Going Ballistic
The British Government is talking about replacing its aging Trident nuclear missile system with something more sophisticated. The current nuclear deterrent can be launched from a fleet of submarines, one of which is on constant alert 24/7 in some naturally unspecified part of the world. Each of the four nuclear-powered submarines carries sixteen American built Trident missiles, and each missile can be equipped with up to eight nuclear warheads. Each of the 128 warheads is five times more powerful than the bomb dropped upon Hiroshima in 1945. That’s an awful lot of fire-power, but who and where is the enemy?
Britain’s Defence Secretary John Reid is a little hazy on that subject. Given that the Russians have joined the Western alliance and are to all intents and purposes on our side now, the threat from them can certainly not be as great as during the Cold War era. Perhaps we need to be wary of nuclear weaponry already in the hands of so called “rogue states”. Israel perhaps? Or do we need updated nuclear weaponry to further the War on Terror? All the Defence Secretary seemed prepared to say was that “We face a range of threats at this moment – running from individual acts of terrorism through to nuclear threats. We need a range of responses that include special forces right through to nuclear threats”.
The defence establishment is reluctant to enlighten us on where these challenges may emanate from, on the grounds that our national security might be compromised. Thus the Ministry of Defence has refused requests under the Freedom of Information Act for documentation on the costs of the new weaponry. Nor will it become party to any discussions about what nuclear weapons are for. It simply argues that there is “strong public interest” in Britain maintaining a “credible nuclear deterrent”. The government is going to permit a parliamentary debate on the subject, but will not allow our elected representatives to vote on the issue, presumably on the grounds that those who serve the military machine know best, and we all ought to trust them. It is a peculiar understanding of democracy and the democratic process if parliament can be excluded from voting on important matters of life and death.
In many respects the argument for nuclear weapons is reduced to the childish response “He’s got one so I want one”, and the bizarre conviction that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction somehow makes our world a safer place. Critics have been quick to point out that the £25 billion that updating the weaponry will cost could be better spent elsewhere by providing 20,000 hospital consultants, 60 new hospitals and 800 new schools, or if one is interested in bread and circuses, ten lots of Olympic Games.
It’s times like these that I’m glad to be a citizen of a small nuclear free island nation in a nuclear free Pacific. New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy emerged from debate in the late 1960’s about the wisdom of augmenting primary reliance on hydro-electric generation of energy with nuclear fuelled generators. In 1976 a Royal Commission was established to enquire further into this question. It was inundated with petitions from communities opposed to the nuclear option and its report suggested that there was no need to embark upon a nuclear programme until possibly the twenty-first century.
Since that time the New Zealand public’s anti-nuclear stance has become even more pronounced. This was largely triggered by the regular visits under the ANZUS defence protocols of American warships to New Zealand harbours, and by the refusal of the US military to declare whether these vessels carried nuclear weapons or were nuclear powered. Large-scale public protests, including flotillas of small leisure craft, began to greet each arriving battleship. Citizens were galvanised into making New Zealand nuclear-free by declaring one’s own home to be in the first instance nuclear free. My mother, who to that point had never protested about anything, asked me to get her a nuclear-free sign which she displayed prominently: “You are Entering a Nuclear Free Property”. This and other campaigns caught the public imagination encouraging people to believe that they could make a difference.
That difference became apparent to the world when in 1987, the New Zealand Labour Government passed its Nuclear-Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, which amongst other things prevented visits by nuclear-propelled or nuclear-armed vessels. The Government was henceforward able to decide whether to admit to New Zealand waters a vessel that may or may not be carrying nuclear weapons. This had never been done by any other country before or since. The United States was predictably angered by this legislation and unilaterally declared that New Zealand was no longer part of the ANZUS alliance. So irate was US Secretary Casper Weinberger that he declared that the American government would have to go over the head of the New Zealand government in order to appeal directly to the people. Many, myself included, noted that one US government-supported ploy was its endorsement of the noted Christian evangelist Luis Palau, whose “Gospel” message at a series of crusades was that New Zealanders were in mortal peril and should seek the protection not in the first instance of God, but of the American nuclear umbrella. US attempts to change the New Zealand legislation continue to this day, the most recent being its embracing of Australia but exclusion of New Zealand in free trade conversations.
Had Casper Weinberger had his finger on the public pulse of New Zealanders he would have been more cautious about his imperialistic utterance. Polls vary but all show that between 60-70% of New Zealanders remain committed to a nuclear free future for their country. Even the opposition National party, which had hoped at one point to capitalise on pro-American disaffection with the Labour legislation, has had to adopt a nuclear free stance. Had it not done so it would have been unelectable.
New Zealand didn’t stop at putting its own house in order, but went on to advocate a nuclear-free Pacific, and to press for anti-nuclear legislation in regional and international forums. It’s a shame that Britain at this juncture in history could not look to the New Zealand experience, and begin to move towards a nuclear-free future for her citizens. And sadly, to this day New Zealand remains the only country in the world to have enshrined in legislation a non-nuclear policy.
Britain’s Defence Secretary John Reid is a little hazy on that subject. Given that the Russians have joined the Western alliance and are to all intents and purposes on our side now, the threat from them can certainly not be as great as during the Cold War era. Perhaps we need to be wary of nuclear weaponry already in the hands of so called “rogue states”. Israel perhaps? Or do we need updated nuclear weaponry to further the War on Terror? All the Defence Secretary seemed prepared to say was that “We face a range of threats at this moment – running from individual acts of terrorism through to nuclear threats. We need a range of responses that include special forces right through to nuclear threats”.
The defence establishment is reluctant to enlighten us on where these challenges may emanate from, on the grounds that our national security might be compromised. Thus the Ministry of Defence has refused requests under the Freedom of Information Act for documentation on the costs of the new weaponry. Nor will it become party to any discussions about what nuclear weapons are for. It simply argues that there is “strong public interest” in Britain maintaining a “credible nuclear deterrent”. The government is going to permit a parliamentary debate on the subject, but will not allow our elected representatives to vote on the issue, presumably on the grounds that those who serve the military machine know best, and we all ought to trust them. It is a peculiar understanding of democracy and the democratic process if parliament can be excluded from voting on important matters of life and death.
In many respects the argument for nuclear weapons is reduced to the childish response “He’s got one so I want one”, and the bizarre conviction that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction somehow makes our world a safer place. Critics have been quick to point out that the £25 billion that updating the weaponry will cost could be better spent elsewhere by providing 20,000 hospital consultants, 60 new hospitals and 800 new schools, or if one is interested in bread and circuses, ten lots of Olympic Games.
It’s times like these that I’m glad to be a citizen of a small nuclear free island nation in a nuclear free Pacific. New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy emerged from debate in the late 1960’s about the wisdom of augmenting primary reliance on hydro-electric generation of energy with nuclear fuelled generators. In 1976 a Royal Commission was established to enquire further into this question. It was inundated with petitions from communities opposed to the nuclear option and its report suggested that there was no need to embark upon a nuclear programme until possibly the twenty-first century.
Since that time the New Zealand public’s anti-nuclear stance has become even more pronounced. This was largely triggered by the regular visits under the ANZUS defence protocols of American warships to New Zealand harbours, and by the refusal of the US military to declare whether these vessels carried nuclear weapons or were nuclear powered. Large-scale public protests, including flotillas of small leisure craft, began to greet each arriving battleship. Citizens were galvanised into making New Zealand nuclear-free by declaring one’s own home to be in the first instance nuclear free. My mother, who to that point had never protested about anything, asked me to get her a nuclear-free sign which she displayed prominently: “You are Entering a Nuclear Free Property”. This and other campaigns caught the public imagination encouraging people to believe that they could make a difference.
That difference became apparent to the world when in 1987, the New Zealand Labour Government passed its Nuclear-Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, which amongst other things prevented visits by nuclear-propelled or nuclear-armed vessels. The Government was henceforward able to decide whether to admit to New Zealand waters a vessel that may or may not be carrying nuclear weapons. This had never been done by any other country before or since. The United States was predictably angered by this legislation and unilaterally declared that New Zealand was no longer part of the ANZUS alliance. So irate was US Secretary Casper Weinberger that he declared that the American government would have to go over the head of the New Zealand government in order to appeal directly to the people. Many, myself included, noted that one US government-supported ploy was its endorsement of the noted Christian evangelist Luis Palau, whose “Gospel” message at a series of crusades was that New Zealanders were in mortal peril and should seek the protection not in the first instance of God, but of the American nuclear umbrella. US attempts to change the New Zealand legislation continue to this day, the most recent being its embracing of Australia but exclusion of New Zealand in free trade conversations.
Had Casper Weinberger had his finger on the public pulse of New Zealanders he would have been more cautious about his imperialistic utterance. Polls vary but all show that between 60-70% of New Zealanders remain committed to a nuclear free future for their country. Even the opposition National party, which had hoped at one point to capitalise on pro-American disaffection with the Labour legislation, has had to adopt a nuclear free stance. Had it not done so it would have been unelectable.
New Zealand didn’t stop at putting its own house in order, but went on to advocate a nuclear-free Pacific, and to press for anti-nuclear legislation in regional and international forums. It’s a shame that Britain at this juncture in history could not look to the New Zealand experience, and begin to move towards a nuclear-free future for her citizens. And sadly, to this day New Zealand remains the only country in the world to have enshrined in legislation a non-nuclear policy.
posted by MichaelElliott @ 11:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home