Nuclear codes
Apparently President Chirac has given President Sarkozy the codes required to launch a nuclear attack. So presumably they are in the process of being changed from 291132 to 280155.
Which gets me thinking. Does the same thing happen in Britain - do we have nuclear codes? Maybe President Bush keeps them for us. And what would happen if someone refused to hand them over? I suppose someone has the authority to issue new codes - who is that person? And does the Queen have a role in this?
Labels: Nukes
Charles Moore?
Surely
this article was written by someone other than Charles Moore, despite his name being on it?
I give as evidence:
Like the character in When Harry Met Sally, North Korea and Iran have looked at the nuclear powers and said: "I'll have what she's having."
When Harry Met Sally is a popular (at the time) film, which was released only 18 years ago in 1989. If this is Charles Moore, then surely it is the most recent cultural reference he has ever made?
Update: NO, IT ISN'T. I hadn't got to the end of the article. It ends with, and this is scarely believeable, a reference to Bridget Jones, who I think was invented in the early 1990s.
Vanguard, Valiant, Vengeance, Victorious. As Bridget Jones might put it, v. v. v. v. important.
Labels: Nukes, Telegraph
The Top Dog Index
Despite my predictions, the Henry 'Scoop' Jackson Society haven't come up with this yet, so I've made a stab. The idea is twofold - first, to try to justify their famous statement, that Britain was 'unquestionably the world's second most important power', and second, to provide an index for global power comparable to what the World Economic Forum's
Global Competitive Index does for, er, global competitiveness. So far I've concentated on hard power, ie military spending, but I've also included economic power in that (though not trade yet, which I might include in soft power - you can't expect consistency, I'm afraid).
As I'm pretty sure the World Economic Forum knows, you can just about get any result you want in these things by choosing your inputs, and as importantly, your weightings. I've gone for seven categories - Population, GDP, PPP GDP, Military Spending, No. of troops, Aircraft Carriers, and UN SC permanent membership. Clearly there is some overlap here - GDP for instance with population, but also things like troops and military spending. But hey-ho. The weightings I began with are 18% for population, 30% for GDP, 5% for PPP GDP, 15% for troops, 25% for military spending, 5% for aircraft carriers and 2% for UNSC membership.
Of the seven categories the US scores highest for four categories, China two, and all Permanent Members in one. For each category I take each country's ratio of the highest value, and then multiply it by the weighting. So for GDP, for instance, the US has the highest at $13.26bn, and Lebanon's is $0.022bn, so Lebanon's score is 0.22/13.26 which equals 0.2% of the US level, and then for both the US and Lebanon it is multiplied by the 30% weighting for that category. These are then summed across the categories to give a total score out of 100.
Anyway, drum roll (note the category scores are before weighting...
Top Dog Index | Country | Pop. | GDP | PPP | Troops | Mil. Ex | A/C | UN | TOTAL |
| United States | 23% | 100% | 100% | 63% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 80.58 |
| China | 100% | 19% | 81% | 100% | 16% | 0% | 100% | 48.77 |
| India | 85% | 6% | 30% | 59% | 4% | 8% | 0% | 28.82 |
| Russia | 11% | 7% | 13% | 46% | 28% | 8% | 100% | 21.17 |
| Japan | 10% | 34% | 31% | 11% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 17.15 |
| United Kingdom | 5% | 18% | 15% | 8% | 9% | 17% | 100% | 13.31 |
| France | 5% | 17% | 15% | 11% | 9% | 8% | 100% | 12.95 |
| Germany | 6% | 22% | 20% | 13% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 12.25 |
| Italy | 4% | 14% | 13% | 10% | 5% | 8% | 0% | 8.93 |
| Korea | 4% | 7% | 8% | 30% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 8.65 |
| Brazil | 14% | 7% | 13% | 13% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 8.18 |
| Pakistan | 12% | 1% | 3% | 27% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 6.91 |
| Indonesia | 17% | 3% | 8% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6.41 |
| Turkey | 6% | 3% | 5% | 23% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 6.09 |
| Spain | 3% | 9% | 9% | 8% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 5.76 |
| Iran | 5% | 2% | 5% | 24% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 5.68 |
| Mexico | 8% | 6% | 9% | 9% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 5.31 |
Pretty damn exciting, eh? Anyway on the current hard-power version of the "
Top Dog" index, I'm afraid, at least for the H'S'JS, that the UK is not 2nd, at least not 'unquestionably'. The United States is the clear leader, with 81%, followed by China, 49%, then India, 29%, Russia, 21%, Japan 17%, then us, on a respectable 13%, slightly higher than France and Germany. Italy just pips Korea and Brazil.
Update: In response to Nick's comments, I've changed it about a bit, lowering population, adding a Nuke's column (you can see the weights at the top of the table)
Top Dog Index | Weight | 13 | 30 | 5 | 10 | 25 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 100.00 |
| Name | Pop | GDP | PPP | Troops | Mil.Ex | A/C | Nukes | UN | Total |
| United States | 23% | 100% | 100% | 63% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 86.28 |
| China | 100% | 19% | 81% | 100% | 16% | 0% | 100% | 100% | 48.77 |
| India | 85% | 6% | 30% | 59% | 4% | 8% | 100% | 0% | 31.65 |
| Russia | 11% | 7% | 13% | 46% | 28% | 8% | 100% | 100% | 28.33 |
| United Kingdom | 5% | 18% | 15% | 8% | 9% | 17% | 100% | 100% | 22.66 |
| France | 5% | 17% | 15% | 11% | 9% | 8% | 100% | 100% | 22.13 |
| Japan | 10% | 34% | 31% | 11% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 16.13 |
| Pakistan | 12% | 1% | 3% | 27% | 1% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 14.95 |
| Israel | 1% | 1% | 1% | 7% | 2% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 11.64 |
| Germany | 6% | 22% | 20% | 13% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 11.31 |
| Italy | 4% | 14% | 13% | 10% | 5% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 8.20 |
| Korea | 4% | 7% | 8% | 30% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6.94 |
| Brazil | 14% | 7% | 13% | 13% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 6.84 |
| Spain | 3% | 9% | 9% | 8% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 5.21 |
| Indonesia | 17% | 3% | 8% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4.86 |
| Turkey | 6% | 3% | 5% | 23% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4.67 |
| Mexico | 8% | 6% | 9% | 9% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4.47 |
Labels: defence, economics, England, newspapers, Nukes, politics
Callaghan, economic troubles and Nukes
Oliver notes in this
post that:
Ford worked with two Prime Ministers, one of them appalling (Harold Wilson) and one, in my minority view, good and underrated (James Callaghan). Wilson - a man of colossal vanity who was convinced he was held in high regard in Washington - wrote to Ford in October 1974 in effect giving an ultimatum that Britain would make defence cuts regardless of the damage to Nato's capabilities. Ford responded with a measured statement of fact, worrying about the effect on US allies and expressing the hope that the US would not be the only power capable of international intervention. When Callaghan sought Ford's assistance in the sterling crisis of 1976 - a long story, much recounted, in which I consider that Callaghan and his Chancellor, Denis Healey, performed with credit and to the lasting benefit of the country - the President immediately offered to help.
New government documents released
today (about 20 years too late) appear (at least on the Guardian's reporting) to refine this story - Callaghan might have also made a similar threat:
As telephone transcripts released today show, Callaghan used the questions over Britain's Nato commitment in an attempt to win American and German support to press the IMF to come up with more flexible terms for the loan. He told President Gerald Ford that without an IMF solution "we would be forced into action which would put at risk this country's contribution as an ally and a partner in the western alliance".
Labels: defence, England, Nukes
Trident
I'll post a
comment I made over at Jamie's:
I'm strangely optimistic about Trident's replacement, or moreover, it not happening. A lot has been made about the lack of controversy over replacing it compared with that of the early 1980s. But there seems also a lack of controversy about scrapping it too. This might reflect general political apathy, or just that the support/opposition for it is spread more evenly across the polical classes.
In the end I think it'll be like ID cards - popular (ish) until the cost is known, and then given a choice of the carriers or the subs they'll go for the carriers.
Labels: Decent Left, defence, England, Nukes, Taxation
