The below is a bit of a change of pace . I never intended this blog to become a poltical diatribe, but there you go. Just an issue I have been thinking a bit about.

*****************************************************************************

There is a rather heated debate raging on at home regarding whether Britain’s nuclear deterrent should be maintained by replacing Britain’s trident missile system. It is interesting because when I first joined university I attended a few SSP meetings. I am fairly sure that I would have joined had this issue not arisen. I was not then entirely against nuclear weapons and the acidic fervour of the reaction I received convinced me this was not the place for me. Nevertheless, many of the people objecting are left wingers and on what I consider to be entirely honourable and respectable grounds. However, I am a left winger, at least sort of, and I would argue that it would be a good idea to replace Trident. Here is why.

It is true that we no longer live in a world where an evil empire in red threatens to use nuclear weapons to blast our way of life, and us with it, into oblivion. However, we still live in a world with nuclear weapons, and we now live in a world where a very real problem are rogue or failed states and terrorists. If there is a chance they might get them, I would far rather we had them as well. Now the immediate objection that comes to mind is that terrorists are stateless actors and so nuclear weapons cannot be considered a viable deterrent. This is only partly true. Terrorists still require a state to act within and has past events have shown those states are sometimes far better hosts than they should be. Afghanistan and the Taliban welcomed Al Qaeda with open arms. Figures within the Lebanese Government assisted Hezbollah and others were complicit by their inactivity in stopping them. I currently live next door to a country that has used its recent nuclear tests as an excuse to throw its weight around them. The technology is out there and so it seems is the will, if not the insanity to use it. If a state by its complicity allows terrorists a platform to craft and use a WMD I want the consequences to be crystal clear. Do I consider it probable that a genuine nuclear threat will emerge towards Britain? No. Do I consider it possible? Absolutely. If this eventuality arises then I do not want the UK bringing a knife to a gunfight. Moreover, I believe that Britain should be a nation of progress, both inwardly and outwardly. However, we can progress nowhere if half of us are dead and half of us are mutants eating old tins of beans.

It is on this question of progress and how it is initiated that I do believe even those on the left should favour our possession of nuclear weapons. I want to see a world with a fairer and more egalitarian distribution of wealth and resources. I want to see a world where tyrants and those who perpetrate political terror and ethnic cleansing are better held to account. I want to see a truly global response to the threat of climate change. Moreover, I want to see Britain taking a role as a leader in these struggles. I do not think we can do this as effectively, if at all, if we do not have nuclear weapons.

When addressing whether Britain should indeed disarm it’s nuclear weapons, Nye Bevan said: “you will send a British Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber. ... And you call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm.” I think Bevan was right then and I believe the core truth of that statement remains true. Those countries that possess nuclear weapons still gain a type of indivisible membership to an informal and elite grouping of the world’s most powerful nations. Nuclear weapons are not just the apotheosis of the art of destruction, they are the largest note in the currency of soft power. India does not simply want them because of Kashmir, it wants them because they represent a meaty chunk of muscle in terms of Foreign policy. They are an intangible representation of influence in the world’s conference rooms. And it is in these conference rooms that the direction of the international community will be decided. If we want the world to adhere more closely to an agenda of social justice then I believe we must retain our global influence. To retain our global influence, I think we need our nuclear weapons.

I do not deny the absurdity of this premise. That in order to save the children in Africa we must retain at our disposal, weapons that can do untold destruction. However, the system of international relations is rather absurd. It is chaotic, it is about power, and it is a sphere where ultimately it seems, might is right. Frankly, when push comes to shove the UN trying to contain the US is like saying boo to a goose. It is the same reason why I place so little stock by international law. It’s not law, it is just a collection of little bits of paper. It is closer to the state of nature than the rule of law. I would rather see a international system of rules and standards that were universally adhered to. However, I would also like six pack abs, yet these are the not the cards the world or I have been dealt.

So in this realm, if we want to stop Africa being engulfed, or peoples being oppressed and not to mention the planet blowing up, then to do right we need the might. When I consider the world in which we live, and the challenges we face, and the things we could do and frankly must do. Well I actually believe £20 billion is a bargain price.