This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/16/military-defence

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Trident: nuclear platitudes? No thanks Trident: nuclear platitudes? No thanks
(2 months later)
For more than half a century, British public life has had an existential argument about nuclear weapons. But it has rarely had a nuanced debate between different nuclear options. There is, of course, a big difference between the two. In the argument over nuclear weapons, there are two sides, each passionate and sincere. Each regards the other as the slaves of a dangerous doctrine. One, voice of a tradition that goes back to the pioneers of CND and to early 20th century pacifism, abhors all nuclear weapons. The other, voice of the postwar British governing class of all main parties, regards the maintenance of nuclear weapons as fundamental to Britain's standing in a nuclearised world. It also fears that any dilution of the policy would be perilous internationally and domestically.For more than half a century, British public life has had an existential argument about nuclear weapons. But it has rarely had a nuanced debate between different nuclear options. There is, of course, a big difference between the two. In the argument over nuclear weapons, there are two sides, each passionate and sincere. Each regards the other as the slaves of a dangerous doctrine. One, voice of a tradition that goes back to the pioneers of CND and to early 20th century pacifism, abhors all nuclear weapons. The other, voice of the postwar British governing class of all main parties, regards the maintenance of nuclear weapons as fundamental to Britain's standing in a nuclearised world. It also fears that any dilution of the policy would be perilous internationally and domestically.
Occasionally, notably during the late-1950s and the mid-1980s, the existential argument has managed to command a place on the agenda of British party politics. For most of the postwar era, however, debate about the key decisions has been effectively red lined from politics altogether – stretching from the Attlee government's secret decision to develop nuclear weapons in 1947 (not even announced to parliament) to the Blair government's only slightly more open decision to renew Trident in 2006. Whether the politicians believe, as many of them do, that nuclear weapons are the cornerstone of our national security; or have concluded, as some nuclear sceptic politicians have done, that even to debate them is now so open to ridicule as to be tantamount to political suicide, the effect has been the same. Nuclear debate? No thanks.Occasionally, notably during the late-1950s and the mid-1980s, the existential argument has managed to command a place on the agenda of British party politics. For most of the postwar era, however, debate about the key decisions has been effectively red lined from politics altogether – stretching from the Attlee government's secret decision to develop nuclear weapons in 1947 (not even announced to parliament) to the Blair government's only slightly more open decision to renew Trident in 2006. Whether the politicians believe, as many of them do, that nuclear weapons are the cornerstone of our national security; or have concluded, as some nuclear sceptic politicians have done, that even to debate them is now so open to ridicule as to be tantamount to political suicide, the effect has been the same. Nuclear debate? No thanks.
That remains to this day the core position of the Conservative party. It has been boosted by the capture of the party by the anti-Europeans, for whom nuclear arms provide a guarantee of post-EU British global greatness. Downing Street crisply reiterated the doctrine today when the prime minister's spokesman said David Cameron believes there is no credible alternative to continuous at-sea British nuclear deterrence. The No 10 official was categorical. "It is as simple as that," he said.That remains to this day the core position of the Conservative party. It has been boosted by the capture of the party by the anti-Europeans, for whom nuclear arms provide a guarantee of post-EU British global greatness. Downing Street crisply reiterated the doctrine today when the prime minister's spokesman said David Cameron believes there is no credible alternative to continuous at-sea British nuclear deterrence. The No 10 official was categorical. "It is as simple as that," he said.
This is not true. Credible nuclear and non-nuclear alternatives to continuous at-sea Trident nuclear submarines do exist. Most countries in the world do not have this form of defence. Many of them nevertheless remain leading global powers. So it is right to debate those alternatives here too. Even Mr Blair, in his 2010 memoir, concedes the point. And many of the options were set out in today's 64-page government review of alternatives.This is not true. Credible nuclear and non-nuclear alternatives to continuous at-sea Trident nuclear submarines do exist. Most countries in the world do not have this form of defence. Many of them nevertheless remain leading global powers. So it is right to debate those alternatives here too. Even Mr Blair, in his 2010 memoir, concedes the point. And many of the options were set out in today's 64-page government review of alternatives.
The most important of these, though not the only one, is that the UK genuinely has the option of scaling down its nuclear weapons capability from the present four submarines based on the Clyde to three or even two. This is a possibility that deserves a serious public debate, free from the old scaremongering. Stepping back from continuous at-sea deterrence could help wean Britain off its unchanged cold war nuclear posture, make a contribution to a developing process of multilateral weapons reduction, send a signal that to debate nuclear weapons is not to be soft on defence. It could even save some money, while maintaining a flexible nuclear stance against potential threats. The threat would still be there.The most important of these, though not the only one, is that the UK genuinely has the option of scaling down its nuclear weapons capability from the present four submarines based on the Clyde to three or even two. This is a possibility that deserves a serious public debate, free from the old scaremongering. Stepping back from continuous at-sea deterrence could help wean Britain off its unchanged cold war nuclear posture, make a contribution to a developing process of multilateral weapons reduction, send a signal that to debate nuclear weapons is not to be soft on defence. It could even save some money, while maintaining a flexible nuclear stance against potential threats. The threat would still be there.
A political system worthy of respect ought to be able to have these debates. The Liberal Democrats, who insisted on the review as part of the coalition agreement, deserve credit for making it happen. For all its limitations, this review is a landmark step in opening the issues to debate. The suggestions are not very radical – a major argument against them is that they are not radical enough. But it is absurd that the Conservatives, plus some Labour ex-defence secretaries, should treat the possibility of Britain taking a small step down the nuclear ladder as taking a risk with national security. The public's views on nuclear weapons are far more nuanced than this. They are ahead of the political class. The Tories and Labour should join the Lib Dems in treating the issues seriously, not wallowing in the lazy nonsense that the status quo is the only option.A political system worthy of respect ought to be able to have these debates. The Liberal Democrats, who insisted on the review as part of the coalition agreement, deserve credit for making it happen. For all its limitations, this review is a landmark step in opening the issues to debate. The suggestions are not very radical – a major argument against them is that they are not radical enough. But it is absurd that the Conservatives, plus some Labour ex-defence secretaries, should treat the possibility of Britain taking a small step down the nuclear ladder as taking a risk with national security. The public's views on nuclear weapons are far more nuanced than this. They are ahead of the political class. The Tories and Labour should join the Lib Dems in treating the issues seriously, not wallowing in the lazy nonsense that the status quo is the only option.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.