There was much to snicker at in US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s recent comments regarding the UK, Trident, and the Special Relationship™, but most perplexing was the claim that Trident helps the UK “play [an] outsized role on the global stage”.
It is difficult to defend this claim either theoretically or with reference to empirical (i.e. historical) evidence. Theoretically Trident functions as a deterrent against attack, with particular but not exclusive emphasis on deterring a nuclear attack that threatens the survival of the nation. By providing a guaranteed “second strike” capability, Trident ensures that no hostile power would undertake to annihilate or otherwise subjugate fair Albion, lest they be consumed by the fires of retribution. This survival function is a strictly negative one, with almost* no positive or enabling role. Akin to the distinction between negative and positive liberty, Trident protects against but provides little power to — and it is the latter that is relevant when it comes to “play[ing] an outsized role on the global stage”.
Nor does history look kindly upon the view that nuclear weapons help the UK play an outsized role on the global stage. Did Britain’s nuclear weapons deter the Soviet Union? Did they prevent the humiliation of the Suez Canal crisis? Did they deter Argentina from invading the Falklands or were they useful in recovering them? Did they deter Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait or play a role in his 1991 or 2003 defeats? Did they allow the UK to retain Hong Kong? Have they been useful in Afghanistan, Libya, or the broader War on Terror? Indeed, is there any conceivable scenario in which Trident would play an active role either in allowing Britain to exercise power in the world, or serve itself as the positive manifestation of that power?
Against both the theoretical and historical failure of Britain’s nuclear weapons in helping it to play an outsized role on the global stage are the very real opportunity costs of those weapons and their supporting platforms. The many billions of pounds invested in nuclear weapons could have been (and could be) used to support more robust conventional forces that are useful forms of power to project abroad, from the Falkands to Iraq to Afghanistan. Far from allowing the UK to play an outsized role on the global stage, the expensive nuclear weapons complex actively inhibits the power that the UK is capable of exercising around the globe. The foregoing is not to render a verdict on the question of whether the UK should or should not retain nuclear weapons, but responds to a specific rationale claimed for them — that they allow Britain to play an outsized role on the global stage. They do not.
* There are significant caveats here with reference to the claimed or potential direct and indirect coercive powers of nuclear weapons, however these make for lengthy digressions that ultimately do not affect the conclusion. The UK’s nuclear deterrent has played no coercive role historically, and it is difficult to envision circumstances under which it would.
By: j_jza80 - 3rd March 2016 at 20:31
…..
I’m not sure whether you were being serious, or just using this topic to have a dig at the UK, which is something you seem to relish. But in several points, you actually manage to defeat your own argument far more eloquently than I can manage.
Do you have some invested interest in our nuclear deterrent that isn’t apparent?
By: charliehunt - 3rd March 2016 at 15:16
In terms of cost, nuclear deterrence always sounds expensive, but is it really?
With Foreign Aid at 175 million over the same period – at today’s rates – no!!
By: Creaking Door - 3rd March 2016 at 12:38
In terms of cost, nuclear deterrence always sounds expensive, but is it really?
I think the current thinking is £30billion over twenty years? Now £30billion is a lot of money but since the United Kingdom government currently spends about £700billion per year the cost of a replacement for Trident is equivalent to about a day and a half of a year’s total spending per year of the programme; so for what you’re getting (or maybe not getting), is it that expensive?
By: silver fox - 1st March 2016 at 20:33
The efectiveness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is always open to dispute/debate, however many of us will remember the Cuban missile crisis, Khrushchev expecting/hoping that Kennedy would back down, the nuclear arsenals of Britain and the USA went to their highest state of readiness ever, even Khrushchev decided that the whole damn thing was getting too dangerous and turned his ships round, I would think that is one instance of nuclear deterrence working.
Regarding the current state and cost of nuclear weapons, while it would be good to free up major expenditure, there is and will continue to be enough nutters around who given the opportunity would happily demolish a country if they thought they could get away with it.
By: MrBlueSky - 21st February 2016 at 10:53
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/expert-north-koreas-h-bomb-is-super-emp-weapon/article/2579715
By: John Green - 20th February 2016 at 12:13
Tony,
I think that ISIL are a ‘bunch of religeous nutters’ intent on their version of world domination via a Caliphate – or, so they claim. Beermat was being coy.
By: TonyT - 20th February 2016 at 11:54
My concern would not be a bunch of religious nutters or countries getting hold of the bomb in the short term, my concern would be the likes of Isis getting hold of nuclear materials and producing a dirty bomb, that is a conventional explosive surrounded by radioactive material that If detonated in the likes of the underground would be pushed via the air in front of the trains through the tunnels and out through the vents all over London.
By: Beermat - 20th February 2016 at 09:08
Yes. The problem is the threats are coming from people who rather like the idea of armageddon.
By: J Boyle - 20th February 2016 at 07:47
Re. all of us still being here, you get my point about the daft leopard story? It doesn’t demonstrate anything that there was no WWIII. Other arguments are needed to confirm, with hindsight, the validity of a deterrent in the absence of an attack…
Conversely, the fact that several countries had the weapons AND we’re still here does not confirm the validity of the anti-nuke brigade’s arguments.
Of course today (and tomorrow) we need to worry less about Russia vs. NATO and more about the real renegade nations and factions that the CND probably didn’t know existed in the 80s when they were at their peak.
By: TonyT - 19th February 2016 at 10:44
Germany is a tad closer 😉
At least they would light my cigar for me.. Post launch of the jets I don’t think we would have ever seen them again and I doubt the station would have been there for their return, us included. Most of the Vulcan crews etc would have probably simply carried on East post strike in the hope of finding a nice Mongolian woman to shack up with.
In a perfect world Beermat no one would have them, but alas we do not live in a perfect world.
..
By: John Green - 19th February 2016 at 09:53
Its the MAD theory in that countries would never enter a war using nuclear weapons against another nuclear power because it would ensure their own destruction hence MAD ( mutual assured destruction ) and when you are caught on the back foot in a conventional war, your conventional forces are about to be destroyed and your country overrun, the country losing may opt to use nuclear weapons as a last resort, so you are naturally cautious about attacking that country in any form in the first place as you know it may rapidly escalate out of control and result in the destruction of both countries.
Remember in defeat those with their fingers on the button are often those that get topped, so they have nothing to lose.
During my service in the RAF we trained to operate in a Nuclear Biological and Chemical war and reflecting on it, I think the best place to have been would have been at ground zero, cigar in one hand, beer in the other and a damned attractive woman underneath me.. With 3 minutes to go I think I’d finish the beer, but maybe not the rest 😉..
Tony,
“With three minutes to go…”
That’s not Mrs. T’s version !
By: Beermat - 19th February 2016 at 08:51
Re. all of us still being here, you get my point about the daft leopard story? It doesn’t demonstrate anything that there was no WWIII. Other arguments are needed to confirm, with hindsight, the validity of a deterrent in the absence of an attack, and they necessarily involve an element of ‘what if’.
HOWEVER the first part was not meant facetiously. I have nothing but respect for all those who served, and did so for all the right reasons.
There are limits to that, of course. It was a paid job, too. I do not hold with the ‘every one a hero’ bull.
Has anyone seen that piece by the Vulcan Captain turned CND activist in the current ‘Aeroplane’?
Not sure either way, myself.
By: J Boyle - 19th February 2016 at 03:45
😀 It must be odd having been involved in the nuclear deterrent, seriously not now knowing whether you helped save the world or not.
No more odd than wondering “what if?” about virtually anything.
The people that served their country obviously think what they did was important…far better than being a self serving whatever.
By: TonyT - 19th February 2016 at 00:27
It must be odd having been involved in the nuclear deterrent, seriously not now knowing whether you helped save the world or not.
Your still here are you not, so we must have been doing something right all those years ago, the ones we used are now consigned to museums, when visiting one and seeing a WE177 on display ( Inert round) I gave it a swift kick then explained to an aghast couple next to me that the last time I saw one it was strapped to a Jet, was live and ready to go if the hooter ever went off…. Simply touching them at the time would have you doing a quickstep out of the front gates..
By: Beermat - 18th February 2016 at 23:16
😀
It must be odd having been involved in the nuclear deterrent, seriously not now knowing whether you helped save the world or not.
I am perhaps unfairly reminded of a scenario my lecturer in formal logic ran by us. Two chaps on a bus in Hull. One is constantly pouring vinegar into his pockets. The other says ‘Sorry, I have to ask – why are you doing that”?
“Keeps the Leopards away, doesn’t it”
“But you don’t get Leopards in East Yorkshire. In Western Europe at all, in fact”
“Yep. Bloody effective, isn’t it’?
By: TonyT - 18th February 2016 at 17:50
Its the MAD theory in that countries would never enter a war using nuclear weapons against another nuclear power because it would ensure their own destruction hence MAD ( mutual assured destruction ) and when you are caught on the back foot in a conventional war, your conventional forces are about to be destroyed and your country overrun, the country losing may opt to use nuclear weapons as a last resort, so you are naturally cautious about attacking that country in any form in the first place as you know it may rapidly escalate out of control and result in the destruction of both countries.
Remember in defeat those with their fingers on the button are often those that get topped, so they have nothing to lose.
During my service in the RAF we trained to operate in a Nuclear Biological and Chemical war and reflecting on it, I think the best place to have been would have been at ground zero, cigar in one hand, beer in the other and a damned attractive woman underneath me.. With 3 minutes to go I think I’d finish the beer, but maybe not the rest 😉
..
By: Beermat - 18th February 2016 at 16:57
CH, that’s interesting stuff – yes, I can see that annoying Vladimir.
On the previous, I’m struggling with the “Nukes are only an effective deterrent against countries that can nuke you back” point. I am presuming that I have misunderstood.. not the first time.
If the argument is they guard against a first strike by a nutter, the problem is we’re talking about a nutter..
By: charliehunt - 18th February 2016 at 14:09
Of course that is quite true. But “spheres of interest” have always existed and the Russians perceived the EU’s enthusiastic opportunism provocative. I am not defending one side or the other, merely making the observation. Once the Association was agreed in 2012 it was inevitable that there would be a Russian response. The Russians are not naive enough to accept the Association as a trade pact only. This extract illustrates just how much more it is:
What is in the Association Agreement?
The Association Agreement is a pioneering document: it is the first agreement based on political association between the EU and any of the Eastern Partnership countries, and is unprecedented in its breadth (number of areas covered) and depth (detail of commitments and timelines).
The Agreement focuses on support to core reforms, economic recovery and growth, and governance and sector cooperation in areas such as energy, transport and environment protection, industrial cooperation, social development and protection, equal rights, consumer protection, education, youth, and cultural cooperation.
The Agreement also puts a strong emphasis on values and principles: democracy and the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, good governance, a market economy and sustainable development.
There will be enhanced cooperation in foreign and security policy and energy.
It includes a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), which goes further than classic free trade areas, as it will both open up markets but also address competitiveness issues and the steps needed to meet EU standards and trade on EU markets.
The Agreement will also highlight Justice, Freedom & Security issues which also include provisions on mobility.
It is in fact the EU’s initial shot at integrating an arguably non-european state into its eager and all embracing maw!!
By: TonyT - 18th February 2016 at 13:59
You have to remember though the Ukraine is a Sovereign state and as such it should be free to ally itself with whatever trade partnership it wishes too. It is not for Russia to tell another Sovereign state who they can and cannot trade with.
By: charliehunt - 18th February 2016 at 13:28
The unanswered question is whether he would even have considered the gamble had the EU, in its ever widening territorial ambitions, refrained from engaging with Ukraine so closely, culminating in the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. Which was always bound to be provocative.
Sign In
February 16, 2016 at 9:54 am