Don’t Bomb Iran

In the 17th century, Sir Henry Wooton is credited with saying “An Ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.” At the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) meeting in Vienna, Britain’s ambassador claimed the UK is not modernizing its Trident nuclear weapons system, not changing Trident’s capability, and there is no change in the UK’s nuclear posture. He should talk to his ministers in London, who say the UK IS doing all these things. Ambassador Duncan, phone home.

Trident: UK Government tells one story to the UN, the opposite at home

On April 30 2007 at the first preparatory meeting of the NPT review conference, in Vienna, the head of the UK delegation’s introductory speech[i] included the following claims which do not tally with what ministers have revealed in London (his emphases below):

19…… The UK is retaining not modernizing its deterrent. There is no change in the capabilities of the system, no move to produce more useable weapons and no change in nuclear posture or doctrine. The UK’s nuclear weapon system will not be designed for war-fighting use in military campaigns. It is a strategic deterrent that we would only ever contemplate using in extreme circumstances of self-defence..

21 …The UK reaffirms its support for Nuclear Weapon Free Zones … The UK has now signed and ratified protocols in respect of 3 Nuclear Weapon Free Zones

Taking these claims one at a time, it is easy to find completely different statements by ministers in Britain:

Not modernizing?

“The UK is retaining not modernizing its deterrent.” said the Ambassador. Perhaps he should ask his boss, the UK Foreign Secretary, who told Parliament on March 14 “all nuclear-armed states have indeed taken steps to modernise and keep up to date the weapons and facilities that they have. That is exactly the decision that the United Kingdom is making, no more and no less”.[ii] As Kofi Annan said in one of his last official speeches in 2006 “States which ‘modernise’ their nuclear weapons “should not imagine that this will be accepted as compatible with the NPT” [iii]

No capability change?

The UK is currently upgrading Trident missiles with the US Mark 4A reentry vehicle. giving it a ground burst fuse device (the MC4700). As the Federation of American Scientists told the Guardian [iv] “The bottom line is that the new [device], which we now know is being added to the British system, is part of an effort to increase the warfighting effectiveness [of the Trident D5 missiles].” The head of the US Navy’s Strategic Systems Command, Rear Admiral George P Nanos reportedly said: “just by changing the fuse in the Mk4 re-entry body, you get a significant improvement”. The US re-entry vehicles are also said to be maneuverable and with GPS guidance have an accuracy of less than 10 metres, making them ‘useful’ as non-nuclear conventional weapons. “I had GPS signal all the way down and could steer it.” said a US admiral of a March 2005 test[v]. These and other capability improvements cast doubt on the UK’s proud claim to uphold the Hague Code of Conduct, where it signed up to “maximum possible restraint” on such developments [vi]

Increased warheads and targeting capability: This year the UK announced it is reducing the total number of warheads on Trident from ‘under 200’ to ‘under 160’, and claims this is a disarmament measure. However, Trident’s predecessor in the 1990s, Polaris, deployed a total of 128 warheads at most, capable of hitting 64 targets. From 128 warheads to about 160 is not much of an arms reduction. Further, Polaris delivered two warheads to each target, (a total of 64 targets); while Trident’s 160 warheads can be delivered to 160 different targets[vii]. From 64 targets to 160 targets is not much of an arms reduction since the 1990s.

No change in nuclear posture?

The UK nuclear posture for years has been changeable and contradictory, so perhaps the Ambassador simply means there is no change in the unclear ambiguity! Sometimes the UK ‘guarantees’ no-first-use against non-nuclear states, but this guarantee was abandoned during the illegal invasion of Iraq. UK defence minister Geoff Hoon said Britain was prepared to use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes if it thought there was a threat of chemical or biological weapon attack on British forces: “If there is a threat to our deployed forces, if they come under attack by weapons of mass destruction, and by that specifically chemical biological weapons, then we would reserve the option” [to use nuclear weapons] [viii]

Not designed for warfighting?

Whatever the announced nuclear use policy is, and however that may change in time of war such as Iraq, clearly the Trident system is designed for and capable of being used for war fighting. Furthermore, although Trident warheads were originally designed to be of a fixed yield, the government has revealed that they now have a variable yield warhead (though the UK refuses to reveal the power of such mini-nukes, such weapons are regarded as for use in a warfighting capability).

Only a strategic weapon?

Perhaps the ambassador should tell this to the Navy, whose website currently (May 2007) states[ix] the opposite: it “provides the United Kingdom’s strategic and sub-strategic nuclear deterrent”. In 1998, Blair’s Strategic Defence Review announced that “in addition to its strategic deterrent role, Trident would also perform the sub-strategic nuclear role, formerly assigned to RAF Tornado aircraft”[x] Tornado nukes were described to Parliament in 2006 as also serving “in the tactical role for use against enemy troops and equipment on the battlefield”[xi]. Trident is also assigned to NATO, which has a clear possible-first-use doctrine. The Government says it has dropped the sub-strategic role for Trident, but clearly the Navy hasn’t.

Support Nuclear Weapons Free Zones?

The UK claims it supports the Pelindaba Treaty (African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty), which it has signed and ratified. But it specifically excludes[xii] it’s African island possession of Diego Garcia, whose population it illegally removed and where the USA almost certainly has deployed nuclear weapons.

Ambassador Duncan’s weblog reveals an email address for any comments:

Footnotes

---

 

[i] Statement by Ambassador John Duncan, head of UK delegation to the 1^st preparatory committee for the eighth review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Vienna 30 April 2007 http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom07/statements/30aprilUK.pdf

 

 

 

 

[ii] Hansard March 14 2007, column 302 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070314/debtext/70314-0005.htm
[iii] Speaking at Princeton in Nov 2006 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10767.doc.htm

[iv] see http://dontbombiran.info/?p=283 and Guardian Wednesday March 14, 2007
[v] Cited in http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/us_nuclear_forces_2006.htm

 

 

[vi] Hague Code of Conduct: Article 3c To exercise maximum possible restraint in the development, testing and deployment of Ballistic Missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, including, where possible, to reduce national holdings of such missiles, in the interest of global and regional peace and security;

[vii] Although Trident has the same number of missiles as its 1990’s predecessor Polaris, each Trident missile can deliver warheads to 12 different targets in comparison to Polaris missiles, which could only hit one target, with two warheads per target. There is also doubt about the sincerity of the UK government boast it is now reducing the total number of deployable warheads beingfrom ‘under 200’ to ‘under 160’ - although many analysts believe including SIPRI believe that only about 144 warheads were ever deployed on Trident.

 

[viii] Geoff Hoon, March 2003 “If there is a threat to our deployed forces, if they come under attack by weapons of mass destruction, and by that specifically chemical biological weapons, then we would reserve the option in an appropriate case, subject to the conditions that I have referred to when I was talking to the select committee, to use nuclear weapons. http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/uknukepolicy.htm

See also http://www.middlepowers.org/pnnd/UnitedKingdomsNuclearDoctrine.htm

See also “Clearly if there were strong evidence of an imminent attack if we knew that an attack was about to occur and we could use our weapons to protect against it.”

See also “We have always made it clear that we would reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in conditions of extreme self defence.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2717939.stm 2 feb 2003

 

[ix] http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2420

 

[x] G. Robertson, Secretary of State for Defence, House of Commons Written Answers March 1999 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990326/text/90326w06.htm

 

 

[xi] . 32. By the final decade of the Cold War, the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent had three main elements: strategic, sub-strategic and tactical. Polaris Chevaline served in the strategic role for use against multiple targets in the adversary’s homeland. The sub-strategic role for a more limited strike against individual targets on enemy territory was fulfilled by the WE 177 free-fall bomb carried by the RAF’s Vulcan and Tornado aircraft. Lower yield WE 177 devices served in the tactical role for use against enemy troops and equipment on the battlefield. [25]. Defence Select committee Eight Report, June 2006 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98605.htm#a3 [25]

[xii] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Pelindaba#Diego_Garcia