In a Labourlist
post on Friday, shadow armed forces minister Kevan Jones MP attacked the
Lib Dem policy of a non-continuous two-submarine deterrent for Trident instead
of a like-for-like replacement with four subs, stating that it was “so
ludicrous that it was not even considered worthy of study for the [Trident]
Alternatives Review” launched by the coalition. The review also determined that
the option of a cruise missile-based tactical nuclear deterrent, previously advocated
by Nick Clegg and by a few backbench Labour MPs prior to the 2010 election,
would be more expensive than a renewal of the Trident system. While Labour’s
exact stance is still being formulated, a statement earlier in the week by
shadow secretary Jim Murphy was summarised by The Independent as “leaving Labour’s
policy much closer to the Conservatives than the Liberal Democrats”, as expected.
Trident has always been a tough issue for
Labour, and it is one that I personally have changed my own mind on over time.
When I first joined the party in 2007, both
Blair and Brown were strongly in favour of renewal. I was too. I felt that
in the dangerous post-9/11 world in which we lived, where rogue states were developing
nuclear weapons and Al-Qaeda was seeking to develop dirty bombs and weapons of
mass destruction, having the ultimate deterrent in Britain’s arsenal would
prove invaluable to our future security. I also often found myself turned off
by the rhetoric of CND and far-left activists who claimed that Labour wanted to build nukes
instead of schools or hospitals – what was the point of developing the
infrastructure of a country if you couldn’t ensure that it wouldn’t one day
disappear under a mushroom cloud?
But I later came round to a view that while we did face
modern threats, Trident was a Cold War holdover and was useless against them
all – there was no target for us to retaliate against if we were attacked by a
terrorist cell, hence why Al-Qaeda had not feared our deterrent on 7/7, nor
America’s larger nuclear arsenal on 9/11. A first-strike deterrent could be
bypassed by hostile elements armed with a portable 'suitcase' nuke – this
is the reason the Russians first developed such weapons. Contrary
to common implication by the media, a dirty
bomb is in fact a radiological device capable of causing damage perhaps on
the scale of Chernobyl, not a nuclear weapon equivalent to Trident and the
modern-day Hiroshima it can unleash. Therefore, our retaliation against
whatever non-existent target we might intend to use it against would punish the
taking of probably hundreds of British lives with the slaughter of hundreds of
thousands, if not millions. The world’s natural understanding of proportionality
also meant that Trident’s predecessor, Polaris, didn’t dissuade the Argentines
from invading the Falklands. It is sometimes
claimed that during the subsequent war Thatcher had a Polaris sub in South
Atlantic with orders to target Argentina’s industrial second city of Cordoba if
the British task force have been lost, but it strains belief that even the Iron
Lady would have pressed the red button in such an instance.
Meanwhile, rogue states with nuclear
programmes may make us feel insecure about the world in which we live, but at
least for the UK, Iranian missiles are an unlikely threat to us
should they ever develop a working weapon. Israel of course does face a genuine
threat in this regard and numerous other regional aggressors to boot, and so
its decision to maintain its “open secret” nuclear deterrent is more than defensible,
but in Europe, only us and the French maintain nuclear deterrents. What makes
us more in need of protection than the rest of our immediate neighbours?
David Cameron’s sudden idea that North
Korea is a threat to us strains credulity even moreso, but North
Korea and the situation in East Asia does raise another point. South Korea and
Japan do in fact live with the constant, credible threat of both conventional
and nuclear attack by an unpredictable Stalinist regime headed by a reclusive
29 year old. And yet, neither has nukes. In the same region, Taiwan also goes without,
despite the theoretical threat of Chinese aggression in relation to the
sovereignty dispute. This is because long ago, it was made clear to these three
nations by the US that they were prime allies and should regard themselves as
being under America’s nuclear shield.
In the late 1960s, Japan adopted a four-pillared policy of nuclear non-proliferation. The fourth pillar is that Japan relies on the US’s extended deterrent in lieu of having its own, while leaving the door open to reconsider its position should the US commitment to Japan’s security fall into doubt - it has been said that Japan has the existing domestic capacity to develop a nuclear weapon in perhaps a year if it ever needed to.
Given the fact that like Japan we have a strong relationship with the US and are nominally committed to nuclear non-proliferation, and unlike them do not even face a clear threat, why not discontinue Trident on similar terms, while ensuring that we have domestic capacity to develop another weapon should the geopolitical need arise. That would be my reply to the most seductive and powerful argument that the pro-Trident renewal camp have in their arsenal – that an independent nuclear deterrent is a rainy-day 'insurance policy'. Who knows, maybe any future deterrent we develop could even be a genuinely independent and domestic-built one like the French have - Trident itself is substantially built, supplied and subsidised by the US in any case.
In the late 1960s, Japan adopted a four-pillared policy of nuclear non-proliferation. The fourth pillar is that Japan relies on the US’s extended deterrent in lieu of having its own, while leaving the door open to reconsider its position should the US commitment to Japan’s security fall into doubt - it has been said that Japan has the existing domestic capacity to develop a nuclear weapon in perhaps a year if it ever needed to.
Given the fact that like Japan we have a strong relationship with the US and are nominally committed to nuclear non-proliferation, and unlike them do not even face a clear threat, why not discontinue Trident on similar terms, while ensuring that we have domestic capacity to develop another weapon should the geopolitical need arise. That would be my reply to the most seductive and powerful argument that the pro-Trident renewal camp have in their arsenal – that an independent nuclear deterrent is a rainy-day 'insurance policy'. Who knows, maybe any future deterrent we develop could even be a genuinely independent and domestic-built one like the French have - Trident itself is substantially built, supplied and subsidised by the US in any case.
As an aside, Japan’s example also helps us
put away perhaps the worst of all pro-Trident arguments – that being a nuclear
weapons state is necessary to keep Britain’s seat at the “top table” of
nations. Japan has successfully relied on its economic ingenuity, political
soft power and conventional military capacity to keep its prized position in
the international community, without the need to chest-beat about its ability
to unleash Armageddon at a moment’s notice. Ditto for three other G8 nations and
all but six of the G20. I firmly and proudly believe that a non-nuclear Britain, as a leader in the EU, UN, G8, NATO and Commonwealth and as the possessor of the sixth-largest economy, London, the City, world-class conventional forces and massive political and cultural capital, could keep its unmatched position in the world.
Crucially, money unspent on Trident could (and should) still be spent on our security, but
simply more wisely and in ways that would better face the modern threats
outlined above. We live in an age of terrorism, asymmetric conflicts in the
third world and security threats that cross international boundaries. This
means that technology, intelligence, international efforts, peacekeeping and
light, rapidly-deployable forces are more important today than they were in the
1980s. Tank battalions and aircraft carriers of course remain important for
when we occasionally still face large-scale conflicts with nation-states, but
Trident essentially ceased to be useful when the Soviet Union dissolved.
We also live in an age when in living memory, MOD procurement was such a scandal that some British soldiers were sent to Iraq with non-desert camouflage, boots that melted in the heat and without enough NBC gear, even though the supposed presence of NBC weapons was a key justification for the war. The basic SA-80 infantry rifle, while said to be no longer as disliked by the British military rank-and-file as it was in the days when it jammed after exposure to sand, cold or heat, is still criticised by a few for its inferiority compared to the main infantry weapons of other NATO nations and is not used by elite SAS/SBS units.
Finally, since the financial crisis, we live in a time where the imperative to cut the deficit is costing 20,000 to 30,000 UK military personnel their jobs, making some of the best of Britain unemployed and prompting warnings about our joint operability with the Americans and about our ability to defend the Falklands in a hypothetical second conflict. As a result, some senior military officers, a far-cry from the pacifists of the CND, have second-guessed whether we need Trident. The money saved from scrapping Trident could and should be kept by the MOD, but it is clear that there are many more pressing defence and national security priorities. Trident itself would be a waste of money.
We also live in an age when in living memory, MOD procurement was such a scandal that some British soldiers were sent to Iraq with non-desert camouflage, boots that melted in the heat and without enough NBC gear, even though the supposed presence of NBC weapons was a key justification for the war. The basic SA-80 infantry rifle, while said to be no longer as disliked by the British military rank-and-file as it was in the days when it jammed after exposure to sand, cold or heat, is still criticised by a few for its inferiority compared to the main infantry weapons of other NATO nations and is not used by elite SAS/SBS units.
Finally, since the financial crisis, we live in a time where the imperative to cut the deficit is costing 20,000 to 30,000 UK military personnel their jobs, making some of the best of Britain unemployed and prompting warnings about our joint operability with the Americans and about our ability to defend the Falklands in a hypothetical second conflict. As a result, some senior military officers, a far-cry from the pacifists of the CND, have second-guessed whether we need Trident. The money saved from scrapping Trident could and should be kept by the MOD, but it is clear that there are many more pressing defence and national security priorities. Trident itself would be a waste of money.
Another argument we in Labour must face is much
more political. I remember once hearing a Labour organiser say that he agreed
with the case for scrapping Trident, or was at least sympathetic to it, but simply
felt we would suffer at the ballot box if we didn’t support renewal - another
party member in the same conversation, firmly opposed, was understandably
troubled by this view. For a large part of the Labour Party, and especially
among the instinctive New Labour modernisers, nuclear weapons are still a
sensitive issue. Dark memories of 1983, 1987 and Labour’s unthinking disarmament
stance are burnt into Labour’s collective memory, and many long to look tough
on defence in Middle England.
But both geo- and domestic politics have moved on – while unilateral disarmament was suicidal both strategically and politically during the Cold War, we no longer need nuclear weapons and the electorate may understand this. The deficit is also likely a factor weighing on their minds too. An Ashcroft poll in September 2010 found that 63% of swing voters supported scrapping Trident - I’d stress that the same poll also found that respondents were “hostile to immigration, want people on benefits to have to do community work, support tax breaks for people who use private healthcare, oppose legalising cannabis, are hostile to strikes, want Labour to apologise for the mistakes that they made in government, blame Labour for the necessity of making cuts, and are supportive of the coalition's attempts to reduce the deficit”, demonstrating that Ashcroft did not get this result by accidently oversampling Guardian readers. Even Dan Hodges, the outspoken Labour moderate and self-described “Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest”, opposes Trident, asking “why are we planning to spend £100 billion on a Union Jack-emblazoned intercontinental codpiece?” in his Telegraph column last year.
But both geo- and domestic politics have moved on – while unilateral disarmament was suicidal both strategically and politically during the Cold War, we no longer need nuclear weapons and the electorate may understand this. The deficit is also likely a factor weighing on their minds too. An Ashcroft poll in September 2010 found that 63% of swing voters supported scrapping Trident - I’d stress that the same poll also found that respondents were “hostile to immigration, want people on benefits to have to do community work, support tax breaks for people who use private healthcare, oppose legalising cannabis, are hostile to strikes, want Labour to apologise for the mistakes that they made in government, blame Labour for the necessity of making cuts, and are supportive of the coalition's attempts to reduce the deficit”, demonstrating that Ashcroft did not get this result by accidently oversampling Guardian readers. Even Dan Hodges, the outspoken Labour moderate and self-described “Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest”, opposes Trident, asking “why are we planning to spend £100 billion on a Union Jack-emblazoned intercontinental codpiece?” in his Telegraph column last year.
As we head into the Scotland referendum next
year, it’s also worth noting the implications there too, both for British
unionism and for Labour’s electoral prospects. Ashcroft and the CND have
recently released duelling
polls on what Scottish voters think of Trident, but if the more anti-
analysis is correct, then the Trident issue may marginally help Salmond. The
recent MOD leak about the idea of Faslane remaining as a UK sovereign base area
like the ones in Cyprus if Scotland were to vote 'Yes' can’t of helped matters,
despite a swift
denial by Downing Street. Scottish withdrawal from the UK still remains
unlikely, of course, and it is also true that the effect of independence on
Labour’s chances of governing England and Wales are often slightly overstated –
six
out of eight times since the war when Labour has won a parliamentary majority,
it could have done so without Scottish votes. But nevertheless, if Trident as
an issue can be neutralised in Scotland, that will still ever so slightly
strengthen the likelihood of the endurance of the British union and of the
presence of an extra 40-odd Labour MPs in Westminster.
Nuclear disarmament would be a big shift in
British defence policy and would be a near-unprecedented move internationally –
we would be only the second nation to develop and voluntarily give up nuclear weapons,
after South Africa in 1989. It is therefore understandable that the leaders of
all three parties are still deeply reticent, despite the lack of strategic
reasons to keep Trident, the expense of renewal in a time of austerity and the
polls showing that the public may be amenable to such a move.
Pragmatic compromises around the number of submarines, patrol patterns or a reduction in the number of warheads of the kind Labour is said to discussing are still more likely, and will at least save money and send a somewhat less contradictory message on the subject of proliferation – we would still be incrementally reducing. But overall, there is a compelling case for Ed Miliband and politicians of all parties to be brave and go much further. Trident is not needed for our security, takes money from other security priorities and is an outdated Cold War relic. It is time for us to say so.
Pragmatic compromises around the number of submarines, patrol patterns or a reduction in the number of warheads of the kind Labour is said to discussing are still more likely, and will at least save money and send a somewhat less contradictory message on the subject of proliferation – we would still be incrementally reducing. But overall, there is a compelling case for Ed Miliband and politicians of all parties to be brave and go much further. Trident is not needed for our security, takes money from other security priorities and is an outdated Cold War relic. It is time for us to say so.
Comments
Post a Comment