My younger self would probably be ashamed...
I have to admit I've even changed my views on UK nuclear deterrence.
In the 1980's, when I didn't quite join the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the world was different. As far as we knew, the Soviets and the United States had vast numbers of ICBM warheads, enough to destroy most cities and military sites in either country many times over, with plenty left over to take us out.
Many of us growing up then thought there was a significant risk that a devastating war on the scale of an extinction level event could start by accident, or by a first-strike decision by either side deciding the only way to eliminate the threat was to eliminate the other.
It seemed that the UK and France, the only other nuclear-armed powers, had almost trivial numbers of weapons. That we could demonstrate by scrapping Polaris, how unacceptable we felt these weapons were and that, however war-mongering the leaders on either side, they should start to aim for a reducing parity until the weapons could finally be eliminated.
Now back to 2015.
Non-proliferation has failed. The US and Russians have far less weapons than they used to have, though presumably still many more than they need to totally destroy the other side's military and civilian capacity. But as far as we know, the nuclear-armed states include Israel, Pakistan, India, China and North Korea.
North Korea has a dynasty of narcissistic Stalinist leaders, happy to murder their own relatives if they feel a threat and in a constant state of near war with a neighbour populated with many close relatives of it's own citizens. What if
We have a murderous "terrorist state" developing in the Middle East whose "laws" apparently include killing those who express the "wrong" religious views and raping women as a perk of being a soldier. A state proud for it's "soldiers" to gruesomely murder civilian reporters and aid workers if it will produce enough interest for a You-Tube video. What happens if ISIS get hold of material to build an atom bomb, a dirty bomb or unleashes bio- or chemical weapons in Europe or the US?
Admittedly some of these states are apparently sociopathic enough that they would not take account of retaliation when taking a decision to use a weapon of mass destruction against the UK, US or Europe. Or maybe the thought that many megaton weapons could take out their nascent state's viability at a stroke would give them enough pause for thought.
I hope we will never find out, but it seems like a really bad time to be throwing away the only answer we may have to such unpredictable rogue regimes and their sponsored terrorists.
In the 1980's, when I didn't quite join the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the world was different. As far as we knew, the Soviets and the United States had vast numbers of ICBM warheads, enough to destroy most cities and military sites in either country many times over, with plenty left over to take us out.
Many of us growing up then thought there was a significant risk that a devastating war on the scale of an extinction level event could start by accident, or by a first-strike decision by either side deciding the only way to eliminate the threat was to eliminate the other.
It seemed that the UK and France, the only other nuclear-armed powers, had almost trivial numbers of weapons. That we could demonstrate by scrapping Polaris, how unacceptable we felt these weapons were and that, however war-mongering the leaders on either side, they should start to aim for a reducing parity until the weapons could finally be eliminated.
Now back to 2015.
Non-proliferation has failed. The US and Russians have far less weapons than they used to have, though presumably still many more than they need to totally destroy the other side's military and civilian capacity. But as far as we know, the nuclear-armed states include Israel, Pakistan, India, China and North Korea.
North Korea has a dynasty of narcissistic Stalinist leaders, happy to murder their own relatives if they feel a threat and in a constant state of near war with a neighbour populated with many close relatives of it's own citizens. What if
We have a murderous "terrorist state" developing in the Middle East whose "laws" apparently include killing those who express the "wrong" religious views and raping women as a perk of being a soldier. A state proud for it's "soldiers" to gruesomely murder civilian reporters and aid workers if it will produce enough interest for a You-Tube video. What happens if ISIS get hold of material to build an atom bomb, a dirty bomb or unleashes bio- or chemical weapons in Europe or the US?
Admittedly some of these states are apparently sociopathic enough that they would not take account of retaliation when taking a decision to use a weapon of mass destruction against the UK, US or Europe. Or maybe the thought that many megaton weapons could take out their nascent state's viability at a stroke would give them enough pause for thought.
I hope we will never find out, but it seems like a really bad time to be throwing away the only answer we may have to such unpredictable rogue regimes and their sponsored terrorists.
Comments