To:    Comment at the Guardian
Re:    Far more than just Britain's nuclear deterrent
Date: Monday, 17 July 06

In response to a Guardian article by Max Hastings: "We need less tosh and more facts for a decision on Trident".
The debate about Britain's nuclear deterrent is far more important than many people seem to realise, because it does not concern Britain alone, but the whole world, which is edging slowly but surely along the road of nuclear proliferation, which sooner or later will inevitably result in nuclear calamity, perhaps not on the specicidal scale that threatened during the cold war, but nevertheless, horrific enough.
 
The essential point is that if the British government can justify possessing an independent, national nuclear capability, so too can any other government. And to be sure, an ever-increasing number will.
 
Why? Because nuclear weapons are the ultimate in military power and there are very good reasons for any government wishing to possess them. Just ask the British or French governments and they will tell you, and most of what they say will be quite rational and reasonable. And the same arguments can be used by ANY government.
 
In a world where nuclear weapons exist, the only defence against nuclear blackmail is the ability to threaten back (a MAD but compelling logic). It is also an insurance against being attacked with conventional weapons by a more powerful state (such as America). Added to which, any government desirous of "street cred" in the global community of nations has to have them, just as members of a primitive street gang need knives or guns to gain respect and status. And who can deny that the global community of nations has much in common with a primitive street gang, where power (economic and military) determines each member's status?
 
Apart from global warming and the inherent non-sustainability of an economy and way of life rooted in man's animal nature, the biggest threat the world faces is from nuclear proliferation, which is happening and will continue to happen, not least, because our government's approach to preventing it is hypocritical and thus totally ineffective.
 
So what to do?
 
Nuclear proliferation is driven by the logic of the global "street gang" and individual members' (governments') desire (rational and justified, or otherwise) for deterrence, power and "street cred". The way to break this MAD and vicious circle is for more enlightened governments to place their nuclear capability (actual or potential) in the hands of a democratic international authority, which would only use its capability to protect its members from nuclear threats (like the nicer and more enlightened members of a street gang agreeing to give up individual possession of knives and guns, but retaining an arsenal under their joint control in case they need to protect themselves against a bad guy).
 
What we need is a "coalition of nice guys", i.e. democratic states with more enlightened governments. For understandable reasons, the US government would just laugh at any suggestion of it handing over control of its nuclear capability to an international authority, but for Britain and France the situation is quite different. They could, and should, negotiate with other democratic nations (within the EU, of course, but perhaps including others as well) to place their nuclear forces under joint democratic control. This would be a major transfer of sovereign power on the parts of Britain and France, but exactly what is required of enlightened government if there is to be any hope of halting nuclear proliferation. Only then would the British and French governments have the moral authority to insist that other governments (such as Iran) desist from acquiring nuclear weapons. In the longer term we might even hope and work towards Russia joining us, as an alternative to military rivalry, which is an all too real and terrifying possibility. Eventually, America too might join and we would be close to achieving the ultimate goal of placing all nuclear weapons under global democratic control.
 
At the moment, many countries rely on the American nuclear umbrella, but its reliability is doubtful and cannot be a permanent solution (I certainly would not want to rely on someone like George W. Bush). If the cold war had become hot, I have little doubt that Washington and Moscow would quickly have agreed to restrict nuclear strikes to Western Europe. Britain and France might have been spared thanks to their own nuclear deterrents, but Germany and Poland, for example, would have been incinerated.
 
We need the protection of a democratically controlled, independent, international nuclear deterrent. I'm not suggesting that setting it up would be an easy task, especially in view of how pig-headed British and French politicians have behaved in the past, but the alternative is for us to proceed along the road of nuclear proliferation and catastrophe.
 
Now, with Britain discussing the future of its independent nuclear deterrent, is the time to go for it.