Prime Minister Brown's security and foreign policy advisors should be making it clear to him that the UK has a treaty-based obligation to negotiate away in good faith its entire atomic arsenal "at an early date", following the UK signature on the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, which came into force in 1970. The NPT comes up for another of its quinquennial reviews in New York in May, and the 190-odd non nuclear weapons states parties to the treaty should demand to know of the UK delegation why this obligation has been 100% ignored in the 40-years since the UK voluntarily signed-up to it under a Labour Government.
-Former director, European Proliferation Information Centre (EPIC) London

Current UK nuclear doctrine does not exclude the pre-emptive use of Britain's nuclear weapons to forestall an imminent threat to the UK territory, forces or allies. And that threat would not necessarily have to be from nuclear weapons?it could also be from chemical or biological weapons. Indeed, it may even extend to threats from conventional weaponry.

The possible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-armed states (and especially so against those not armed with any form of WMD)?even when that use is justified through an act of self-defence, in extremis and within the confines of international law?has implications for Britain's negative security assurance. This, in turn, is linked to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ? due for Review in May.

If the Prime Minister is now prepared to say that UK nuclear doctrine no longer allows for use in the precise circumstances set out above, this will represent a change that would be welcomed in the context of the NPT Review Conference.

Trying to make a bold iniative not for the world but for himself as usual the man[?] is a liar , coward and opportunist but not of the first order he is not that sharp .

The International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 that the threat of use of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to International Humanitarian Law. The only area in which they couldn't make a definitive ruling was "in an extreme circumstance of self defence in which the very survival of a state is at stake"

Existing UK nuclear posture suggests a preparedness to use its nuclear weapons under far less catastrophic circumstances, such as in the case of an attack on armed forces in the field using biological or chemical weapons, as demonstrated by the threats made by Geoff Hoon in 2002 and 2003 against Iraq when he was Defence Secretary. Thus those threats represent a conspiracy to commit a war crime, which neither he nor his bosses have ever faced justice for.

Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) includes an obligation to negotiate in good faith for a treaty on general and complete nuclear disarmament. As Dr Lowry states above, the UK remains in flagrant breach of this legally-binding obligation.

In addition, the fact that the UK, the US, Russia, France and other states are providing nuclear technology to India, which is a non-signatory to the NPT, possesses nuclear weapons and is developing mid- and long-range nuclear capable missiles, further undermines the NPT.

Unless Britain commits to leading the way for a Nuclear Weapons Convention in New York for global abolition of nuclear weapons, it remains in breach of its legal obligations and continues to lack any credibility on nuclear disarmament.

The fact that there is a general election coming up should not have a bearing on UK policy going into the NPT talks. Global abolition of nuclear weapons is more important than domestic politics and ought to be an aim shared across the parties. Only vested interests like BAE Systems, who make the Trident submarines, are very keen to ensure that Britain never abandons its nuclear weapons and pushes ahead with the £97 billion Trident replacement programme.

Who are our nuclear weapons pointed at ? I can't think of any practical use for them, except for firing them at asteroids that are going to collide with earth or possibly Godzilla.

I thought we were broke. How can we afford something this expensive when it has no application ?

UPDATE: And the answer is.....None of the above. The prime minister's remarks represent a huge retreat from Downing Street's ambitions of just a few years ago. He might have been persuaded that it was unseemly to fiddle with nuclear doctrine on the brink of an election. It is possible he will have something to offer closer to the Nuclear Security Summit on April 12-13, but we are getting close to election "purdah" on policy.

If some MoD officials are arguing that ?current British doctrine? would allow a nuclear response to a biological or chemical attack, it is far from clear that they are correct.

In the first Gulf War, John Major clearly reiterated in Parliament his rejection of such a doctrine.

Geoff Hoon, when he was Defence Secretary implied at the Defence Select Committee [20/03/2002] and in subsequent media interviews that UK nuclear weapons might be used in response to or even in pre-emption of a biological/chemical weapons attack.

However when challenged in Defence Questions on 15 July 2002 he retracted this:

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether, under United States influence, the Labour Government are abandoning the policy of the last Conservative Administration and all previous British Governments? During the Gulf war, John Major ruled out, explicitly and repeatedly in the House, the use of British nuclear weapons against Iraq, even in reply to a chemical or biological attack on our forces, on
15 Jul 2002 : Column 11
the grounds that a proportionate response could be made using conventional weapons and that Britain would never breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear, as I have made clear to my hon. Friend and the House on a number of occasions, that the British Government's policy in that respect has not changed? We remain committed to a range of international agreements that have been supported by successive Governments. That remains the position, but may I make it clear to him that that position has always been within the wider remit of international law? I have made it clear to him and the House that the British Government would only use nuclear weapons consistent with our obligations under international law.
As there were continuing suggestions that there might be an attempt to alter Government policy during that Summer recess, Early Day Motion 1707 [23/07/2002] was subsequently tabled, and in the short period before the recess attracted rapid support.

As far as I am aware there has been no subsequent change of policy. John Major?s two arguments ? the possibility of a proportionate conventional response and that UK should never breach the NPT - have abiding validity.

It would surely strengthen the leading role the Prime Minister is seeking to play in international efforts to tackle nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and improve the NPT, if Britain were to declare that any nuclear weapons retained during the disarmament process are solely to deter nuclear attack.

EDM 1707

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS 23.07.2002

Savidge, Malcolm 87 signatures
Adams, Irene Anderson, Janet Barnes, Harry
Best, Harold Borrow, David S Bryant, Chris
Caton, Martin Challen, Colin Chaytor, David
Clapham, Michael Clarke, Tom Clarke, Tony
Clwyd, Ann Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy
Cryer, Ann Cunningham, Jim Cunningham, Tony
Dalyell, Tam Davey, Valerie David, Wayne
Davies, Denzil Davis, Terry Dean, Janet
Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Edwards, Huw
Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul
Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Griffiths, Jane
Griffiths, Win Hamilton, David Harris, Tom
Havard, Dai Hermon, Sylvia Hopkins, Kelvin
Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jackson, Glenda
Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Kilfoyle, Peter
King, Andy Kumar, Ashok Lawrence, Jackie
Lazarowicz, Mark Lepper, David Lewis, Terry
Lloyd, Tony Llwyd, Elfyn Luke, Iain
Macdonald, Calum MacDougall, John Mahon, Alice
Marris, Rob Marsden, Paul Marshall, Jim
McCabe, Steve McDonnell, John McKechin, Ann
McWalter, Tony Mole, Chris Morgan, Julie
Mullin, Chris O'Hara, Edward Palmer, Nick
Perham, Linda Pike, Peter L Prentice, Gordon
Purnell, James Russell, Christine Sarwar, Mohammad
Sheridan, Jim Simpson, Alan Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Geraldine Soley, Clive Taylor, David
Trickett, Jon Vis, Rudi Walley, Joan
Williams, Betty Wright, David

That this House welcomes the clear statement by the Defence Secretary in the House on 15th July, that British Government policy has not changed since John Major, during the Gulf War, explicitly rules out the use of British nuclear weapons against Iraq, even in reply to a chemical or biological attack on our forces, on the grounds that a proportionate response could be made using conventional weapons and that Britain would never breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The notion that Britain would never breach the NPT is a fallacy. We breach the NPT by sharing nuclear weapons technology and expertise with the US, by providing nuclear technology to a non-signatory state, India, and by failing to negotiate in good faith towards a treaty on general and complete nuclear disarmament, i.e. a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

However, it should also be noted that the NPT is a discriminatory treaty. It does not provide any assurances that non-nuclear-armed states will not be attacked by nuclear-armed states (so called Negative Security Assurances). Furthermore, it allows the 'recognised' Nuclear Weapon States to retain nuclear arsenals indefinitely but does not allow any other state to develop nuclear weapons, which is clearly discriminatory. If nuclear weapons are considered necessary for the "defence of the realm", then every country in the world ought to have the same right. Alternatively, no country should have nuclear weapons. We can't have it both ways. The only way for the UK to demonstrate any meaningful commitment to a world without nuclear weapons and to fulfil its obligations under the NPT and international law is for it to push for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a global ban on nuclear weapons, and to scrap its plans to replace Trident and its ongoing development of new nuclear warhead facilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and Burghfield.

This issue won't go away. You can be sure that the negative security assurances provided by the nuclear weapons states will come under renewed scrutiny at the NPT Review Conference in New York in May.

If the UK continues to insist on the right to use its nuclear weapons against states that do not have nuclear weapons - or even any chemical or biological weapons - this will continue to ascribe the UK's Trident with a military and security utility that other states have voluntarily foregone. It thereby undermines the UK's case for non-proliferation.

Rest assured, the MoD will be fighting tooth and nail to keep nuclear doctrine as it is currently stated in the hope that a new Conservative government will scotch any idea of revision... Time is running out to make a change. Carpe Diem Prime Minister. If you tightened doctrine in a way that is consistent with the UK's NPT obligations, the Conservatives would be hard pushed to reverse it.

The UK independent nuclear deterrent.

An imaginary friend for Defense Ministers

Trident is an answer to a question nobody's asked for 20 years...

Reported costs now approaching £100bn and the government's still trying to avoid a debate by excluding the proposed replacement of trident from any strategic defence review. A high price to pay from whichever perspective you look at it... Another good reason to scrap the plans for Trident, surely?