Trident - rehashed - 12 comments
It's a shame we're not hearing much from the supporters of Trident renewal, so the very least I can do is point you to this blog's coverage of the issue back in December, which attracted the merest murmur of interest back then, but seems pretty robust to me.Just a quick point for supporters of an "independent nuclear deterrent/independent foreign policy": really? Is that a genuinely, commonly held view among opponents of renewal? That Britain ought to have, in an ideal world, the capacity to pursue its own foreign policy - perhaps even launching weapons - without recourse to NATO, the UN, or our American friends? That doesn't sound the right kind of approach at all for an internationalist - it certainly doesn't appeal to me - but perhaps this is just an argument of convenience.
I'm not saying that invalidates the case of the opponents to any great degree, but if it's a lousy argument, let's kill it, even if the Little Englanders have to leave the coalition.
Update: Once again, I've been vague - I've emboldened the bit I've inserted at the start.
Update II (14/03): Couple of very good posts on the subject. This from Rob Newman:
Nuclear weapons are vile things. They are weapons of mass destruction in the most literal sense. But the notion that if we have Trident it lies unused is false. If you have a nuclear deterrent, you are always using it. The very fact that it exists and is in your hands makes your enemies reconsider the notion that they can hold you to ransom. That may be, literally, MAD logic; but it is logic nevertheless, with historic precedent.... and this from Chris Dillow on how a demand-revealing referendum could, more honestly, reveal (or, have revealed) public opinion towards renewal, by making people put their money where their mouth is. Some people need money to live, I hear you cry. But what if the government gave all citizens a fund of money to use under these circumstances, as part of - or in addition to - a Citizen's Income?
Labels: foreign policy, Internationalism, nuclear weapons, Trident
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
12 comments so far...
Haha, there is great difference between internationalism and sycophancy.
The best internationalists believe in the principle of plural self determination as a key tenet of liberalism; something many Eustonites would do well to remember (especially as their own 'liberal internationalism' was founded on the concept of self-determination for the Iraqi people).
Woodrow Wilson was the greatest LI of them all.
Besides, the question of independence when pitted against NATO and the UN is but a straw man at best. I think most people, such as myself, asserting independence, do so relative to the fact that we see the awesome power of the united states as constituting the threat, and it's manifestation in 'locking in' deals, removing the aspect of voluntarism in involvement.
If countries should, as your premise argues, be willing to submit their democratic will to that of other nations, why oh why must it always be the united states?
If it were the UN, with the rule of international law and dispute solving mechanisms it brings, I would be only too happy. Another people, with their own, often self-serving and opposed interests? Not so sure.
Submission and solidarity are not always the same; in fact, all to often, they are opposed. Independence advocates objections are founded on their perception of the former.
The key to foreign policy progress lies not with subordination and 'locking in', but with humanitarian intervention and reform of multilateral institutions, until they get the teeth they need.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
If we are to be progressives, guardians must be found.
No, you haven't nailed the point: it looks like you're arguing from the premise that the USA is in control of our foreign policy, in which case asserting independence is a sign of democracy at work.
I don't think that's accurate, though. So many bloggers seem to simply assume that an independent foreign policy is a good thing in itself - an aspiration. How many people have argued: "perhaps we do need a nuclear deterrent, but this should be operated by a transnational authority (say, the UN), or our capacity should be pooled with another country/bloc?" That would be interesting, and a fair reflection of the post-1945 world. But the idea that people are so fed up with working with NATO/the USA that they're happy for the UK to give up on multilateralism seems to me to be (a) inconsistent, to say the least, (b) a missed opportunity, and (c) an unreasonable concession to Little Englanders, who are far from absent on the left at the moment.
Sorry, overlapped with your second comment. Hang on a sec...
If it were the UN, with the rule of international law and dispute solving mechanisms it brings, I would be only too happy. Another people, with their own, often self-serving and opposed interests? Not so sure.
Submission and solidarity are not always the same; in fact, all to often, they are opposed. Independence advocates objections are founded on their perception of the former.
Well, at the very least, people should clarify their position: the advantages of talking about "independent foreign policy" are that adherents don't have to explicitly state their mistrust of the USA, and they appeal to nationalists and isolationists - when these people should be shunned by the left. If that wasn't the intention, then the point should be restated more accurately.
It's not strictly relevant to the earlier point, but as far as I'm concerned the USA is the most reliable, and stable nuclear power, and demonstrates little willingness to use it for geopolitical reasons. Well, that's my view. In an ideal world we should try to pool nuclear capacity in sound, democratic, international institutions. But would that be a more "credible" authority, for adherents to MAD? Perhaps only such an institution has the capability to be so.
I'm opposed to trident renewal, but not in favor of immediate unilateral disarmament.
I watched some of the Defence Committee hearings on BBC parliament and it seems that aspects of this decsision are based on retaining the manufacturing skills for a submarine fleet generally - that was pushed quite hard. Not the best reason for promoting nuclear munitions.
I'm against trident purely because i don't think we need it, retro fitting existing subs with nukes, or surface ships, or a long range bomber, or land based silos should have been properly costed as options and brought to parliaments attention.
I think we are deciding in haste and will repent at leisure on this, we can decide next month or next year when the other options have been costed by the DoD and released as such.
We should have our own foreign policy - we hva ethe unique position of having a foot in NATO, the EU and the COmmonwealth..... there is so much we can do if we had the balls.
Instead we have ceeded Africa to China, lost face in Europe and are NATO's Afghan beast of Burden. YAY us.
Al that is leaving aside the luncay of launching a counter nuclear counter strike against an Afghan hillside, or on the spurious advice of MI6 to launch at Syria after someone passed through there. After all, the USA would have had to nuke Germany, Saudi and Florida after 9/11.
W
(if any of that is coherent it's a bonus)
Sorry, just time for one quick one, until tomorrow:
We should have our own foreign policy - we have the unique position of having a foot in NATO, the EU and the Commonwealth..... there is so much we can do if we had the balls.
That's all good, but when people say "independent", they should be clear whether they mean "independent of any other country" (as per the dictionary definition), or "independent of the USA". Working within NATO, the EU, and so on makes sense, but that should lead to a *dependent* foreign policy: free, democratic countries protecting one another, not going it alone just because anti-Americanism has been taken to extremes!
The Defence White Paper gives reasons why the other alternatives weren't chosen, mostly because they're vulnerable.
SH - as i recall the land based silos were not rejected for cost but because they could all be hit atthe same time in one go by terrorists............. or from a concerted suprise ICBM assault on every single silo by a rogue state with infinite misiles.
Neither of those eventualitys stands up partcularly. If NK or Iran laucnhed a concerted barrage we would not be the only target, the US, and others would also come under attack. There would be a response capabillity somewhere in the alligned world.
The same reasons were given against a surface sea based deterrent, even more incredible was the assertion was the idea all our ships would be hit at the same time by terrorists (it was mentioned as a possibillity).
Several of the witnesses at Commitee were not convinced by the arguement of vulnerabillity.
W
It was also pointed out that the sub system would be cheapest in financial cost.
If I had to make a choice between silos and subs, I'd go for subs. I'd prefer that Trident wasn't renewed, BTW/
How many people have argued: "perhaps we do need a nuclear deterrent, but this should be operated by a transnational authority (say, the UN)
Me, for one - whatever else one may think, the nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle and if we do wish to get to position where nation states do not hold a nuclear capability then a strategic deterrent held a supranational authority is the only viable solution.
Committing to Trident is the wrong decision, not because there is not going to be a need for some deterrent capability in future but because its the wrong weapons system for our future needs.
Strategic systems are worthwhile only at the level of the big players; the US, Russia and China and we're just no big enough to play at their level - and that goes for silos as much as it does for submarine-based systems. Our military needs would be better served by the acquisition of a smaller and more flexible tactical capability as a 'support' system for our conventional forces.
Our military needs would be better served by the acquisition of a smaller and more flexible tactical capability as a 'support' system for our conventional forces.
I wouldn't have (or rather, have had) a problem with that at all, if it would have been a better solution to the defence need than the renewal of Trident.
There are (or rather, were) some terrible arguments employed in this debate:
* A particular commitment to Trident as opposed to other nuclear alternatives - something virtually no pro-renewers have addressed.
* The idea that renewal would promote disarmament elsewhere.
* The idea that renewal constitutes "proliferation" in any meaningful way.
* The fantasy that money/attention spent on Trident could have been shifted elsewhere, making a substantially greater impact on poverty/world hunger, etc. than any other public spending.
* The idea that there is no military threat to the UK, or no particular threat.
* The idea that nuclear weapons are more "immoral" than other types of weapon, whether they are more likely to impact on civilians or not.
* The idea that Germany, or Neal-Lawsonia, rely on their diplomatic skills to stay safe.
* Once again, the temptation to support an independent British defence policy, in order to distance oneself from supporting NATO/the US.
* And I'd certainly have played down the sums of money involved: if we really are talking about a long-lasting deterrent/last-ditch defence system for the population, it doesn't seem right to quibble about sums of money that are tiny compared to amounts that are believed to constitute "under-funding" of the NHS.
... so if only this question had come to the fore sooner.
Post a Comment
<< Home