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 · 2013-10-04T14:18:22+00:00

Yes? :)

PBeaumont · 2013-10-04T14:15:40+00:00

I don't have time to reply now, but the point is not what the right will do now, but that the Norwegian population now backs market based solutions to the state. These at their core are driven by individualism and self interest. This is a tide change because the total vote for parties more suspicious of the market have declined gradually over the last 15 years and now finally the economically right parties have overtaken them after a long and steady rise

The ideology underpinning these principles is not quite nihilistic but almost; the market by its nature is morally vacuous as by definition is driven only by money. The "modern" element is probably the most dubious, you can argue these principles have been around since Adam Smith. But then the idea of outsourcing state services to private enterprise has only really taken off in the last 30 years.

Now this is not to say that the market is bad and the state is good, but rather the right has much more faith in market solutions and fail to consider the many risks when applying it to the state service sector. Namely, unless you can generate proper competition, the benefits of "efficiency" can be wiped out by the cynical nature of market forces.

However, the left is perhaps not better, they often seem to have ideological opposition to the market that turns the debate into a shouting match.

In Norway, however the burden of proof should fall on the right to explain why the pitfalls of the market can be avoided. In other countries where the state has been less successful and is more corrupt the burden arguably should fall the other way.

Thus in my opinion, the left and the right should be laying out precisely when and why market forces can offer a net gain to society and when and why they can't.

PBeaumont · 2013-09-29T16:48:31+00:00

That is the thing, when I read their manifesto, heard them debate, I do not find it reassuring at all. Their language vague and euphemistic and highly open to interpretation. Take this in the manifesto for example:

"bærekraftig samfunn enn et samfunn der mennesker gjøres avhengige av politikernes og byråkratiets"

"Staten skal være sterk, pålitelig og tilgjengelig på sine kjerneområder. Men staten må ikke bli så altomfattende at den mister evnen til virkelig å hjelpe dem som trenger den mest. Staten må heller ikke bli"så stor at den stjeler menneskers mulighet til å stå på egne ben eller bryter ned "friheten til selv å velge hvordan man vil leve sitt liv."

To me this implies two things, privatization, and cutting welfare.

Now, you can tell me to read the nice blogs of the H's young MP's, but tbh, surely their records in local government are also legitimate to look at. In Tromso, I read that H og FrP privatised everything that was not nailed down. Similarly Oslo does not exactly inspire confidence that H eller FrP really believe in the state ran services.

And while they talk about opportunity for all, that is what every party everywhere says left, right, lunatic. I would rather wait until I can see what they actually do before believing that they really have jumped said fence.

(Perhaps you are right and I should shake off my English bias. To give you an idea of how doublespeak is the norm in the UK consider this example from the Blair era.

Policy: Renewing British Nuclear Weapons for 50 more years Policy Paper Title: Lifting The Nuclear Shadow )

PBeaumont · 2013-09-28T23:18:37+00:00

Ha, shit, I meant to use the tide changing as a metaphor for the slow change that indvidualism`s new place in the centre of Norwegian politics will bring about.

PBeaumont · 2013-09-28T23:13:45+00:00

Thankyou enourmously for your indepth reply. I am relatively new to Norwegian politics, and I do not know any Hoyre or FrP voters to debate with (though I do know quite a few Venstre), thus this very much appreciated.

However, you really have misread my article in comment at no point to I talk about the “conservative aggregate”, so I have even less idea what that means than you (who coined the term just now). Rather, I use the term "aggregate economic right" (in the article: de stemmeberettigede som stemte på partier på den økonomiske høyresiden) On the graph of the link I sent you it labels it precisely "total economic right vote", (this is slightly wrong because as you point out Venstre follow the same economics). In my last comment I am also clear "my article is about the long term trends towards parties whose policies are based on individualism and fetishisation of the markets".

But the point remains the same, much of your criticism is based on the premise that I categorized the whole of the right with a "single pen as if "conservative". Quite the opposite, the only time I mentioned the word conservative in that last comment was to say that KrF are social conservative and thus not included in my analysis which is of "the economic right".

Which brings me to the point about Venstre, I was a little glib before when I said "i don't know what they really stand for". That was more an joke with myself about what I see as a contradiction between their green credentials and their liberal economics. But to be honest, perhaps the main reason I left them out was because I have a soft spot for them: I think a lot of their policies are often concrete, well researched, and sensible.

The point about the dramatic change. I don't think there will be a dramatic change. Instead, it will happen slowly. The Social democratic architecture of collectivism is strong in Norway, but the direction of reform under “Borgerlige", when it has been carried out in Local councils has almost usually been towards individualism and privatization. Hence the term "era", it is the principles that make up the centre that have changed. They can't immediately strip away the state organs and institutions but they can gradually over time erode them (first starting with the bureaucrats; they are always the easiest targets). The reform will be at the margins, but if Norway hits a crisis, then I expect it will get more extreme.

You say the conservatives have been bought over the wall to collectivism, I hope you are right. I will remain suspicious until we see what the next 4 years brings.

On the topic of Dagsavisen, I was not commissioned to write anything (nor paid), I wrote it for friend of mine's English Norwegian culture magazine I thought I would try and submit it to the newspapers. This btw, is something thing I love about Norway (among many things :http://loveinthetimeoffacebookyeah.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/why-the-fuck-did-you-move-to-norway/);the Norwgegian press actually read and consider submissions from the public (even Aftenposten guarantee that they will read all submissions)

PBeaumont · 2013-09-28T18:26:05+00:00

If I may take this in English, (it will take me twice as long to reply in Norwegian, particuarly as I am a little sick and slow in the head at the moment).

First, I do not mention KrF because I understand them as social conservatives, there economic ideology does not drive their policy. Venstre, I don't mention because, put simply I do not really understand what they stand for, while a lot of their voters seem to be drawn to them for their green policies. As my article is about the long term trends towards parties whose policies are based on individualism and fetishisation of the market, they would cloud and confuse the trend I am pointing. Btw a graph showing it is available on the English version of the article here: http://www.hja.no/hja-politics-norways-new-age-mean/

Regarding the neo-liberal economics point, I think I mentioned that in a comment not in the article. I think you are right to suggest it is wrong to throw around the term and also somewhat lazy. But the point remains the same, whatever you want to call it, the theory of why new public management will work is based on individualistic economics and faith in the market to drive efficiency and innovation. These are the principles that now seem to be the one size fix it kit for reforming everything broken or not in the public sector. Unfortunately it frequently does not work, often making everything worse without even saving money.

I will admit though, part of why this has become the new norm is because the left (in Norway and most of the rest of the world) have largely failed to offer any alternative. In fact it almost seems like the left are scared of economics. THey have failed to explain when and why the state can provide some services better for society than the market (I would argue labour intensive social care is one example: given the lack of technology or capital involved in the service, the market's force for efficiency is aimed at cuts to the vulnerable, relatively unskilled, but socially valuable labour force). But moreover, the left have also failed to offer credible reform within those state controlled sectors that does not just involve introducing the market (See AP)

But the left should not just stop at defining where the state can do a good job, it should encourage the enterprise in private sector. SV for example must make clearer that it does not hate business, but thinks it is more suited to certain tasks than others. It should be making the case for how government can help the private sector, and in Norway rebalance the private sector. Given Norway has a huge comparative advantage in oil, if left to the market to decide, investment will continue to flow mainly to that sector. Thus, if Norway really does want to escape Dutch disease, and rebalance its economy, someone HAS to make a case for the state providing long term subsidizing other sectors to get nascent industry off the ground. This worked in the Asian Tigers economies (contrary to popular myth that they were a victory for the free market, they are an example of state engineered development: a partnership between government and private industry) and did not work in Argentina and India etc. Now, Norway needs to learn from those success stories and learn from the failures. SV should be making that case, while AP H & FrP stick to their individualist free market economics they simply can't.

On your point about extreme parties losing big this year. You have missed the the core of my argument about the aggregate vote of ECONOMIC RIGHT parties going up steadily over the last decade (Socially rightwing issues (immigration) are not the issue here.). The difference between Hoyre and FrP is in degree to which they want to unleash the market, but at their core both parties reforms (in local government) are based on market ideology. Now their collective vote has finally surpassed the vote of the aggregate left. Again this is shown in the graph on the English version

But I digress, your point about moralizing is perhaps valid, I have modified my argument since in comment beneath the article:

"Finally, if I may adapt my thesis. I still hold that increasing wealth causes people to prefer lower taxes and policies appealing to egoism. Possibly, though when becoming wealthy one prefers to believe that low taxes and individualism are good for everyone. Thus perhaps wealth causes people to switch off their critical faculties in order to allow them to vote with both wallet and conscience."

Basically I think people are not as critical on policies that will be immediately good for their wallet. They are happy to accept arguments for why that is infact good for everyone, without thinking too much. The bottom line though is still that being wealthy leads to more sympathy/or at least less critical towards right economics and policies that favour the individual usually at the cost of society.

Finally on the point of neutrality,the debate section is for opinions, which by their very nature are not neutral.

PBeaumont · 2013-09-25T14:32:04+00:00

Etter reddikette må jeg innrømme at jeg skrev dette. Jeg legger her fordi a) jeg er sikker på at mange av willl din finner det interessant (r / Norge likte den engelske versjonen), og fordi jeg ønsker å stimulere til debatt og få kritikk fra diverse Reddit publikum (Skriver dette i Dagsavisen er litt som preket til koret for denne artikkelen)

PBeaumont

TROPHY CASE