UK warhead announcement: Immoral, Illogical, Illegal

“We remain committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons” claims the British Government in their ‘Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy’: Global Britain in a competitive age. It is unclear quite how this sentiment fits with a renewed commitment to Britain’s nuclear weapon system and the announcement that the overall ceiling on nuclear warheads is to be increased: “the UK will move to an overall nuclear weapon stockpile of no more than 260 warheads.”

From END Info 23 available here

If the empty pledge on disarmament and the alleged imperative of Britain retaining a nuclear capability came as no surprise, the announcement that the long-established intent to reduce the overall number of warheads was to be dispensed with sent a shockwave across the planet. A further shocking element of the report comes in the following passage: “we reserve the right to review this assurance [that the UK will not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against NPT state parties] if the future threat of ... emerging technologies ... makes it necessary.”

Immoral

The British public, like the vast majority of the world’s population, opposes nuclear weapons. Repeated polling has not registered majority support for UK nuclear weapons, and a recent survey found that 77% of the population agreed that all nuclear weapons should be abolished.

The British government is massively out-of-step with the population on this question, yet unknown billions of pounds have been pledged to manufacture instruments of mass-murder just days after nurses were subjected to what, in effect, amounts to a pay cut.

The current British government is a serial rule-breaker and the scrapping of intent to reduce the overall number of warheads fits into this pattern of conduct. Far from providing increased ‘security’ the British decision to not only retain nuclear weapons but to increase the number of warheads can only increase tensions and generate greater risks.

Illogical

At the time of the announcement, the British government made no effort to justify its decision beyond general statements about “adversaries”, “threats to stability” and the “evolving security environment”. In subsequent interviews the Secretary of Defence, Ben Wallace, claimed that an increased number of warheads was a response to alleged changes to Russian missile defence. When questioned, Mr Wallace could not explain how 260 rather than a smaller number of warheads would make a difference.

As the Russian government has pointed out, the British decision comes weeks after agreement was reached between the US and Russia to extend New START for a further five years: an agreement that will reduce the overall numbers of nuclear weapons. How does the British decision fit with the global trends? What does the US, on which Britain is dependent for the vast majority of its nuclear capability, make of the announcement?

Could the failure to adequately explain the need for more warheads be linked to the fact that there is no good reason? Or could it be that the real story behind this decision is being deliberately withheld? How does Britain’s lobbying of the US Congress over the W-93 warhead fit into the picture? Might Britain be planning to increase the number of Trident submarines on ‘Continuous At Sea’ patrol, which might make it necessary to have more warheads?

Does the shift in nuclear posture embodied in “reserve the right to review” and in the direction of travel detailed in the wider report suggest a potential ‘war fighting’ nuclear posture, rather than an alleged ‘deterrence’ posture? Might Britain need more warheads if such warheads are to be ‘useable’?

The basic lack of transparency on nuclear questions and the illogical stance offered by the government generates large numbers of questions, all of which demand closer examination.

Illegal

Britain is not only a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which demands ‘effective measures’ to end the ‘arms race’ (Article VI) but it is one of three ‘Official Depositories’ of the NPT. This status demands exemplary conduct and action from such states.

The decision to increase the number of warheads appears to be in breach of Article VI and Britain’s status and could, therefore, be illegal under international law. It will be left to international lawyers and the other parties to the NPT to decide whether or not this is technically the case, and it should be noted that several NPT signatories are already in breach. Whatever the material legal status, Britain’s decision will clearly act against the interests of non-proliferation and will surely induce other states - both nuclear armed and non-nuclear - to assess their own positions.