Thursday, 1 June 2017

Reason why I'm voting Green (2): for a safe, secure, non-nuclear future

Many Conservative and Labour politicians say we would be 'defenceless' without nuclear weapons and have used phrases like 'keep our guard up' and 'insurance policy' about them. As if keeping the country secure with indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction like Trident is just the same as a boxing match. As if getting rid of our nuclear weapons would lead to us immediately being attacked (even though the hundreds of countries that have never had them are not being nuked!). It's surely a very strange principle indeed - if it's worth calling a principle - that peace can be maintained by arranging to 'defend' ourselves with weapons we could not possibly use without committing suicide? Is it possible we can continue into the future like this, with confidence that nuclear weapons will never again be used?? No, a nuclear armed world is not sustainable and its one of the main reasons why I joined the Greens 35 yrs ago and am still with them (more on Trident here). 


The thinking behind nuclear weapons strategy is mutually assured destruction, which appropriately shortens to MAD. It says large use (!) of nuclear weapons by opponents causes the complete destruction of both sides. Nuclear weapons are thus, so the thinking goes, a deterrentthreatened use of nuclear weapons by both sides stops both sides from actually using them. Neither side has a motive to start a conflict - but neither side has motive to disarm either, which leaves us stuck with spending billions updating the weaponry when we really need the money for many other things.

MAD is seriously flawed. It assumes all decision makers will always be rational and decide rationally to avoid mutual destruction. This assumes no rogue commanders, no extremists, no irrational fervour for Armageddon. It assumes all those in command will always care about the survival of their citizens - and no-one with the bunker mentality of Hitler. Perfectly rational action also requires complete and error-free information and interpretation - not something that is possible.

CND Demonstration Oct 22 1983, London
Mutually assured destruction is assumed but by no means can it be forever guaranteed. One side might gain the upper hand technologically, perhaps in the speed, stealth or scale of its ability to attack and/or its ability to defend itself via shelters or via anti-missile systems. It might therefore be tempted into striking first.

We cannot expect to go on forever with no errors or accidents in the equipment and procedures. If there was an error or an accident that resulted in the firing of nuclear weapons - or indeed if there was a deliberate launch - it cannot be guaranteed that we could establish who was responsible. 

So, given all these things, mutual destruction breaks down.

Spending on nuclear weapons is not focused on real threats to our security. Obtaining sufficient, clean, green energy supplies on our finite planet, global terrorism, organised crime including cyber crime, absolute poverty and virtually ungoverned countries in some parts of the globe, climate change and a number of other issues all clearly represent huge ongoing security threats - spending on new nuclear submarines not only tackles none of these but takes away money that could be invested in tackling them (see this issue explored here).

The tens, perhaps hundreds, of billions involved is enough to build hundreds of new schools or protect hundreds of million acres of rainforest or meet our UN's aid figure of 0.7% of GDP every year for around a decade thus fighting global poverty which adds to our insecurity as it goes un-tackled. Just think of what could be done to enhance state pensions or improve social care or improve aspects of the NHS with the billions to be spent on nuclear submarines armed with nuclear weapons.

The vast majority of countries around the world do not feel they have to spend billions on nuclear weapons to make them more secure - so why do we?

By not reducing nuclear weapons significantly, an aspiration of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed decades ago, we have sent out the message to countries who have since developed nuclear weapons, like India, Pakistan, North Korea and possibly others, that the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons is a necessary and acceptable part of being a secure state. There is a resulting higher risk from the wider availability of nuclear material, which could be obtained by terrorists.

Successive Conservative, Labour and Conservative/Liberal Coalition governments have failed to lead the world in nuclear disarmament. The destructive capacity they have decided to retain is equivalent hundreds of the nuclear bombs used twice by the USA on Japan in August 1945. It's the 72nd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki this summer. The USA then demonstrated the capability and willingness to deploy nuclear weapons of mass destruction in a war situation, mass killing non-combatants on a scale and with a speed previously unmatched. We can kill on an even bigger scale now. There's 'progress' for you. UK Government's continue to regard the threat of mass destruction as acceptable and worth spending many billions on to update systems.

Hiroshima devastated by a nuclear bomb in 1945
Why on Earth is such a massive capacity to indiscriminately annihilate needed? How can any Government or Opposition who want a large nuclear arsenal, ever be considered Green if they favour 'defence' by threatening to destroy life on a mass scale?

We must look hard for non-violent solutions to conflict situations, which take into account the interests of all parties as well as future generations in order to achieve lasting settlements. What moral authority can we possibly have to lecture other countries, such as Iran, about not developing nuclear weapons when we refuse to begin the process of disarmament ourselves - and indeed are in the process of upgrading our own nuclear weapons arsenal?

The replacement of Trident is immoral and hugely costly. It is dangerous, counterproductive, and places Britain at even greater risk of attack. Plans to replace Trident, together with the threat of first use of nuclear weapons - made by both Labour and Conservative politicians during this 2017 general election - reduce our moral standing.

Greens unambiguously oppose the replacement of Trident and seek binding global agreements against all weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. They oppose nuclear power and any associated technologies that produce the material for nuclear weapons. 

Defence should mean self-defence and UN-led policing where need is established. We need to improve the military to promote human security, by focusing on defence not aggression and specialising in crisis prevention, emergency relief and conflict resolution. We should end all export subsidies and increase controls on UK arms sales, especially to Governments who violate human rights (see the 2017 Green manifesto here).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Genuine, constructive, relevant comments are most welcome.