Can Gordon Brown rid the world of nuclear weapons?

Published on Saturday 21 March 2009 18:34

THE year is 2051. Climate change has pushed up global temperatures by two degrees, leading to unprecedented levels of emigration across the planet and widespread unrest. Western Europe, still bankrupt after the Great Depression of the 2010s, is unable to cope with the massive upheaval. A new ultra-nationalist government in Russia, made rich by its vast reserves of gas, looks on with contempt, and invades. Under the threat of nuclear attack, Eastern Europe falls, France and Germany follow. And as

The fanciful scenario as described above couldn't happen, of course. Or could it? For decades, it is that question-mark, however unlikely, which has largely ensured that Britain's political leaders have opted to remain part of the world's elite nuclear club. The UK's 160 warheads, carried in the four Trident submarines, HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance, and housed at Faslane naval base on the Clyde, provide enough destructive potential to ensure any potential invader knows that they risk unimaginable catastrophe on their own soil. Each of the warheads is estimated to be eight times as powerful as 'Little Boy', the bomb which flattened Hiroshima in August 1945, resulting in the immediate deaths of between 70,000 and 130,000 people.

One of the four subs patrols the oceans constantly, its whereabouts a closely-guarded secret. For the supporters of Britain's nuclear deterrent, the country's ability to strike from one those subs, at any time, is the cornerstone of our security.

But last week, in a speech in London, Gordon Brown reignited the debate over whether this terrible power should be ended for good. "Britain has cut the number of its nuclear warheads by 50% since 1997," he declared. "If it is possible to reduce the number of UK warheads further, consistent with our national deterrence requirements and with the progress of multilateral discussions, Britain will be ready to do so."

From the sidelines, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament looked on approvingly. Brown, they note, has struck a different tone from the more belligerent Tony Blair, keen to show countries in the non-nuclear club that it is serious about wiping out the spectre of the mushroom cloud.

For cynics, Brown's moves are almost risible, however. Britain's global impact pales into insignificance next to America and Russia who, despite 20 years of reductions in armaments, still hold as many as 16,000 warheads between them. So is Brown wasting his breath? Worse, is he being reckless with Britain's security? Or could he go down in history as the man who rid us of the threat of the mushroom cloud?

THE timing of Brown's speech last week was important, coming as hopes for a complete end to nuclear weaponry gather a genuine head of steam. President Barack Obama has made clear he intends to "make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in nuclear policy". Next year, the 189 signatories of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meet for talks which, optimists hope, could lead to America and Russia cutting their warheads down to as few as 1,000 each. Brown's intervention was seen as a clear sign that, as in the financial field, he wants to act as broker on the world stage.

The substance of his speech was a call for a new "grand bargain" on nuclear power. Non-nuclear states should be persuaded not to develop the bomb by clear, unambiguous evidence from nuclear states that they are disarming. "We cannot expect to successfully exercise moral and political leadership in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons if we ourselves do not demonstrate leadership on the question of disarmament of our weapons," Brown said.

The test case, as Brown agreed, is Iran. Its fast-developing nuclear programme has led to fears in Israel that it is now only 18 months from developing its own warhead. The threat of a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race thus grows nearer, warns former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind. "If Iran does achieve nuclear status it doesn't just affect things with regard to Israel, there's also the question of how the states around it would react, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. All may feel obliged to become nuclear powers."

Brown's grand bargain does not appear to be working. He himself said last week that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still refusing to co-operate with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority) and was concealing his country's nuclear activities. Last week, Obama began a new charm offensive, using a direct TV address to the Iranian people to offer a "new beginning" in relations. The move is in advance of a concentrated diplomatic effort to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme. But there remain serious doubts about whether a deal will be reached.

Brown's bargain was then hit with another blow, barely hours after he had spoken. In Moscow, President Dmitri Medvedev used a speech before army chiefs in Moscow to announce the "large-scale" rearmament of his nuclear forces, as part of a bid to bolster the country against Nato. The threat from North Korea – itself still testing nuclear technology – was not even mentioned last week, but causes military chiefs sleepless nights.

Such uncertainty makes a deal on nuclear disarmament less likely. But would it really matter if Britain went ahead anyway and disarmed? Earlier this year, one retired senior officer, General Lord Ramsbotham, declared the UK deterrent was "virtually irrelevant" in the context of the global game. Anti-nuclear campaigners, including the SNP, argue Britain should scrap the vastly expensive Trident programme and give up the fallacious notion of being a global power.

The uncertainty principle suggests otherwise. "None of us know what is going to happen in the next 40 years," says Rifkind. "You could get some extreme ultra nationalist government in Russia. The US might become preoccupied with China and the Far East. If Western Europe was unable to defend itself against Russia then it could very quickly be subject to nuclear blackmail."

For some, nuclear weapons cannot simply be "de-invented". And for so long as states continue to begin conflicts with one another, they will always remain. With perhaps only 12 months left in Downing Street, and more missionary-like than ever, Brown last week indicated he intends to try and break the chains of history. But the suspicion remains that a new era of dtente remains a distant dream.

Warhead stockpiles

USA: 3,575

RUSSIA: 3,113

FRANCE: 300

CHINA: More than 125

UK: 160

ISRAEL 80

PAKISTAN: 60

INDIA: 50

NORTH KOREA: Less than 10

Deployed weapons only. Does not include short-range warheads, tactical warheads, gravity bombs, reserve warheads and warheads awaiting decommissioning.