As the Guardian reports in its morning briefing today:
Britain is lifting the cap on the number of Trident nuclear warheads it can stockpile from 180 to 260, Boris Johnson is expected to announce today, ending 30 years of gradual disarmament. A leaked copy of the defence and foreign policy review paves the way for a £10bn rearmament. Britain has far fewer warheads stockpiled than Russia, estimated to have 4,300, the US on 3,800 or China, which has about 320.
I confess I wonder how far my heart can sink on occasion.
I should put my cards face up on the table. As a teenager during the Cold War I decided that nothing could ever justify the use of nuclear weapons. My opinion has never changed.
As a (although at present, not often practicing) member of the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers) I, perhaps unsurprisingly, think that there are almost always better ways to solve disputes than through conflict.
But let's also be clear that this decision has nothing to do with either issue. No one, at least in their right minds, thinks that the UK's nuclear weapons are for use. Instead this is all about post-Brexit posturing to the world to suggest that despite alienating almost everyone, and despite having no influence of any sort left anywhere, Britain remains a world power.
The message could not be more inappropriately delivered in that case. What we come across as is a small country struggling to be noticed that has to make a nuclear threat for anyone to pay attention. The message could not be clearer that we are now playing in the lower echelons of the world defence league.
Apart from some nuclear-crazies in the Conservative Party no one will be in the least bit fooled by this message. But billions will be wasted, nuclear waste will be created, a dangerous precedent of reversing disarmament will have been set, and the world will be more in safe, all for no gain.
If the UK was wise now (and but isn't) it would be pursuing a very different foreign policy, based on that of Norway. That country does punch above its weight. It has a strong foreign policy based on aid. It uses that to build strong diplomatic links around the world. And in the process it works, quietly, on conflict resolution.
That's the way foreign policy should be done. We are just aggressively waving colonial flags. And that's a disaster as well as being nuclear insanity.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I doubt Keir Starmer will do much to oppose this madness, although I may be wrong. What is certain, however, is that Jeremy Corbyn will. His stand on nuclear weapons is the reason I supported him as leader of the Labour party twice.
Guess where the warheads will be stored. Scotland?
The UK looks set to become Europe’s North Korea then – as well as Europe’s Singapore. WTF
This may be a glib response, for which I apologise, but the role of bully is difficult to give up… https://twitter.com/TadhgHickey/status/1371387297388761090
Ah! The charge of the light brigade….with 21st century radiological enhancements.
How clever?
This is being done purely as a sop to the American defence / Atlanticist establishment and their plans for nuclear modernisation. It goes hand in hand with things like sending a British aircraft carrier half loaded with US planes and personnel (and US escorts, since we don’t have enough ships for that) to the South China Sea to rattle the sabre.
Unfortunately for the UK, everyone knows that its actual military capacity has been hollowed out. Nuclear posturing is a symptom of this, a Potemkin Village to hide it’s weakness.
unfortunately Norway, is increasingly becoming a US military base and participates in US military adventurism and poking Russia, with whom Norway shares a border. At the end of WW2, during which the country was occupied, Norway passed a law banning any permanent foreign military base in the country. Now the US has permanent bases there and a permanent airfield for the F35 turkey of which Norway has purchased a ridiculous number. And the Norwegian F35 onboard computers send data straight back to the US.
I think we may have to disagree on this one.
I agree, it is hard to imagine circumstances in which the UK would use a nuclear weapon, either first or second. And it comes at considerable economic cost. But we know the government can afford it. It is simply a question of resource allocation.
There are currently nine countries known (or in one case, suspected) to have nuclear weapons – the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. I can’t foresee any of those voluntarily giving them up unilaterally.
Only a few countries have given up their nuclear weapons – Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and South Africa. I suspect at least one of those regrets it, although a nuclear armed Ukraine facing Russia would not be a pleasant thought.
Equally a nuclear armed state (Russia, say, or Iran perhaps in the not too distant future) putting pressure on a unilaterally disarmed UK would not be pleasant. Are we relying on the good intentions of other countries? Or on US or France to protect us? Or Norway, or the UN?
Deterrence may be ugly, but at some level I think it works. In an ideal world we would not have them, but once you’ve decided to keep nuclear weapons, you need to maintain a viable stockpile and credible means of delivering them. I don’t think 180 or 260 or whatever makes too much difference.
That said, I may change my mind if this is announced with gusto by our glorious leader as if it were an entry for some sort of international willy-waving competition.
Possession of nuclear weapons by a second ot third tier military power is arguably not a guarrantee of security. On the contrary, it makes the country more a target. Certainly, the UK becomes a proxy for the US. One can envisage a scenario in which the UK is targetted and nuked by a hostile power putting pressure on the US. Could the UK (what is left of it?) retaliate? Our nuclear sub launched missiles are reliant on the US for guidance to targets. In order to reach an agreement with the hostile power, the US President could well secretly order the Pentagon to ensure the UK missiles were not launched. Why sacrifice New York for the sake of an already incinerated London? There is even the possibility of an order going out for US Navy hunter destroyer subs to find and destroy Britains “independent” deterrent subs.
I can imagine all sorts of scenarios, and that is part of the point: I can imagine plenty scenarios when the UK might regret not having them. I accept, it is not a costless or risk free position. I’d suggest that giving up nuclear weapons has its own costs and risks.
There are only really two or three first-tier military countries – the US (as you would expect from his role as the global hegemon, albeit in decline) and China (in its role as a regional and coming global hegemon), and arguably Russia. India, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, are among the more capable in the next rank. I’d suggest France and the UK are some way back in terms of both size and capability, although they’d never admit it.
The armed forces are another part of our national myth-making: we want to bestride the world like a colossus, with just a handful of operational naval vessels, a few hundred aircraft (including trainers, passenger and cargo transport, and helicopters), and a regular army of around 80,000 plus around 30,000 reservists. The best our conventional forces can do is “punch above their weight”, and that is featherweight, as befits our status as a small country off the coast of Europe.
I disagree with that comment. If 160 or 240 make no difference, why spend more money on having 240? It is obscene for Johnson to say that we need to have more nuclear weapons while at the same time saying we have to cut overseas aid to 0.5 from 0.7% GDP as we can’t afford it.
“Deterrence may be ugly, but at some level I think it works.”
I claim neither expertise nor special insight on defence matters. Nevertheless, let us suppose, purely for the sake of exploring the argument, that you are right. The proposition makes sense principally for States with a genuine global reach, and that are world powers, not least because it is a condition for that power; or for smaller powers with real or imagined extreme fears regarding their nearest neighbours. Britain fits neither requirement.
Britain has not been a global power since 1941, when the ‘Repulse’ and ‘Prince of Wales’ were sunk in Singapore. There ended the Empire; there ended our global reach. The proposition that Britain can do anything significant east of Suez now is merely eccentric. For states like Russia, perhaps no longer an authentic global power, its interests – it should not be forgotten – are in part a function of its vast geography. The prospect of Britain roaming the world to match Russia everywhere smacks of Buchanesque ‘great game’ fantasising.
Britain only has ‘world’ leverage as part of Europe (which it has now compromised by Brexit); or more importantly, as a junior partner in US policy. For most of the last thirty years British Defence White Papers have made it abundantly clear that it could only participate in active military adventures abroad when they are actively organised and led by the US (I invite sceptics to read them). Britain’s nuclear deterrent relies on an abstract theory of improbable probabilities coming to pass, rather the the real world or modern realpolitik.
Deterrence only works if people think you are willing to use the weapon. For nuclear weapons that means that people think the country’s leaders are either crazy or indifferent to mass deaths.
So it works for North Korea. But not for us.
You are aware that the missile launchers are rented from the USA?
They will be the ones who decide if they can be used.
The EU saw the writing on the wall by initiating their own GPS system to remove themselves from dependence on the US system….but now we don’t have access to the Galileo system, we’re back to hoping the USA will let the UK in on theirs.
Still, what do you expect when the PM is an American….
(spoken quietly, because 10 years)
This is part of the broader policy of what might be called MABGA -“Make Britain Great Again” – by increasing Britain’s military profile around the globe. In the Guardian yesterday, there was a two page spread reporting on the despatch of our fine big nuclear aircraft carrier, the Queen Elizabeth (QE) , off to the far east to patrol around the vicinity of China along with a US Navy carrier task force. The initiative is complementary to Liz Truss’s trade initiative whereby trade deals will be signed with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other Pacific facing nations, all worth supposedly trillion of pounds. At one point in the article, an expert was quoted as saying something like – where the navy goes, trade follows, and where we trade, the navy sails. By increasing the UK tally of nuclear warheads, Johnson imagines he is proclaiming to the world a Global Britain committed to the defence of democracy in Hong Kong and Taiwan, the condemnation of Chinese genocide of the Uighurs andf Tibetans, and the special relationship with the US.
But the policy is full of ironies. The American warplanes launched fom the decks of the Queen Elizabeth will be flown by US Marine pilots; the QE will be accompanied by a wholly inadequate support train, and it is to be noted that Germany does more trade with the Far East than Britain does, despite having no significant naval presence – Germany sends no navy, yet trades, and trades sending no navy. Meanwhile, the Tories have been running down the country’s conventional armed forces – the navy itself is top heavy with two expensive giant carriers (one still to be launched) and a fiendishly costly nuclear sub force, yet insufficient destroyers, frigates, and coastal defence and fishing patrol boats – while the army is reduced to so few battallions that Pentagon experts derisively dismiss the force as so small and insufficiently equipped as to be utterly inadequate for response to any threat to the UK and its allies that is likely to arise. Meanwhile, in his effort to increase the profile of “Global Britain”, Mr Johnson insists on the cutting of aid budgets that were assuredly a source of Britain’s soft power in Africa and Asia, reduces expenditure on the British Council, reduces the budget of the BBC World Service, and withdraws from the Erasmus programme. This imay be presented as a policy of MAGBA – Make Britain Great Again, but MABEL – Make Britain Even Less.
None of this I should say should be dismissed as the pathetic whingeing of a lefty woke warrior: the former editor of the Telegraph, Max Hastings writes frequently of the insanity of defence policies of recent years of both Tory and Labour governments, and as I say, the Pentagon itself is quietly scathing about Britains toytown defence capabilities – or more accurately, incapabilities.
Quite a lot to agree with there: our conventional forces are much too small and poorly trained and equipped for the roles we need, and for our prime minister is always much more about presentation than reality. (HMS Queen Elizabeth is not nuclear powered, by the way.)
If you were proposing to cut the nuclear submarines, and replace them with sufficient other ships, aircraft and personnel to put the rest of the armed forces on a proper footing so the UK could potentially defend itself on its own – perhaps supplemented by a smaller and cheaper force of land or air launched nuclear weapons – then I might be convinced. But first would have to come a realistic reassessment of what we think the UK armed forces might need to do for the next 30 years.
Just to put some numbers on it, total UK defence expenditure is about £40 billion, about half as much as education, and about 30% of healthcare.
Andrew.
I think the days of Britain being able to defend itself are over. And have been for a long time.
But who is going to attack/invade us???
China? Russia? Are they really going to send a naval task force to invade us? Or are they going to march through Europe first, to get to us?
I think that non of this is ever going to happen.
They may cut off our access to natural resources, but we would never be able to prevent this by using armed forces. Conventional or nuclear.
They could bring us to our knees through cyber attack if they wanted to.
Having a viable overseas capability is all about us bullying countries with less capability than us. Not about us defending ourselves from the “big boys”.
There was no real need for nuclear power. The aircraft onboard need fuel, and lots of it, and the main propulsion units of the carriers are two RR marine Trent engines (and two diesel).
So with a few dozen aircraft fuelled with 4 tons each….not counting any range extender tanks….plus we’d have had by buy the ship reactors from the yanks…Plus, nobody expects carriers and their groups to survive long in a nuclear exchange.
I don’t think this country could sit on its hands if any conflict goes nuclear….we have significant USA military assets in this country and significant intelligence and command bases too.
As soon as lockdown ends I’m off to watch the aircraft at Lakenheath !!!
Echo every word, Richard. This ‘enhancement’ – now illegal in international law – will give the ‘U’K the equivalent of c. 186,000 Hiroshima bombs. Wow! That should keep the sand out of Johnson and Raabs faces when they next go on the beach.
Simon Jenkins in one of his all too rare totally joined-up explosions, beautifully eviscerates the whole bonkers new Defence posture in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/15/uk-spend-defence-money-wasted
Last time some genius suggested a new future for the Trident fleet was to propose its relocation to Gibraltar – I was consumed by a parody of the Modern Major General. Where oh, where are Gilbert and Sullivan, now that we really need them
Agreed
Including on Simon Jenkins and his rare joined-up thinking
Agree, having nuclear weapons that if used means the end of humanity and most of life on Earth is total madness. Notice the government glosses over the fact that the total estimated cost for the full “upgrading” may be more than £200 billion! Also, they are shy about admitting that at the moment the upgrading of the atomic weapons facility at Aldermaston is years behind schedule. No consideration either that possible Scottish independence may not allow the continued presence of the Trident base there and whether Devonport would be an acceptable alternative.
Leaving aside the obscenity of nuclear weapons for the moment, Bill Hughes mentions “…that possible Scottish independence may not allow the continued presence of the Trident base…” I fervently hope so, having lived 40 miles down-wind of, first, the US Navy nuclear base in the Holy Loch and now the UK nuclear sub base and its stockpiled weapons. Nobody in Scotland had a say in either of these ventures. They were simply foisted on us, so, like a sizeable proportion of Scotland’s population, we’ve had to live for close on 70 years not just in the bull’s eye of the biggest nuclear target in Western Europe, but we’re also at risk from the numerous accidents and incidents which occur regularly.
Bozo continues to view Scotland as a colony over which he has the right to do as he pleases: the views and rights of its people are seen as being of no consequence, nor is it ever necessary to consult with them. The announcement of a 44% increase in the nuclear warheads to be stored at the Gare Loch/Loch Long complex is simply the latest example of the outsourcing so beloved by the Tories; yet again they’re outsourcing the enhanced risk of nuclear Armageddon to the people of Scotland. As a bonus we’ll also get larger regular convoys carrying radioactive materials on our roads between Aldermaston and the Clyde. What could possibly go wrong?
A common view here is that people who aren’t keen on the SNP as a party will still vote for independence in order to build a more egalitarian society. Bozo either isn’t aware, or simply doesn’t care, that his attitude and pronouncements make that a likelier outcome, but we’re happy to heed Napoleon’s advice and let him carry on making blunders.
A matter of concern for all UK citizens is Bozo’s statement (reported in the Torygaffe) relating to the policy of only using nuclear weapons as a retaliatory measure. He warned that “Britain reserves the right to review this assurance “if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary”. A Government source said the emerging technologies included “game changers” such as cyber, AI, encryption and laser directed energy weapons.
It’s all getting uncomfortably like Dr Strangelove.
Worse than that is the 6 de-fuelled-but-radioactive de-commissioned nuclear subs stored there.
And the Scottish govt has no plans to operate the Torness and Hunterston nuclear power stations after independence, or to pay for their, and others, decommissioning.
It is merely Tribute – to the MIC barons – long ago agreed. The weapons are not actually functional, I believe, otherwise one would surely have malfunctioned in all these years knowing the shoddiness that has been on the rise in recent decades. For the barons a handy source of foreign currency.
Anyway most of the crap from the Groaniad is, as we should all be in no doubt , to provide cover for the Establishment from real Democratic Socialism , by placing itself, as a self selected ‘voice’ of the masses. It poses as an ersatz ‘truth to power’ speaker. And does exactly the opposite. They support Bozo, BrexShit and Brittannia Unhinged, just like most of the output of BBC/ R4 News & Entertainment
Here is a particularly irksome example in its Covid coverage by lying by omission yesterday, playing a BrexShitty hand.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/14/third-covid-wave-sweeps-across-eu-and-forces-new-restrictions
Note they publish 3 charts only one has the U.K. data – the other two don’t.
What does the author Robin McKie think he is doing by such blatant blind eying? What are the editors doing with headlining it with such an anti EU stance?
These charts and stories are blatant mis-information supporting the current anti EU, pro Bozo and genocide levels of excess deaths by our state.
Look up the full picture at the FT site. A fabulous tool they are making available for free – use it while it is free.
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=gbr&areas=deu&areas=ita&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usnj&areasRegional=usaz&areasRegional=usca&areasRegional=usnd&areasRegional=ussd&cumulative=1&logScale=0&per100K=1&startDate=2020-01-01&values=cases
Pick Italy, Germany and U.K. for clarity (or all 4 to give direct comparison with the Groan) – And the whole Narrative of the Groans story goes out of the window instantly.
Infact Professor, you could help by posting the graphs with the U.K. included and with cumulative numbers too.
Because something else the MSM have adjusted through the year is the ability to copy and paste such graphs. Including the ONS who disappeared their Excess Deaths because it was too explicit.
––––––
Some numbers :
Cumulative cases per 100k since Jan 2020 – U.K. 6.5k; Italy 5.5k, Germany 3k.
Cumulative deaths per 100k ‘attributed’ to Covid since Jan 2020 – U.K. 190; Italy 170; Germany 90.
––––-
WE ARE CRAP – we have killed at least twice as many as Germany over the year and MORE than Italy.
The Groan parlays that into -look at the squirrel – U.K. number of vaccinations! Which has sweet FA to do with the numbers to date afaik.
They are rancid and obnoxious LIARS and mouthpieces of the State Narratives.
Forgot to put this link in – which is the ‘New’ cases graphic the Guardian uses with the U.K. added in.
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=gbr&areas=deu&areas=ita&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usnj&areasRegional=usaz&areasRegional=usca&areasRegional=usnd&areasRegional=ussd&cumulative=0&logScale=0&per100K=1&startDate=2020-01-01&values=cases
The warheads are serviced regularly. It isn’t hard. They can be removed from the launch system and transported to the Atomic Weapons Establishment for service. By road. The missiles/Launch system, are American-owned and serviced.
‘The Mouse That Roared…’
Completely agree with Mike Ghirelli about why this is being done, and the utter, doomed stupidity of it. More of the Brexit ‘We’re Mighty Blighty, we want the Empire back’ nonsense. Supposedly setting up trade deals halfway across the globe, but massively decreasing our trade with our nearest neighbours, and now being taken to court by the EU for not sticking to the terms of the NI protocol.
Spending vast amounts on Trident and other nuclear subs and the aircraft carriers, but not having enough escorts or fishing patrol boats; so how are they going to respond if ‘fish wars’ break out in the seas off the UK? Oh hang on, most UK fishermen will be bust soon as a result of the Brexit most of them voted for, so maybe not.
The army getting smaller and smaller; so what happens if the unionist nutcases in NI turn violent, again because of……Brexit? So the useless oaf Johnson chases some illusory image of great power status, whilst at the same time running down real influence we have through aid and other programs.
Roll on Scottish, NI and then Welsh independence to shatter these pathetic (English) illusions that too many people still hold.
The fact that most other countries in Europe do not consider nuclear weapons essential for their security is rarely mentioned. When it IS mentioned, the counter is usually “ah, but they’re under the US nuclear umbrella in any case”.
Really? The USA has shown time and time again that it acts in its own interests (or more accurately the interests as perceived at the time by the US ‘military-industrial complex’, that President Eisenhauer so presciently warned about in his retirement speech). And even were it true, why should the UK not be content to to be under the same ‘US nuclear umbrella’?
As others have pointed out, the very concept of an independent nuclear deterrent is bogus. It is clear that the UK can do nothing militarily even nearly as drastic as using a nuclear weapon without the permission/direction of the USA.
In addition to the reasons suggested in other comments, I suspect that a good part of the Tories’ plan to expand the number of UK nuclear warheads is intended for domestic consumption, to emphasise that the Tories are “strong on defence” and thus to place Labour in an even deeper quandary.
If Starmer fails to support the plan, the Tories via their command of around 90% of the mainstream media will attack him for being soft on defence, if not unpatriotic. But if Starmer gives the plan his full support, he will further alienate large numbers of his party membership, not to mention a potentially large proportion of the 10 million people who still voted for Labour at the 2019 election (and that despite the dirtiest propaganda campaign in the UK that I can ever recall).
What is mentioned a lot in inner circles, is that the French have a nuclear force and their missiles are not supplied by the United States. If we gave up our Trident system, that would leave France the only European nuclear power.
Other nations have less effective delivery systems e.g. Pakistan, Israel and India. They have intermediate range missiles -say 2000 miles land based or aircraft. But they are still to be reckoned with.
From what I read the US couldn’t prevent a British submarine launching but the targeting system is joint. Part of the reasoning for a British nuclear force (as distinct from a NATO one) is that in extremis, we could act unilaterally. But would we use it as first strike against a non-nuclear state? Even if we did our ‘soft power’ would evaporate. The victims could seek revenge. Bombs the equivalent of the Hiroshima bomb can be made small enough to fit into a van. There are enough people prepared to blow themselves up. Imagine one of those in central London?
Would we do a first strike against a nuclear power? Sounds madness.
The only case that makes any (doubtful ) sense is retaliation after we had been attacked. In a way that would mean deterrence would have failed. Callaghan. PM in the 1970s later said he would never have used them. But it depends on how many warheads were used. If only one was dropped, and we replied with one-would the exchange stop? It spirals off into chaos.
But before we can decide on weapon systems , we need to have a clear strategy. Are we to be a junior partner of the US in their foreign adventures (from which they are losing their enthusiasm ) or try to ‘contain China”. We could have the nuclear umbrella , as you say it might not be 100% reliable, but at the cost of being dragged into another Iraq?
We concentrate on our continent with perhaps a force for UN peacekeeping?
I agree re Starmer’s dilemma. Older Labour voters would probably agree with the present stance. Younger ones probably not, on the whole.
Today we heard the Global strategy -but less about the reasons. Like you, I feel it is about political positioning and posturing. We deserve a better debate.
[…] A different, Scottish orientated, take on this morning's blog here. […]
So it’s official.
We ARE going backwards!
The other point to consider is that we don’t have the facilities to produce and service these quantities of nuclear warheads. Once you’ve built one, they don’t just sit there forever waiting to be used as they need to be ‘serviced’ to keep them in working order. I’d imagine this isn’t particularly cheap. In addition to this, the nuclear material used in the warhead (which needs to be high purity) has to be produced in a specialised reactor which, again, won’t be cheap to build and operate.
I’d be extremely surprised if the huge increase in warhead numbers came to pass. Cue, a few years down the line, ‘no comment on national security matters’ responses to requests about the number of active warheads in service. If they’ve announced that we’re building our stocks to that level, they’ll hope that everyone assumes that we are. I don’t doubt that some arms companies will do pretty well out of it regardless.
I do also agree it is a stupid idea to want to increase the number of warheads we have. The only feasible power we could be ‘deterring’ from attacking us is the Russians and they have more than enough resources to turn most of the UK into a smouldering wasteland if push came to shove. Sabre-rattling when you’re facing a tank doesn’t really achieve much.
Well, now’s the time to ask:
‘How are you going to pay for it Boris? Eh?’
🙂
Can someone explain the calculation that shows that the threat of setting off 180 nuclear explosions would be ‘not enough’ but 260 would be ‘enough’ to act as an effective deterrent? After the first one or two go off, who is counting?
Have people forgotten, or ever realised, it NOT and never will be an ‘independent’ nuclear force? It requires whoever is in the White House to agree (give permission for?) their use. From a Scottish perspective, instant karma.
One writer many years ago pointed out that a Nuclear Deterrent just needed enough warheads to ensure that an aggressor could not be sure that at least one would not get through.
It seems to me that you could achieve that with a small fraction of the UK’s current arsenal.
Not ideal perhaps but a compromise that many of us could live with