The nuclear war
games have started again. The latest
estimate of the number of nuclear weapons in the world is 16,300. There are only nine countries holding them,
Britain included. We have 225, the
Russians 8000 and the US 7300. As told to me at the Faslane nuclear
submarine base in Scotland, each warhead is 13 times the strength of the
Hiroshima bomb and anyone who has seen the film of the total devastation there
will find this too difficult to contemplate.
That is the
problem with nuclear weapons. Most
countries, most people, find them too difficult to contemplate. Occasionally they will join up to form a
nuclear forces treaty agreeing to cut back tactical nuclear weapons, but they
are still there.
And now President
Putin, admitting being scared of the NATO forces which have been moving
ever-forward to Ukraine, has said that
he was so fearful of attack that he was prepared to arm nuclear weapons there.
Not to be
outdone, the hardy, outdoor MP Rory Stewart, who once walked solo across
deserts, has joined in. He is now
chairman of the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Defence. Their report
calls for an increase in Britain’s defence spending which has been cut, saying that the world was ‘more dangerous and
unstable’ than at any timed since the end of the Cold War. Rory Stewart emphasised that this should
include the British nuclear capabilities.
These
capabilities, of course, include the renewal of the Trident submarine warheads,
costing many billions, against which there have been loud and ongoing
protests. The money, the protesters
argue, should be used instead for spending where it is badly needed, on health
and education. The Green Party, which
has recently had an upsurge in membership, would cut Trident, as well as the
Scottish National Party, which almost succeeded in gaining independence for
Scotland, announced in its manifesto that it would withdraw from the Trident
programme.
If most of
Europe chooses to remain without nuclear weapons, notably the Scandinavian
countries, why is the UK so intent on keeping these costly weapons? Under what circumstances would they be
used? First strike against an invader? Retaliation after the country had been
half-demolished by nuclear attack, even if it was able to strike back?
Even if the
object of possessing them provided the deterrent from attack which is said to
be their purpose, surely a few warheads would be enough, considering it needed
only one to demolish Hiroshima, and not 225?
Russia withdrew
from the joint consultative group on the European Armed Forces consultative
group drawing up a treaty and their new ground-launched cruise missile is said
by the US to violate the INF treaty.
The US and Russia need to stop growling at each other, for whatever
reasons, and get back to talking again.
