The results of a recent poll of the British public taken by the Guardian/ICM show that 54% are in favour of complete nuclear disarmament rather than upgrading the UK's aging Trident nuclear weapons program. This is a marked shift from just three years ago when 51% backed renewal while 39% opposed it. What might explain this shift?
The costs of renewing Trident--estimated to be between £26-£76 billion over 20 years-- might have something to do with it, but in this era of massive bank bailouts, this expenditure is comparatively small potatoes. And there would also not appear to be any clear evidence of a socio-cultural shift in the UK towards becoming a more pacific polity.
More compelling reasons can be found by looking at the ways in which British officials have characterized the current geo-strategic context. The threat posed by nuclear weapons has been primarily framed in terms of proliferation. And the problem, we are told, is that those regimes seeking to develop a nuclear capability are defined by their irrationality, capriciousness, inconsistency, and willingness to die for their cause.
In other words, they cannot be deterred by appealing to the 'logics' of mutually assured destruction. By depicting these regimes in this fashion, officials undermine any argument about the utility of keeping a nuclear capability to deter rogue regimes. Thus, nuclear weapons are presented has having a very limited strategic value, unless officials are willing to admit that they have grossly mischaracterized these regimes.
Beyond the lack of strategic value, the focus on terrorism as the most pressing security concern facing the UK also undermines arguments for maintaining a nuclear capability. Nuclear weapons have zero tactical value in counter-terrorism operations, especially with the strong emphasis in the wake of 7/7 on domestic terrorism. Thus, if the threat is terrorism, and we are always told that not enough resources are being dedicated to fighting terrorism, why commit billions of pounds to a program that does nothing to contribute to the cause?
Finally, we are now two decades into the post-Cold War era and conflicts--both completed and ongoing-- like Kosovo, the DRC, and Sierra Leone are being defined as complex emergencies in which various economic, humanitarian, environmental and political dynamics contribute to patterns of violence. Once again, a nuclear weapons capability has zero strategic and tactical value in addressing these issues.
With the UK--for better or for worse--taking an active role in trying to resolve such conflicts and--as Afghanistan has shown-- taking an increasingly higher level of casualties in part because of poor and/or unsuitable equipment, a nuclear weapons program provides little value for money. If Afghanistan is as geopolitically important to the UK as British security officials claim, why divert scarce resources away from reaching key objectives in the region?
Therefore, within this discursive context of threat construction, the opposition to Trident renewal could be an indication that the British public has actually listened to the ways in which members of the government and military establishment have represented danger over the past decade. And they've made a decision that the sums of fear just don't add up.
Image credit: Steve Punter
Comments