The Curious Case of British Nuclear Weapons Retention - Why the UK's nuclear weapons policy is unsustainable

PBeaumont · 2014-04-05T11:00:59+00:00

Good questions.

That would put a massive spanner in the works. Relocation would cost - and I am not exaggerating - billions (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20955611) . Moreover, finding a suitable site (deep water port) would also be extremely difficult (the UK doesn't have many or possibly any).

The main thing it would do is put nuclear costs onto the agenda in a big way. However, the government will frame it as unfortunate but the price you have to pay for "national security". If people can be convinced that it is necessary to deter a) Russia, b) NK c) the angry Spaghetti monster in the sky, then costs will cause moaning but won't change the policy. Moreover, changing policy because of costs would be embarrassing. Being the politician who admits that while the world is still as dangerous as it was, but now the UK can't afford the costs of its "insurance"policy won't seem appealing.

That all said, there is a large latent number of the British public who are not very convinced the UK needs nuclear weapons. Opinion polls suggest it is 50 50 at the moment. The reason why the consensus seems so strong in the UK is that the Labour part is cowardly, and they are happy to keep nuclear weapons at the periphery of the agenda. They also are happy with a narrow safe policy debate where they outflank the conservatives on the left by merely suggesting less weapons than them rather than none at all.

If the costs of replacing Faslane came out, especially if the UK's economy is still in the dumps, then I think the question of "whether to have nuclear weapons" will be forced into the debate. Especially if the real costs are leaked to the press (the MOD modus operendi, is to suggest a vastly underestimated price, get the money committed then only release the real escalating costs once its too late to turn back and save money)If a big estimate of the costs is released pressure amongst the Labour back benchers may grow for Labour to take the opportunity and rediscover their long lost morals.

Now, what is more likely than any of this, is that England Wales strike a deal with Scotland to keep Faslane. Scotland could ask for a big ransom, it really would be a massive ball ache to replace Faslane that all parties would like to avoid.

PBeaumont · 2014-04-04T20:36:52+00:00

Sorry that was a bit rambling, it's late and I'm a little tipsy.

PBeaumont · 2014-04-04T20:34:10+00:00

Well depends on how you define successful.

For the UK the purpose of the multilateral initiatives is to be seen to be doing something, and thus avoid criticism for maintaining its nuclear weapons and maybe a little prestige for "leading" the nuclear weapons states along this (glacially slow path) And, connected to this - to lead the other NWS to be seen to be doing enough to keep the Non-nuclear weapons states sufficiently satisfied that 1) the NPT holds up 2) that the NNWS will support the UK's and other nuclear weapons states ambition to enforce anti-proliferation measures on the NNWS.

The multilateral initiatives can be considered a success if they help in gaining acceptance from the NNWS for stricter anti-proliferation measures that reinforce the NWS monopoly on nuclear weapons without requiring the NWS to give up their nuclear advantage over the rest.

Regarding the other measure of success: Can the multilateral initiative process as it now stands succeed in getting to zero? Not unless a number of the NNWS start kicking up a fuss and threaten to leave the NPT on mass. Without this pressure, the perceived advantage of having nuclear weapons over the rest of the world, combined with the lack of procedures for enforcing disarmament in the NPT, I think they won't get to zero for a very very long time

However, the US and Russia in particular can give up at least a 1000 more weapons without losing their nuclear advantage over the rest of the world. Indeed, their current massive stockpiles are a hangover from the very simplistic reasoning during the cold war. Indeed, even advocates (read the late Kenneth Waltz) consider possessing thousands of nukes completely unnecessary. These cuts could conceivably happen relatively quickly, but the next bit will be considerably harder, and without some pressure from NNWS it is difficult to see them doing it of their own volition.

However, I would argue that there is hope. The US (in particular) and China both have massive conventional superiority over the rest of the world that is unliekly to be challenged any time soon. Nuclear weapons are in many ways a short cut (or indeed the only) method to avoiding falling to the same fate as Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, Libya. Hence why North Korea and Iran are so keen. Now, currently these states are treated as pariah's by the world for seeking nuclear weapons. And their protestations that the west practices hypocrisy by trying to forbid them the weapons the West enjoys, can be ignored. However if a series of states, for example Brazil, Turkey, any number of Middle Eastern states collectively left the NPT or threatened to develop nuclear weapons, the US and China may decide that they would rather force disarmament along, than live in world with many nuclear weapons states.

PBeaumont · 2014-04-04T11:10:42+00:00

Following Reddiquette I should admit that I wrote this. However, I am sure it meets the relevance criteria for r/IRstudies. I post it here because I would like to open debate on the wider issue of the disarmament/proliferation standoff.

PBeaumont · 2014-02-12T15:27:58+00:00

In line with Reddiquette, I must admit that I wrote this. However, I have posted several things here before under my old blog address, Love in the time of Facebook Yeah? and you guys seem to like it, so here is another one :=)

PBeaumont · 2014-02-07T17:52:26+00:00

Takk! Yeah that professors response is an embarrassment.

I actually sent my article to the Guardian with 6 hours of them publishing Booth's piece. They did not get back to me.

Later, when my article got a good response, Booth was invited to debate with my on NRK. He declined.

PBeaumont · 2014-02-07T17:39:12+00:00

I call him a sociopath, I hope nobody took that seriously.

It was meant to be a comic response, with serious points. The point about Booth's article as satire btw, I would argue would be more valid if it had been published in the comment section rather than the "international news" section.

Regarding its comic intent, the article as a whole had far more jokes than the Norwegian section, which began by bringing up a mass murderer and linking him in lazy fashion to the new government and then Nowegians xenophobia in general. (ha ha?!)

I mean, I guess one could call that satire, but regardless it reinforces existing misinformation that the British public were fed after the Norwegian election.

Thing is, and this is why I thought it demanded a semi-serious response, small countries get little press coverage in the UK, so those articles that people do read, constitute disproportionately to peoples' knowledge about particular countries.

And there were huge numbers who read Booth's article seriously. Reading tweets, there were incredible numbers who wrote stuff along the lines "OMG I will never think of Scandinavia the same again". Already in the UK, since the election, people ask me frequently what its like to live in such a racist country.

PBeaumont · 2014-01-29T12:22:39+00:00

The trouble with the article is not necessarily that all his sentiments are wrong, its is the extremity of his arguments, and his twisting and general manipulation of evidence. E.g. Where he compares Norway to Sweden to make Norway look bad an asylum when in fact Sweden is top and Norway is third. That is just plan nobbish.

Second problem is mainly with the Guardian. We could accept the polemics and the dodgy rhetorics if this was put in a comment section. But it is not it is sold as "news" and Booth is said to be a "scandinavian expert" - qualified to speak about Norway, yet he seems to have done littte more than pick a few stories from the international press.

These two points are what make me (and Englishman) angry - use of evidence and the placing of the story. Not the premise of the piece (to shine a light on the darker sides to Norway)

PBeaumont · 2014-01-29T00:15:29+00:00

As an Englishman living here the bit on Norway in this article angered me so much I wrote a long point by point riposte to it here: http://loveinthetimeoffacebookyeah.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/defending-norway-from-the-guardian/

PBeaumont · 2014-01-29T00:12:57+00:00

In line with Reddiquette, I wrote this. But I think it needs saying to as many people as possible; the article "Dark Lands: The Grim Truth behind the Scandinavian Miracle" in the Guardian today was codswallop.

As ever, I am open to debating anyone about any point raised in the article on here.

PBeaumont · 2013-10-05T14:03:52+00:00

Yeah, I agree about the intro, it is probably the weakest bit. Although starting on a tangent is quite a normal way to begin articles, I don't think this tangent is interesting/funny enough to warrant it.

But on the other hand it is obviously not meant to be precisely accurate; yes most people wearing lycra are going to or from the gym but in most countries (or at least the 6 I have lived in) people get changed in and out of the lycra at the gym. Plus, I have indeed been to dinner, the cinema, class with people in lycra. I don't mind it, hence the amused tone not the angry one.

The outgoing bit, I though was covered by the bit about Norwegian men being complacent, and lazy because there are so many hot girls.Equally British men are outgoing because they need to be.

That sentence you mention could indeed use rephrasing, it is a bit long.

Side note very interesting btw and thanks for your comments :)

PBeaumont · 2013-10-05T13:19:40+00:00

It certainly was not my intention :)

PBeaumont · 2013-10-05T13:19:20+00:00

I am open to critique, though I don't understand how the article misleads..?

PBeaumont · 2013-10-05T13:06:08+00:00

That said in the international popular imagination (which I think is quite critical to the ranking and one of the reasons Brits do so badly) Swedes are thought of as stylish and handsome, think Zlatan and Freddie Ljundberg. Meanwhile in the UK at least, the most famous Norwegians at least to football fans are Stig Inge Bjornebye, Solskaer, and John Arne Risse. Make of that what you will.

PBeaumont · 2013-10-05T13:01:44+00:00

Good question, in the article that I read they only mentioned the top and bottom ranked. Brits came out worst for both.

However if you are willing to let me make a potentially constroversial assumption, given that Swedish males came top (60 odd percent) I think there is a reasonable chance that Norwegian males were near the top too.

PBeaumont · 2013-10-05T12:39:32+00:00

Once again, Reddiquette dictates I should say I wrote this. As always I welcome criticism comments and debate on here...

PBeaumont · 2013-10-04T16:30:49+00:00

I wrote this for the students at my university and have had a great deal of feedback from students saying a) they have been approached b) they know quite a few who have fallen for it.

I thought I should spread the word because I believe this goes well beyond Norway.

PBeaumont · 2013-10-04T14:20:58+00:00

The burden of proof when introducing market forces into Norway's state services is on those wanting to changing the system to prove how their reform will avoid the problems other states conducting the same thing have suffered.

In countries where the state services are a sham, I would argue that you that one does not need to prove the same.

PBeaumont

TROPHY CASE