Trident again
Matthew Parris says: "“Cock your ear to how tentative and apologetic the argument for a new generation of British nuclear missiles is becoming", while Oliver Kamm disagrees: "Not so. The tentativeness comes from opponents of a British nuclear deterrent."I think Parris has the better of the argument. Oliver writes:
We cannot predict the threats to us in the middle of this century, just as 30 years ago we did not foresee Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands and Saddam Hussein’s annexation of Kuwait...Not in all cases, but in some, our independent deterrent may act as a political counterweight, causing a potential aggressor to think again.Not in all cases, indeed, as it clearly didn't act as a deterrent in the two cases in the paragraph immediately above, and Iraq and Argentina are hardly major powers.
The argument basically is that although there is very little use for Trident at the moment, we cannot foresee military problem. But the examples given here are clearly not helpful, and not just because they didn't involve Polaris/Trident doing any deterring. Oliver argues that in December 1976 the invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina was unforseeable. This cannot be true, as there was an 'invasion' of sorts in that month.
In December 1976, 50 Argentinean scientists landed on the island of South Thule, which is part of the Falklands dependency. In 1977 Prime Minister James Callaghan ordered two Royal Navy frigates to make speed for the South Atlantic along with a nuclear submarine. This proved sufficient to make the Argentineans withdraw their 'scientists'.Even in 1952, thirty years before the Falkands conflict, I'm not sure it was unforseeable. One of the main reasons for keeping a large navy was the need to defend overseas posessions.
It might be more instructive to look at what Trident is useful for, not hope that it will be useful for something that turns up. I think that the argument in favour of Trident above other forms of nuclear deterrent essentially rests on Russia, and possibly China. It is a Cold War piece of military kit, useful only in that it can kill most of another (large) country's population and destroy its cities in retaliation for the same having happened to your own country (and hence it acts as a deterrent).
As such when the government talks of Trident meeting 'unforeseeable' risks it is really, if you believe the government has any motive for it other than ensuring electoral safety, a polite way of talking about the prospect of another Cold War with one of those two nations.
posted by Matthew @ 12/06/2006 09:20:00 AM
Comments: 15
