The future of nuclear deterrence was an important issue in the last general election. At present, Britain deploys US-made Trident missiles as strategic weapons. Current missile system must be replaced in2024, because the Vanguard class strategic missile submarines will be decommissioned. Therefore, a nation-wide debate is on going, regarding future nuclear possession. Prime minister Tony Blair made it clear that Britain will maintain nuclear deterrence for big league status in the world. The Conservative party welcomed his decision. Now, British leaders will discuss options of future nuclear arsenals. Britain will be firmly committed to global nuclear deterrence, and the cost and performance of deploying the next generation nuclear weapons will be vital. Meanwhile, leftist politicians insist that Britain should abolish all nuclear weapons in order to adapt to the post-Cold War international politics.
Before talking of these debates, let me explain briefly about the history of British nuclear weapons. Britain developed its own atomic and hydrogen bombs in1952 and 1957. Since then, Britain possessed two categories of nuclear systems: strategic bombers and SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile). While the United Kingdom has developed V-bombers --Valiant, Victor and Vulcan-- by itself, it has been using US-made SLBMs as a principal nuclear deterrence.
Britain tried to make independent SLBM by itself, but it was not successful. Therefore, Harold Macmillan talked with John F. Kennedy, and decided to import US-made Polaris missile under the Nassau agreement in 1962. Since then, Britain’s strategic weapons have become closely related to those with the United States. When Britain needed to upgrade its SLBMs, Margaret Thatcher decided to replace Polaris with another US-made missile, Trident. At the end of the Cold War, the United Kingdom abolished strategic bombers, and concentrates all the strategic arsenals on US-made SLBMs. As a result, the future of British nuclear weapon is tied with the United States.
In order to upgrade current nuclear system, Britain has the following options.
1. Life Extensive Program of Trident missile system
In this case, it is necessary to build new Trident launching or multi-role hunter-killer submarines. Also, Trident missile itself could be updated from current version of D5 to D5A. This missile update depends on whether the United States will do or not. In any case, tremendous cost is expected.
2. Cruise missile
In this case, multi-role hunter-killer submarines will be used. In the Iraq War, Britain fired US-made Tomahawk missiles from hunter-killer submarines. Cruise missiles fly a shorter range than ballistic missiles.
3. Air-based missile
This is what the RAF (Royal Air Force) insists. However, land-based strategic forces are vulnerable to attack by the enemy. This is the most unlikely option.
In any case, Britain will retain nuclear deterrence, because the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats support it as well. At present, it is quite likely that Britain will renew current Trident missile system.
However, Labour left-wingers argue that Trident is a Cold War deterrence, and useless against present threats, like dirty bomb attacks by terrorists and nuclear proliferations, particularly by Iran and North Korea. Robin Cook, who resigned Foreign Secretary when the Iraq War broke out, insists that Britain should end futile and costly obsession with nuclear weapons. Instead, he argues that Britain should assume leadership in global arms reduction by unilateral nuclear disarmament. Clare Short, a radical left who also resigned the cabinet minister when the Iraq War began, says, “It's just a symbol saying that Britain is in the big league, but if you need nuclear weapons to be in the big league, it's no wonder India and others want them.”
Britain’s choice on the Trident issue will have a significant effect on WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and terrorism problems. Both of them are the most critical to the global security today. I do not believe Britain will disarm it nuclear weapons unilaterally. In order to deal with current threats in a cost-effective way, Britain may choose cruise missile, because some US Trident submarines carries Tomahawk missile instead. The key to this debate is Britain’s role in the global war on terror and nuclear non-proliferation.
8 comments:
Shah,
You said: I do not believe Britain will disarm it nuclear weapons unilaterally.
Nor do I. Frequently, unilateral disarmament is very dangerous.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is dangerous beyond measure, but not having them makes a nation seem weak in the eyes of enemies.
You cited this: Labour left-wingers argue that Trident is a Cold War deterrence, and useless against present threats, like dirty bomb attacks by terrorists and nuclear proliferations, particularly by Iran and North Korea.
Defense weapons will not stop terrorists. The battle is deeper than a matter of weapons. Terrorists care more about the damage they inflict than about the consequences of that damage. That kind of thinking is evil.
What do you think needs to be done about developments in Iran and in North Korea? I value your opinion, Shah.
Thank you that you value my opinion. In both cases, the US and negotiation partners try to offer incentives for proliferaters. But I do not think such a textbook diplomatic skill works against Iran and North Korea.
Iran tries to prevail their theocracy, and regard nuclear possession as a symbol of their nationalist pride. North Korea is much worse. They use nuclear bargain to get food and aid. They merely want to sustain current repressive regime at the expense of their citizens.
Whether fighting against them or not, the US and its allies must show a steadfast attitude. I worry South Korea's appeasement policy to North Korea.
I don't see any easy answers for Britain. US and British ties should be kept strong for the foreseeable future. Unilateral nuclear disarmament will only make Britain look weak , especially in the eyes of Iran and North Korea.
I also think that most terrorist groups would claim that they had forced Britain to disarm. Spain's withdrawal from Iraq was seen by many (and I personally believe it's true) as a direct response to terrorist targeting Spanish railroads.
Cruise missiles have some advantages over long-range ballistic missiles but I don't think they have multiple warheads. I could very well be wrong about that, maybe you would know.
It's my belief that Britain should keep all options open. It would be wrong to think that the" War On Terrorism" is the only threat to world peace.
Just recently, Russia successfully tested a new sea-launched ballistic missile with a range of 5000 mi..
From Vladimir Putin:
"We are developing and will provide the army with new high-precision strategic missile systems that are unique and unlikely to appear earlier in any other country,"
China also is testing new ballistic missiles. The following is from the Washington Times ( Bill Gertz):
"China's military has launched the first of a new class of ballistic missile submarines in what defense officials view as a major step forward in Beijing's strategic weapons program."
Shan,
Yes, any appeasement toward such enemies is very dangerous. Does unilateral disarmament also qualify, in the eyes of the enemy, as appeasement?
I don't favor appeasement, and I don't favor economic aid, either. Of course, I'm not a foreign-policy expert.
American Crusader,
You are right. Terrorists are not the only threat. Russia and China still possess substantial amount of nuclear weapons. Trident is useful against these threats.
As to unilateral nuclear disarmament, Britain is not ex-Soviet countries and South Africa. South Africa abolished nuclear weapons when the apartheid regime collapsed. Also, ex-Soviet states other than Russia decided to hand nuclear weapons in their territories to Russia. This is a great help for global security, because the fewer proliferaters are the better.
Unlike proliferaters, Britain is one of Big 5 nuclear powers. Unilateral disarmament changes the balance of power. No help for nuclear deterrence.
Always on Watch,
>Does unilateral disarmament also qualify, in the eyes of the enemy, as appeasement?
Not only appeasement. The enemy would seize the opportunity for pushing their interests.
For proliferaters and terrorists, the theory of nuclear deterrence does not work well. US and its allies must be well prepared to attack them, if necessary.
Shah,
I agree. Preparation is essential. Nihilistic fanatics must be curbed.
Yes. This is the foundation of preemption strategy.
Post a Comment