On Jeremy Corbyn and those nukes
Last week Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, said in an interview that if he were Prime Minister, he would not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, which provoked a storm of controversy with some commentators declaring that he had in effect disarmed the country. He is also known to be against commissioning a replacement for Trident, Britain’s nuclear submarines which carry American missiles and warheads. On this position he is not supported by a lot of Labour MPs who regard opposition to Trident as being a major factor in Labour’s unpopularity in the 1980s. Others have noted that Corbyn’s opposition to nuclear weapons is long established, that it was part of his platform while campaigning for the leadership, and that Trident is a 1980s answer to a 1980s situation, i.e. the Cold War, which is no longer going on.
I have two separate problems with our renewing our nuclear capability along the same lines as Trident. The first is that Trident is not independent; the missiles are American and although the warheads are built at Aldermaston, Berkshire, they share technology with US warheads. While the agreement with the USA states that they have no veto over the use of British nuclear weapons, their maintenance means that they may be able to insert “back doors” into the system in the event that our most likely target is a country the USA is favourable to — or if the US president simply decides he does not want Britain using nuclear weapons on anyone. If we are to spend billions developing and running a nuclear deterrent, it ought to be of entirely British design and manufacture; otherwise, it is a display of blind faith in and subservience to America.
The main problem, however, is that nuclear weapons have almost no legitimate uses. If used against a city, it is simply a massacre of civilians (very likely mostly women and children, as the men will be away fighting) and a war crime, whatever the “good intentions” or the supposition that it might bring a war to a quicker conclusion. It could be used against a military installation, but these are rarely the size of whole cities and there are usually civilians’ homes surrounding them (as you’ll find in garrison towns in the UK, like Aldershot). If we use them on a country with no nuclear weapons, this will immediately open us up to international criticism and possible war crimes trials; we would not use them on a country with nuclear weapons (and the capability to deliver them to the UK) as this would be a provocation. What, then, is the use of them? Faced with the Russian invasion that they were originally intended to prevent, do we launch missiles at Russian cities? They have enough to destroy most of our cities and garrisons (and everyone knows where those are); they have many more cities than we have. We end up with most of our cities and military capability destroyed, and the Russians can walk right in a few months later after the radiation has dissipated.
I’m not an anti-nuclear zealot, and I do not believe that renewable energy sources such as wind are a viable alternative to fossil fuels; but nuclear weapons are a threat to peace in themselves, as there is always the possibility that one could be launched rashly, possibly by un unhinged leader (and it is foolish to think this could not happen here) or in response to spurious ‘intelligence’, to say nothing of the possibility of radiation leaks due to poor maintenance and so on. The same risks from a technology that makes the modern way of life possible are more acceptable than from a weapons system that has only very limited use and will cause immense loss of life and environmental damage if used. That we can’t just get rid of nukes overnight is clear; they will have to be reduced by agreement, not only between the USA and Russia but also China, India, Pakistan and Israel (and I would not want Modi’s and Netanyahu’s fingers to be the only ones on the nuclear button); but Britain should not sink billions more into another lot of American nuclear missiles. It’s a very expensive way to delude ourselves that we are still a great power.
Possibly Related Posts:
- So much for “war on the NIMBYs”
- Desperate Tories, shameless lies
- It’s Islamophobia, thank you
- Seething with anger
- Rochdale and Rishi Sunak’s hunt for ‘extremists’
