which will deter the US, and I'm happy to spend my and other folks' tax payments on such a defence force. In fact, since I have strong moral objections to most of the uses to which our conventional armed forces are put by my country's sorry governments, I would be happy to see considerable sums diverted from the conventional military in order to construct and maintain such a genuinely independent deterrent force.
If there is no threat to require a nuclear deterrent force, what is the justification for our conventional military? Just so our politicians can strut about on the world stage playing global policeman's sidekick?
Bear in mind that, while we can rebuild a conventional military while deterring an attack with a second strike nuclear force, the same would not necessarily be true in reverse. Should we ever seek to maintain a line more independent of Washington, I doubt we would be allowed to rebuild a nuclear force if we had once renounced it.
Duh! - Para 7: Trident, obviously, not Polaris!
Randal - thanks for your comments
On your first point - not pedantic at all. You're quite right to point that out. One might also add that the West tacitly condones/encourages states like Israel, India and Pakistan to develop their own capabilities outside of the NPT
On your second point - I agree that some threat may emerge in the future, but as I said, theoretical benefits do not outweigh the actual known risks, which are current and deadly serious. Failing to attempt to reduce that risk on the grounds of something that may possibly occur on a highly theoretical level, seems to me to be less than pragmatic
Actually, our taking steps to disarm is the single act that stands the best chance of reducing the threat of catastrophe. It would help restore credibility to the NPT and potentially reverse the dynamic of escalation (the "ripple effect") that I mentioned.
Not sure what you mean by "a deterrent force that will deter the US"
You may live in Britain but come have some fun at United States Gov Sim!
http://worldsimulations.com/USG/index.shtml
Join as a democrat today!
I suppose one could summarise the "substance" of the U.S's "known" threats in Rumsfeld-speak, paraphrasing, "there are things we know we don't know. That is to say there are known unknowns" etc, etc. This kind of vague rhetoric could also be classified as "need-to-know" speak wherein the "facts" are neither important and the nation is not privvy to them anyway. Instead, the nation is required to trust its leaders. I don't think that Rumsfeld has read any sociological theories on the erosion of trust in Late Modernity: a contradictory process in which technological andvancements and catastrophy(informational and industrial) erode support for governmental "explanations" for why things happen. In other words, laypeople have become experts themselves in a sense and are able to crtically investigate governmental assertions and even act upon them in order to change aspects of teh political culture (case in point, Geoffrey Holland's excellent exposé). This does not mean, however, that laypeople have automatic acess to accurate information, but that they have automatic access to information. I would assert that in many respects broader access to information creates a epistemological and empirical dilemma, since it is far more difficult to check and verify the validity and reliability of claims made. This does not make it impossible, however, since there are bodies such as HRW, Amnesty, who carry out on the ground emirical observations. It really depends on the issue one is investigating and Media monopolies still appear to have the narrative on current events well under control, even the "balanced" ones. I think we have all found ourselves debating an issue (the recent Israeli attacks, for example) at a dinner party wherein most of the guests have bought the narrative. Now, this does not necessarily mean that they are not privvy to the facts, but if the narrative structure determines who is "good" and "evil" right from the outset then it really does not matter if Israel bombs a heavily poulated are killing nine civilians IF Hamas, the evil terrorists, "kidnapped" one Israeli soldier. Therein lies our empirical and epistemological dilemma, since facts are often swathed in deeply embedded values and assumptions about the nature of the world.
Speak to you soon I hope
Wallsy
"On your second point - I agree that some threat may emerge in the future, but as I said, theoretical benefits do not outweigh the actual known risks, which are current and deadly serious. "
This is a matter for debate. The risk that Britain will face a military threat at some point over the next couple of generations is surely real and fairly substantial, based upon any reasonable reading of human history. Most military threats (though not all, granted) can be deterred by the kind of overwhelming force inherent in nuclear weapons.
As for whether that real risk is outweighed by the present threat of a nuclear war depends upon a lot of factors, not least the question dealt with below regarding whether Britain's unilateral disarmament can actually be expected to make any substantive contribution to reducing the threat of a nuclear war.
Then there is the question of what will prevent reversion to the kind of interstate industrial war endemic before nuclear weapons essentially halted it as a possibility for substantial nuclear-armed states post-1945. In which event, the first thing the warring states would do would be to rebuild their nuclear arsenals.
Perhaps it can be argued that nuclear disarmament is, paradoxically, the likeliest route to nuclear war?
The only way out would seem to be the horror of a global government - which imo will almost inevitably end up as the proverbial boot stamping on the human face forever. I prefer the risk of accidental nuclear war, myself.
"Failing to attempt to reduce that risk on the grounds of something that may possibly occur on a highly theoretical level, seems to me to be less than pragmatic
Actually, our taking steps to disarm is the single act that stands the best chance of reducing the threat of catastrophe. It would help restore credibility to the NPT and potentially reverse the dynamic of escalation (the "ripple effect") that I mentioned."
I don't actually believe the NPT ever had any credibility in that sense with the states that matter (the superpowers, or would-be superpowers). In my view they never had the slightest intention of disarming, and the utility of the NPT was always as a "noble lie", which increased the cost of going nuclear, and reduced the incentives to do so.
I simply don't see that Britain abandoning nuclear weapons would have any possible influence on the US or Russia or China abandoning nukes (they have a genuine need for them to deter each other), or India (which genuinely needs them to deter China and Pakistan) or Pakistan (which is genuinely threatened by nuclear-armed India) or Israel (which has a genuine need for a second strike weapon - notwithstanding the fact that Israel is currently at fault for most of the ongoing ME violence), or those other countries directly threatened by the US - Iran (although it may well be that religious scruples might actually prevent the Iranian regime from going nuclear), and North Korea.
These countries face direct and very real threats of military attack which they certainly will not risk allowing for the sake of an idealistic attempt to reduce the theoretical overall risk of a nuclear war.
Conceivably, France might be pressured into giving up nuclear weapons (leaving the EU with much-reduced international weight as against the US and Russia, by the way), but in what way will this promote the utility (as opposed to the credibility) of the NPT?
The NPT's utility can best be restored by reverting to former respect for national sovereignty, so that weak nations (who are the main proliferation risk at the moment) can be reasonably confident they won't be subject to a "pre-emptive" or "humanitarian" attack by a bigger power.
"Not sure what you mean by "a deterrent force that will deter the US","
I see us as positioned on the wrong side, geostrategically. The US is making an open push for world domination (via "full spectrum dominance" and the overthrow by subversion or invasion of any government which incurs the enmity of Washington), and we are positioned on the side of the aggressor. We should be on the other side, as a member of the coalition which has usually arisen to oppose the aspirant hegemon in the past, or at worst we should be neutral, but switching sides in such a situation is fraught with danger. I'd like to have something which could at least make the US think twice about "regime change" in the UK in a couple of decades, in a probably profoundly changed world. Granted it is unlikely we could afford such a technologically advanced system now, but so long as we are a nuclear power we have the option to spend more on a more effective system in the future. Once we've abandoned nukes, we will never be allowed to rebuild them, imo.
"This does not mean, however, that laypeople have automatic acess to accurate information, but that they have automatic access to information. I would assert that in many respects broader access to information creates a epistemological and empirical dilemma, since it is far more difficult to check and verify the validity and reliability of claims made. This does not make it impossible, however, since there are bodies such as HRW, Amnesty, who carry out on the ground emirical observations."
Why would you regard organisations such as HRW and Amnesty as any more reliable than the governments or mainstream media organisations? In my view, they certainly are not, although they do provide a viewpoint biased (generally) to a different perspective.
In Kosovo, for instance, the NGOs generally assisted the mainstream media in demonising the Serbs and promoting the idea that "something must be done", which directly caused a costly and murderous bombing campaign and the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of Serbs and other non-Albanians from the province.
Or are you merely pointing out that they provide additional angles from which to view the situation, making it easier for the rest of us to try to assess the truth underlying all the competing claims (in which case, I agree with you)?
"Therein lies our empirical and epistemological dilemma, since facts are often swathed in deeply embedded values and assumptions about the nature of the world. "
Absolutely!
Hi
"Why would you regard organisations such as HRW and Amnesty as any more reliable than the governments or mainstream media organisations? In my view, they certainly are not, although they do provide a viewpoint biased (generally) to a different perspective."
Yes, regarding the role of NGOs like HRW in their gathering of data and dissemination of the "facts on the ground", I certainly do not mean to imply that all they or similar bodies are somehow more objective than anyone else. However, we may on the basis of specific events assert that HRW has on occasion provided a more empirical account (Cf. Uzbekistan and U.S. role for example). But does this mean that HRW are always unbiased, accurate and objective? No, of course not. The role of NGOs in general is ambiguous (I would urge you to read Empire by Hardt and Negri on this issue. I bet you've already read it haven't you).
Best
Wallsy
Wallsy and Randal - thanks for your contributions. A lot of points here and not a lot of time I'm sorry to say, so I'll try to quickly rattle off some answers off the top of my head that address the main themes. You'll have to ask you to excuse my manners if I miss anything, spell things appallingly etc. Apologies
The question was asked, why would we regard NGOs as more reliable than governments or the mainstream media?
Plainly it depends on the NGO. Governments and elites have cottoned on to the power of NGOs and are increasingly using such bodies themselves to pursue policy. Take the various "colour revolutions" for example - ostensibly led by NGOs but apparently with interested elites in the background e.g. certain disgruntled Russian oligarchs in the case of the Ukraine.
However, from judging an NGO's organisational make-up, its methods, its aims its record and so on, we can usefully evaluate how reliable they are - and some are extremely useful indeed, HRW and AI being very good examples.
Its useful to unpick the term "bias". A bias is an external pressure that predetermines judgement. That's not the same as a worldview or an ideology or a set of values since these can, should be and are re-evaluated regularly by rational people. But that's the common misuse of the word bias - e.g. liberal bias. Being liberal isn't a bias - its a rational point of view. On the other hand, the mainstream media is inherently biased by virtue of its being owned by profit making organisations. The need to maximise profit, to which all other concerns are secondary, is an external factor that predetermines the outcome of news coverage (see Chomsky/Herman's Propaganda Model). That's very different from, and far more serious than, whatever biases you might perceive - rightly or wrongly - as affecting the work of NGOs like AI and HRW. But neither of you have actually identified any such biases in terms of those two organisations so I think that's as far as I can meaningfully go on this question.
Randal - on the nuclear debate, I'm conscious that I'm repeating what I said earlier, but the threat at the moment is very real and the future threats you describe, however plausible, are still in the theoretical realm at this point.
The real situation at hand is that there are enough nuclear weapons at present to bring about Armageddon, with deteriorating systems on hair-trigger alerts creating a genuine threat of what former US Defence Secretary McNamara called "Apocalypse Soon".
Plainly, the longer that situation continues the greater the chance that the worst will occur at some point along the line. And the danger is already significant as things stand. I'm not sure that you addressed that point directly in your response, though it does rather seem to be the bottom line.
You talk of an "idealistic attempt to reduce the theoretical overall risk of a nuclear war". I'm astonished by this. The threat is not theoretical. It is real. And given the scale, it can hardly be described as idealistic. It is not idealistic to want to avoid the clear danger of a nuclear holocaust. Idealistic is an absolutely extraordinary word to use.
More on the threat here
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article303965.ece
Since the status quo is unsustainable the only option is to concentrate on multilaterally agreed disarmament. Your argument that states have nuclear weapons to deter others that also have nuclear weapons is circular. If I have a gun to a man's head and that man has a gun to my head do we continue in this fashion, hoping for the best and saying "well there's no point being idealistic. He has a gun to my head" or do we attempt to agree to lower our weapons? I think it's fairly safe to say that pragmatism points to the latter course of action.
You say "Perhaps it can be argued that nuclear disarmament is, paradoxically, the likeliest route to nuclear war". The elaborate argument that precedes the statement may look satisfying, but no, I don't think you can argue that convincingly at all. After WWII the major powers decided that the onus should be on diplomacy as opposed to state violence as the means to resolve inter-state conflicts. Again, it seems rather more pragmatic to work towards this internationalist approach than to adopt a "balance of power" that risks a holocaust.
You may say, "ah but states will never act responsibly enough to make the UN or internationalism in general work". I assume you're from a western democracy. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you are, then it's not up to the state. It's up to us. We have the political freedoms to effect changes in behaviour on the part of our governments which in turn drive change on the world stage. It's partly us that are creating this situation and so we have a responsibility to solve it.
And whilst I'd like nothing better than to see the UK form an grown-up state-to-state relationship with the US, I don't think pointing our nukes at them is the answer, and in any case, as you'll have read in the original article above, we don't have the power to do that anyway since our capability is just an extension of theirs
"A bias is an external pressure that predetermines judgement. That's not the same as a worldview or an ideology or a set of values since these can, should be and are re-evaluated regularly by rational people."
I think one of the reasons why people conflate the meanings of bias and ideology is in part a rational and/or conscious decision and the fact that it is east to place bias and ideology under the rubric of discourse in the Foucauldian sense. Indeed, simply put, the current ruling discourse on the war in Lebanon (so-called) may be maintained by both conscious and unconscious motivations, all of which are on analysis quite contradictory. For example, you may hear progressives referring to the "kidnapping" of IDF soldiers while in the same instance hearing them speak of the Qana "massacre". The use of the term "kidnapping" in this context appears linked to a more pro-Israeli bias, let's say, while the use of the term "massacre" is used, it would appear, to tacitly criticise Israeli actions and is thereby a kind of bias towards Israeli actions. What this suggests to me is that the picture is complex. That is, no one single set of statements is always driven by rational choices. Indeed, even a very well-prepared speech or statement will contain a mixture of bias and ideology wound up within the dominant discourse. It requires a great deal of effort to sift through the kind of langauge we use at any one time to determine the nature (political, ideological, idealistic etc) of the terms we use. Indeed, I found it intersting to read the term "Islamic extremist terrorism" used here. This term is incorrect and, I would argue, biased but is spread by both progressives and conservatives alike.
Best
Wallsy
yes, unconsciously biased views or phrases can creep into discourse that attempts to be rational. But that doesn't mean that bias and ideology are the same thing.
In addition, people may use certain contentious phrases quite deliberately. E.g. saying Qana was a "massacre" might not be revealing an unconscious anti-Israeli bias. It might just be someone's logical conclusion based on the facts. Similarly with my use of the term "Islamic extremist terrorism", which was deliberate.
p.s. don't get me started on Foucalt.
Hi David, you write
"In addition, people may use certain contentious phrases quite deliberately. E.g. saying Qana was a "massacre" might not be revealing an unconscious anti-Israeli bias. It might just be someone's logical conclusion based on the facts."
yes, lest one is accused of, shh, you know what..
"Similarly with my use of the term "Islamic extremist terrorism", which was deliberate."
Not to be pedantic, the term is somewhat innacurate. Unfortunately, and it is not intended, and I have done myself, by using the attribute Islamic and the term terrorim in the same phrase one actually equates Isalm with terrorism. I mean it would eb ridiculous to call what the IRA did Catholic terrorism would it not? I mean it sounds ridiculous. Unfortuantely the phrase Islamic extremist terrorism - even though I you appear to distinguish extremist Islam from moderate Islam - still carries without the possibility of Islam, the religion, being both terroristic and extremist. Now, no one would define Catholicism in the same way. Catholic extremist terrorism. Hmm. That is, Catholicism holds, nay states, with in its doctrine - Islam its hadiths - the fundaments of extremism and terrorism. Doesn't really work does it?
"p.s. don't get me started on Foucalt."
Did you ever see that debate between Chomsky and Foucault? Does Chomsky ever use the word discourse? I've heard him say "doctrine" or "framework" but not discourse, that much. Foucault was probably too lacking in "suvject-matter" to be taken seriously. Sorry, bad joke.
Please excuse my inability to proof read my input, sigh
yes, I've read the transcript of the Chomsky/Foucalt debate. What struck me was Foucalt's apparent inability to appreciate the fact that these are real issues that are matters of life or death to real people. I'm guessing the responses of the older Chomsky would've been a good deal more robust.
On "Islamic extremist terrorism". Firstly, whether you agree with my choice of words or not, I hope at least we've established that they were a deliberate choice and not a manifestation of innate or unconscious bias.
Secondly, I don't believe that my choice of words has any broader implications towards Islam as a whole. It refers clearly and specifically to the terrorism of Islamic extremists, not to any terrorism intrinsic to Islam as a religion. I chose deliberately not to use the term "islamic fundamentalists" for precisely this reason. I don't think there's any serious doubt that this is terrorism committed by Islamic extremists is there? The IRA, whilst clearly catholic, did not use religion in their rhetoric or self-image to anywhere near the extent that Bin Laden etc do, so I don't think the analogy stands
"The IRA, whilst clearly catholic, did not use religion in their rhetoric or self-image to anywhere near the extent that Bin Laden etc do, so I don't think the analogy stands"
True, but there is still an unfortunate connotation and an innacurate one since Islam has nothing intrinsically to do with terrorism (unless you want to take a spin on the meaning of Jihad). I think it is perfectly alright to use the terms Islamic and terrorism to describe both the terroristic acts endorsed by Bin laden and the Islamic rhetoric he uses to gather to the fold per se. However, by doing so one runs teh risk of instilling in the lay-listener and image of Islam as corresponding to terrorism or at least having some kind of intrinsic connection. Sorry to harp on about this...
To Foucault, I think one of the things that annoys me about him was his hyper-postmodern stance on everything; he would question the existence or importance of particular events and that was very arrogant to me. However, he is an important idea historian who alongside Kuhn constructed some extremely useful - and universal - tools with which to grasp sometimes highly abstract phenomena, such as, knowledge, power etc. Personally I think power is quite easy to present empirically but Focaul would probably say that power relations are transitory or only half-exist or some such.
Best
Wallsy
I understand your point but beyond using specific and clear wording you can't legislate for people misunderstanding what you've said. Plainly the term "Islamic extremist terrorism" doesn't assert that terrorism is endemic to Islam, it doesn't even necessarily assert that terrorism is endemic to Islamic extremisim; it simply describes the terrorism committed by some of the people who are of the extremist variety of Muslims - and as such is a straightforward reflection of reality.
On Foucalt - whilst I think the word "arrogant" is well chosen, I also agree that he does provide us with interesting critical tools with which to view the use of language.
Hi David
Well I never meant to imply that your phrase "asserted" anything. I do liek the following, however: "it [your choice of phrase] simply describes the terrorism committed by some of the people who are of the extremist variety of Muslims - and as such is a straightforward reflection of reality."
I would certainly stick with the phrase "extremist Muslim terrorism", that would be more accurate. Perhaps I'm being too PC about this?
By the way, I watched the tet-a-tete between Focualt and Chomsky at YourTube. I felt really that the only things they disagreed on were questions relating to the "nature" of human nature. Foucault overemphasises the existence of class as existing, discursively, in every social institution, since, as he asserts, power is discursive and ergo in everything and would undermine any positive democratic institution being developed since, inevitably, it would become coercive in time and tyrannical. At least that is how I read him. But Chomsky's solution would be to pursue the ideal anyway and to he woulöd also stress the importance of embracing a sense of human nature (he explains it) but would not be so niave as to believe that shouldn't keep a check on its darker manifestations. But for Chomsky to beive this he woudl have to believe that class does not necessarily exist in all social systems I suppose, at least that's how I understand Chomsky (Lord, he was speaking during the Vietnam War).
Post a Comment
<< Home