And we are going to announce that we might use the weapons first, against a non-nuclear-armed state.
That's not what the
Integrated Review on Tuesday said:
The UK will not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968 (NPT). This assurance does not apply to any state in material breach of those non-proliferation obligations. However, we reserve the right to review this assurance if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary.
So the policy is we would not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state which is a party to the NPT. That list in full of states that are not party to the NPT:
- India
- Pakistan
- Israel
- North Korea
- South Sudan
Of those five, three have nuclear weapons (North Korea, India and Pakistan), one is ambiguous but you'd have to be crackers not to think they have them (Israel) and I struggle to see a scenario in which would ever need to threaten or use nuclear weapons on the remaining state (South Sudan) unless they developed or acquired nuclear weapons! The assurance is also removed from any non-nuclear state who is in material breach of the NPT which doesn't seem a particularly unreasonable position to take as does the position of being open to reviewing that assurance in light of changing circumstances particular with regards to chemical and biological weapons (something which we clearly have the capacity to produce ourselves but don't maintain useable stockpiles thereof so the only available deterrent on a similar scale is nuclear weapons) or with regards to someone coming up with something new. I will accept the latter is more muddy than perhaps would be nice however.
So I'm not convinced that we're suddenly changing our posture with regards to the use of nuclear weapons particularly with respect to first use or use against non-nuclear weapon states. But perhaps I've missed something in the Integrated Review or elsewhere?
I seem to recall that we are committed to a gradual reduction as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and we spend a lot of time trying to prevent other countries from acquiring these things.
We are and whilst increasing the available stockpile is a step in the wrong direction I wouldn't lose sight of the where we are on our journey in terms of nuclear disarmament compared to the other NPT recognised nuclear weapon states. We are (and will continue to be) the only member of the five that has a single nuclear weapon system and we have (and will continue to have) the smallest stockpile of warheads. There's far more work to be done by Russia and the US (both still possess thousands of warheads) on nuclear disarmament than there is by us! I also suspect that our position as trying to encourage others to continue the journey towards a nuclear free world isn't wholly undermined by our increase for the simple reason that the justification given does, to me, hang together.
Again from the Integrated Review:
We have previously identified risks to the UK from major nuclear armed states, emerging nuclear states, and state-sponsored nuclear terrorism. Those risks have not gone away. Some states are now significantly increasing and diversifying their nuclear arsenals. They are investing in novel nuclear technologies and developing new ‘warfighting’ nuclear systems which they are integrating into their military strategies and doctrines and into their political rhetoric to seek to coerce others. The increase in global competition, challenges to the international order, and proliferation of potentially disruptive technologies all pose a threat to strategic stability. The UK must ensure potential adversaries can never use their capabilities to threaten us or our NATO Allies. Nor can we allow them to constrain our decision-making in a crisis or to sponsor nuclear terrorism.
Now, personally, I'm not convinced (even as someone who believes we maintain the nuclear deterrent) that responding to the above necessarily requires increasing the available warheads from not more than 225 (the pre-2010 stockpile) so moving to not more than 260 I'm dubious about. But I can see the logic in ditching the target of not more than 180 which was set back in 2010. The world has, sadly, gotten more unstable since 2010 (back in 2010, for instance, Russia wasn't seen as the problem it now is, that only really got started up again post Ukraine civil war in 2014). Certainly Russia is modernising their existing weapons capabilities (new ballistic missile submarines, new ground and sub launched ballistic missiles are all entering or have entered service) and is claiming to have developed or be developing all sorts of new and interesting nuclear weapons systems (nuclear powered torpedoes and cruise missiles, a hypersonic glide vehicle able to evade convention defences, etc) though I think a hefty dose of salt should be applied to those claims! Plus China similarly is taking steps to improve their nuclear weapons capabilities including new ground and sea based ballistic missiles and a new ballistic missile submarine (though their stockpile is only a hundred or so warheads larger than ours so the scale is clearly smaller).
We are, and remain, signatory to the NPT but there is a certain element of tilting at windmills going on at the moment and I'm not sure that the UK increasing the total available warhead stockpile by less than a hundred really registers as much more than a drop in the ocean sadly.
Can anybody talk me out of finding this the most depressing news for a long time?
I don't think so. It is depressing and it is concerning. As I said before I'm someone who supports the maintenance of the UK nuclear deterrent and I think it's depressing that we're increasingly a stockpile full stop let alone beyond the pre-2010 level of 225 (if the decision had been to cancel the reduction to 180 and return to 225 of the pre-2010 era that would have been depressing but far less so than actively increasing it beyond that level). I suppose the only thing I would say is that I don't personally see it necessarily as being Boris doing a spot of willy waving and playing to the base. Certainly in regards to Tory voters the polling suggests that he doesn't need to do that right now!