Two thoughts. 1. our "independent" nuclear deterrent belongs to the USA and cannot be deployed without its say so. 2. There are a number of non nuclear states who are NATO members.
The missiles are indeed owned by America and only leased to the UK.
The "non nuclear" states like Norway are still part of a nuclear alliance and must explicitly endorse nuclear deterrence. Norway is involved in nuclear planning, military infrastructure, intelligence. It hosts Nato exercises which involve nuclear weapons.
I'm over 80, so I could well be close to your parents' age. Certainly, I was a CND supporter from the time my mother took me to one of the public meetings (held outside Hounslow Town Hall) of the first Aldermaston March. I was always clear, as, I would say, were a clear majority of my fellows, that I was not a pacifist: a pacifist is one who renounces the use of force even in self defence. I've always been prepared to defend myself -- or my country -- if it were to be attacked. What I'm not in favour of, is to make or threaten an extirpatory attack on a civilian population. In the mid-70's nuclear weapons small enough to be used in artillery shells were developed, and it became accepted doctrine that these were the weapons to be used in the anticipated tank battles across the North German Plain. I certainly thought that UK forces should not be denied access to these weapons. (I believe what happened to this doctrine, is that in Staff College war games, applications from the relevant 'brigadier' to 'Downing St' to use baby nukes, were always turned down, because of the strong possibility that there would be escalation all the way up to Armageddon.)
If nuclear weapons are so essential to the maintenance of peace, why are the nuclear-armed nations so anxious that other nations should not acquire them?
Well I think that question answers itself, if I understand your comment. They don’t want to give those nations parity with the Big Five as they used to be called: the permanent members of the IN Security Council. I don’t know how much longer the West’s post war security arrangements can remain intact. But it is still probably in the interests of both the US and China that Iran does not become a nuclear power. It wants to be a regional superpower and to take on Israel which has nuclear weapons though they never talk about it. The use of battlefield nukes is now massively more likely than in the old days of Mutually Assured Destruction. I mean would Trump obliterate Russia if Putin uses a mini nuke in Kursk? I doubt it. More likely to blame Zelensky
Evocative piece of writing Iain. A very good read.
Just to double click on the 94 Budapest conference, I accept the US “promise” cannot be effectively legally enforced, but it is important that this was not just an informal oral promise but a formally signed memorandum where the US, Russia (and the UK) agreed that Ukraine’s territory would be respected. This is relevant today as:
a) Trump’s blind faith that Putin will stick to his word is somewhat bizarre given Putin’s already contravened formal agreements; and
b) for decades the Budapest Memo was highlighted as a victory for statesmanship. Thirty years on, considering Ukraine’s lack of full deterrence, it now looks short-sighted and borderline irresponsible. How can any country justify voluntarily giving up nuclear weapons going forward?
Thanks Neil. I think you put your finger on it. Even people who loathe nuclear weapons and wish them banned forever can hardly avoid the obvious conclusion that now is not the time. At least that is what most sensible people think. Mind you, I was dismayed hearing the ritual incantations of unilateralist piety by the panellists on BBC's Debate Night. Don't they realise that the world has changed? Who are they speaking for?
Excellent piece. Reality writ large demonstrating how out of touch the ban the bombers are (and were).
Two thoughts. 1. our "independent" nuclear deterrent belongs to the USA and cannot be deployed without its say so. 2. There are a number of non nuclear states who are NATO members.
I looked at the independence of our independent nuclear deterrent here:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-independent-are-britains-nukes/
The missiles are indeed owned by America and only leased to the UK.
The "non nuclear" states like Norway are still part of a nuclear alliance and must explicitly endorse nuclear deterrence. Norway is involved in nuclear planning, military infrastructure, intelligence. It hosts Nato exercises which involve nuclear weapons.
There's no escaping it. Nato means Nukes.
And those NATO non-nuclear states will sit shivering under the US nuclear umbrella with the rest of us.
I'm over 80, so I could well be close to your parents' age. Certainly, I was a CND supporter from the time my mother took me to one of the public meetings (held outside Hounslow Town Hall) of the first Aldermaston March. I was always clear, as, I would say, were a clear majority of my fellows, that I was not a pacifist: a pacifist is one who renounces the use of force even in self defence. I've always been prepared to defend myself -- or my country -- if it were to be attacked. What I'm not in favour of, is to make or threaten an extirpatory attack on a civilian population. In the mid-70's nuclear weapons small enough to be used in artillery shells were developed, and it became accepted doctrine that these were the weapons to be used in the anticipated tank battles across the North German Plain. I certainly thought that UK forces should not be denied access to these weapons. (I believe what happened to this doctrine, is that in Staff College war games, applications from the relevant 'brigadier' to 'Downing St' to use baby nukes, were always turned down, because of the strong possibility that there would be escalation all the way up to Armageddon.)
If nuclear weapons are so essential to the maintenance of peace, why are the nuclear-armed nations so anxious that other nations should not acquire them?
Well I think that question answers itself, if I understand your comment. They don’t want to give those nations parity with the Big Five as they used to be called: the permanent members of the IN Security Council. I don’t know how much longer the West’s post war security arrangements can remain intact. But it is still probably in the interests of both the US and China that Iran does not become a nuclear power. It wants to be a regional superpower and to take on Israel which has nuclear weapons though they never talk about it. The use of battlefield nukes is now massively more likely than in the old days of Mutually Assured Destruction. I mean would Trump obliterate Russia if Putin uses a mini nuke in Kursk? I doubt it. More likely to blame Zelensky
Evocative piece of writing Iain. A very good read.
Just to double click on the 94 Budapest conference, I accept the US “promise” cannot be effectively legally enforced, but it is important that this was not just an informal oral promise but a formally signed memorandum where the US, Russia (and the UK) agreed that Ukraine’s territory would be respected. This is relevant today as:
a) Trump’s blind faith that Putin will stick to his word is somewhat bizarre given Putin’s already contravened formal agreements; and
b) for decades the Budapest Memo was highlighted as a victory for statesmanship. Thirty years on, considering Ukraine’s lack of full deterrence, it now looks short-sighted and borderline irresponsible. How can any country justify voluntarily giving up nuclear weapons going forward?
Thanks Neil. I think you put your finger on it. Even people who loathe nuclear weapons and wish them banned forever can hardly avoid the obvious conclusion that now is not the time. At least that is what most sensible people think. Mind you, I was dismayed hearing the ritual incantations of unilateralist piety by the panellists on BBC's Debate Night. Don't they realise that the world has changed? Who are they speaking for?