Should we renew Trident?
Sam Cleary: The next topic is that of national security and the question is, should we renew Trident? James Todd: I’d say the concept of mutually assured destruction has inspired cooperation and cohesion among the UN Security Council nations for the latter part of the 20th century and it probably still plays an important role in maintaining relations with nations that are illegally creating nuclear warheads. While I think it is estimated that half of nations that currently do have nuclear warheads are not part of the Security Council, Trident still acts as a deterrent – a mobile force that can strike anywhere in the world. Tohid Ismail: I am not too scared about us being unable to reply to a nuclear attack. Maintaining dominance and gravitas on the world stage is far more crucial rather than practical usage. We are only on the Security Council for three reasons: our economy, our history, and our military strength; and while we can’t lose our history, if we were to lose our military capability and our nuclear deterrent I think Britain will completely lose its respect on the world stage. Tom Gardner: One of the major problems here is that multilateral nuclear disarmament will never happen. It wouldn’t happen if we replaced our nuclear weapon with some other weapon. It is naïve to assume that we would ever have a world without nuclear weapons or an equivalent weapon in the future because governments are always trying to compete with each other and gain an edge over nuclear technology, just as with any other technological field. So as much as I would like to see a world without nuclear weapons, that will never happen. And the argument that Britain needs to take a lead on this is absolutely absurd: no other country will, so why should Britain? Tom White: Other countries possessing nuclear weapons does not mean we should have them. I don’t think it is because of our nuclear power that we have a position on the world stage – it is also to do with British diplomatic relations and foreign policy overall. Spending a large amount of money on that might not be seen as a defensive weapon, but you can’t really use a nuclear weapon for defence – you can’t strategically nuclear bomb something. So I’m not entirely sure how this is going aid our national presence. Tohid Ismail: You talk about diplomatic relations – but these are based on our strength. If I’m friends with someone else, and they know I am their boss or I’m cleverer than them or I’m physically stronger than them, our relationship will be different. And I think that’s even more true on the international stage – Luca Iovino: That’s gunboat diplomacy. Tohid Ismail: Well, yes. It’s when a country knows that, at the end of the day, if they mess about with us we can sort them out through military means. Nuclear weapons might never be used, but it’s the fact we are a nuclear power that discourages other countries. It’s very symbolic, but it’s an important symbol. Justin Kugel: We’re assuming that nuclear weapons are a deterrent, but I don’t think that is really the case right now. War is moving in a more economic direction. War isn’t about dropping a nuclear bomb any longer; it’s ‘we can sell all your bombs that we have in currency and crash your economy’, or attack your computers. That’s the new framework of war. Tom Gardner: I would argue the only reason it has been pushed in that direction is because of nuclear weapons. If everyone has nuclear weapons, but no one wants to use them, they’re going to look for alternatives. Hybrid warfare and economic warfare is being utilised because of that, not in spite of that. Joe Riordan: I agree with Justin when he said that war is moving in a more economic direction. But I think it is extremely naïve to totally rule out that in the future nuclear weapons will never be used. The world is fast becoming a very, very dangerous place: Russia is causing problems in Eastern Europe. We have seen it initiate a proxy war in Crimea and Ukraine. It’s not unthinkable to suggest that they make further advances. ISIS have recently made massive technological advances and are generating billions of dollars of funding. It is not unfeasible to suggest, they may have a long-range attack weapon, if not a nuclear weapon. I think it is very dangerous to suggest that nuclear weapons would never be used in warfare. We haven’t moved out of that age quite yet. Tom Gardner: The point isn’t that nuclear weapons are needed to be used against less development countries or militant groups, the point is to ensure that the balance of power between major countries is maintained. Then you have other types of militaries that can deal with lesser powers.
36
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker