Promising signs on the road to nuclear disarmament

Posted by louise - 7 July 2009 at 5:50pm - Comments

Two promising developments today...

First up Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signalled their intention to reduce the number of US and Russian nuclear warheads to 1,500-1,675.

Okay, each side still have enough bombs to destroy the Earth several times over. Plus the agreement only deals with "deployed strategic" weapons, leaving out the thousands of nuclear weapons deemed "non-strategic" or "non-deployed". But coming after years of standoff the fact the two countries are back at the negotiating table is undoubtedly GOOD NEWS.

Plus coming as they do in the wake of Obama and Medvedev's pledges to work for "achieving a nuclear-free world" on 1 April this year, there's real hope that these cuts will be the start rather than the end of the story.

Next up may be a first step towards Britain stepping down the non-nuclear path? Well, I shouldn't get too excited but the government today finally caved in to calls for a review of Britain's armed forces - announcing "a full review of Britain's Armed Forces early in the next parliament" that would feed into a strategic defence review after the general election.

What's on and off the menu isn't totally clear at this point - but in the light of the credit crunch squeezing budgets tight and pressure growing daily for a review of the decision to replace Trident it hard to imagine the UK's nuclear weapons won't be back on the table.

Even Des Browne - who as defence secretary in 2007 pushed through Trident replacement - seems to be changing his tune. He recently told the Observer that "while it was the right choice at the time to upgrade the system, possible alternatives were now emerging".

What with ex-head of the Desert Rats Sir Patrick Cordingley unanimously winning over the tough as old boots panel of Newsnight's 'politics pen' last week with his bid to save public cash by scrapping Trident, things seem set to hot up in the coming months.

Article tagged as: disarmament, nuclear weapons, peace, trident

Comments Commenting is now closed

Michael Rooney
The reason we need nuclear weapons is to kill millions of innocent civilians; that have nothing to do with creating war, world hunger or poverty.
They have no say in the running of government policies, cannot even get governments to impliment policies that will feed their children, nor get monies to cure preventable illnessess.
Three Cheers for Nuclear Weapons.

By mickeyjrooney - 8 July 2009 at 11:51am

Seems a bit simplistic to assert that nuclear weapons have kept the peace for 60 years.

Nuclear weapons and MAD certainly prevented a massive direct war between the superpowers during the Cold War, but they have never prevented conventional smaller-scale conflicts, of which there have been many since WWII.

Nuclear weapons keep the nuclear peace, but they don't prevent, and may actually facilitate, the use of lower levels of violence.

And surely war between the major European powers was averted since WWII by the firm political unification of Western Europe in the EEC and then the EU rather than through any use of nuclear weapons.

And we are now in a different world. That nuclear deterrence model is effective if a limited number of powers control nuclear capabilities, and they are balanced in global alliances. With increasing numbers of nations attaining nuclear capability, and until recent days, no incentive from the big nuclear powers for them not to arm themselves, the threat of nuclear deterrence becomes increasingly unstable and volatile.

By tomallen - 8 July 2009 at 5:16pm

Michael Rooney The reason we need nuclear weapons is to kill millions of innocent civilians; that have nothing to do with creating war, world hunger or poverty. They have no say in the running of government policies, cannot even get governments to impliment policies that will feed their children, nor get monies to cure preventable illnessess. Three Cheers for Nuclear Weapons.

By mickeyjrooney - 8 July 2009 at 11:51am

Seems a bit simplistic to assert that nuclear weapons have kept the peace for 60 years. Nuclear weapons and MAD certainly prevented a massive direct war between the superpowers during the Cold War, but they have never prevented conventional smaller-scale conflicts, of which there have been many since WWII. Nuclear weapons keep the nuclear peace, but they don't prevent, and may actually facilitate, the use of lower levels of violence. And surely war between the major European powers was averted since WWII by the firm political unification of Western Europe in the EEC and then the EU rather than through any use of nuclear weapons. And we are now in a different world. That nuclear deterrence model is effective if a limited number of powers control nuclear capabilities, and they are balanced in global alliances. With increasing numbers of nations attaining nuclear capability, and until recent days, no incentive from the big nuclear powers for them not to arm themselves, the threat of nuclear deterrence becomes increasingly unstable and volatile.

By tomallen - 8 July 2009 at 5:16pm

Have really enjoyed reading this. Some interesting blogs here. Keep up the good work!

By Yage - 24 January 2011 at 1:44pm