On 18 September, Scotland is set to vote on whether or not to become an independent country. The extremely-leftist, socialist SNP government of Scotland promises that if the result is “yes”, it will force the UK government to remove the UK Royal Navy’s four Vanguard class submarines – and the Trident missiles and nuclear warheads onboard – out of the UK. This, the SNP government hopes, will mean the end of the UK’s own national nuclear deterrent.
To justify its treasonous policy, the Scottish National Party and its fellow pro-unilateral-disarmament activists elsewhere in the UK, make the following, utterly false claims:
1) “Nuclear weapons are immoral and reprehensible; it is immoral and repugnant for the UK to own weapons of such indiscriminate and inhumane destructive power.”
2) “Nuclear weapons are too expensive; renewing the UK’s nuclear deterrent will cost 100 bn pounds.”
3) “Nuclear weapons siphon money away from conventional capabilities and are designed against Cold War era, not 21st century, threats.”
All of these claims are blatant lies, plain and simple. I will now refute them one by one.
1) No, it is NOT immoral, reprehensible, nor repugnant in any way for the UK to possess a nuclear deterrent against the deadliest threats that exist in the world – the threat of nuclear blackmail or even a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack by a hostile state (be it Russia, North Korea, or Iran) against the UK or its allies.
As a sovereign state AND a force for good in this world, as a country which has bestowed countless good things and blessings of modernity in this world, and as a responsible stakeholder in the international system and a positive contributor to world security, the UK has every moral and legal right to have a nuclear deterrent.
Possessing a highly powerful deterrent – such as nuclear weapons – is the natural, moral, and legal right of a country that wishes to protect its own citizens and its territory. There is nothing immoral about that.
What IS immoral is to demand that the UK surrender such a deterrent – of the ONLY kind of weapons that can protect Britain against the deadliest security threats in the world.
It is immoral and repugnant to demand that the UK give up its mightiest defence against foreign aggression, including nuclear blackmail and potentially nuclear attacks by Russia, North Korea, and potentially Iran.
It is immoral and repugnant to demand that the UK disarm itself while nobody else outside Barack Obama’s America is doing so – not France, not Russia, not China, not Pakistan and India, not Israel, not North Korea. (North Korea is now developing ballistic missile submarines of its own.)
It is therefore the advocates of the UK’s nuclear disarmament who are morally repugnant. They are traitors to the United Kingdom, and they deserve to be executed for their treason. (And if they are convicted of it, I will volunteer to be the executioner.)
Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal by far, at over 8,000 nuclear warheads, and is building it up. It, along with every other nuclear power in the world excluding the UK and the US, is rapidly modernizing its nuclear arsenal.
As for nuclear weapons’ “inhumane and indiscriminate destructive power” – it is not “inhumane.” EVERY weapon ever developed by man was invented for one purpose only: to kill other people and destroy things. Nuclear weapons are not any more “immoral” than other types of weapons.
And weapons (including nuclear ones) are not, in and of themselves, evil or good, moral or immoral. It all depends on who owns them and what are they intended for.
It is perfectly moral for a decent country like the UK, the US, or France to possess nuclear weapons. It is quite another for a murderous jihadist dictatorship like Iran, which has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel, or for a murderous and aggressive regime like Putinist Russia, to possess such weapons – or any weapons, for that matter.
2) Leftist, pro-unilateral disarmament groups in the UK and the US routinely and grossly overstate the cost of nuclear deterrent modernization in order to mislead the public. Their lies need to be exposed for what they are: blatant lies.
In fact, replacing Trident with a flotilla of four new ballistic missile submarines will cost only about 20+25 bn pounds, i.e 75-80% less than the 100 bn quid the SNP falsely claims. Here’s the detailed data:
“A December 2006 Ministry of Defence white paper recommended that the nuclear weapons should be maintained and outlined measures that would do so until the 2040s. It advocated the currently preferred submarine-based system, as it remained the cheapest and most secure deterrence option available.
Costs for this option are estimated at £15–20 billion based on:
- £0.25 billion to participate in U.S. Trident D5 missile life extension programme.
- £11–14 billion for a class of four new SSBNs.
- £2–3 billion for refurbishing warheads.
- £2–3 billion for infrastructure.
These 2006/7 prices would equate to about £25bn in out-turn price for the successor submarines; the 2011 Initial Gate report confirmed estimates of £2-3bn each for the warheads and infrastructure. These cost estimates exclude theVanguard 5 year life extension and decommissioning, and it is unclear if new Trident missiles will need to be purchased for the life extension programme.”
3) As for military utility, that of nuclear weapons is much greater than that of any conventional weapons, no contest.
When it comes to deterring attacks on the UK and its citizens, especially against catastrophic threats such as a nuclear, chemical, biological, ballistic missile, or large-scale conventional attack, the ONLY thing that can prevent such attacks in the first place is a British nuclear deterrent. Nothing else will suffice. No other weapons on the planet have the destructive – and thus deterring – power that nuclear weapons do.
By the SNP’s, and other anti-nuke activists’, own admission, no other weapons have the “indiscriminate and inhumane” destructive power that nuclear weapons possess. Thus, no other weapons can deter potential aggressors from attacking Britain and its citizens with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or a large amount of conventional weapons or ballistic missiles.
There is NO alternative to nuclear weapons. NONE.
Why? Because, as even the SNP admits, nuclear weapons have unmatched destructive power – and it is precisely the destructive power of weapons that deters potential aggressors from attacking.
Wannabe aggressors will be deterred from attacking the UK ONLY if they are threatened with an overwhelming, devastating retaliation that would bring about their own end if they attack the UK.
Conventional weapons are way too weak to constitute an effective deterrent against potential aggressors. They completely lack the huge destructive (and thus deterring) power of nuclear weapons.
And protecting the UK and its citizens against large-scale aggression and intimidation should be (and is) the UK Government’s top priority.
The SNP and other anti-nuclear hacks falsely claim that “nuclear weapons will never be used.” We should hope they won’t be – and as long as the UK maintains its own national nuclear deterrent, they will never be.
That’s because nuclear weapons, thanks to their sheer power, DETER potential aggressors from attacking Britain or her allies WITHOUT being used, thus avoiding their actual use. Without firing a single shot or a single missile, Britain thus deters wannabe aggressors from attacking.
And a weapon that PREVENTS war from occuring in the first place – and thus deters aggressors without actually being used – is worth a million times more than a weapon actually used in combat.
It is much better to PREVENT war than to actually fight it.
That is not to say conventional weapons are useless. They are useful and needed for a range of roles and operations, ranging from wars against other states to combat against terrorists. But they cannot ever protect Britain from a large-scale nuclear, chemical, ballistic, or even conventional attack.
Conventional weapons simply lack the sheer destructive power of nuclear weapons to be able to do that.
And the threats I’ve mentioned are far from theoretical. Russia alone possesses over 8,000 nuclear warheads – and the means to deliver them all to the UK, all of Europe, and anywhere in the world. It is still growing its nuclear arsenal and rapidly modernizing it, with scores of new ICBMs and short-range ballistic missiles, a planned fleet of new Borei-class ballistic missile submarines, additional Tu-160 bombers being manufactured, and new bombers and ICBMs under development.
Russia has also developed and tested intermediate-range nuclear-capable missiles in violation of the INF Treaty.
Contrary to widespread belief, Russia is growing, not cutting, its nuclear arsenal. The New START treaty, signed by the US and Russia in 2010, obligates only the US, not Russia, to cut its arsenal. Russia is free to grow its own – and is doing so.
Russia is also quite willing to use these weapons against the UK and its allies. It has threatened to use them against European countries (including the UK) and the US on 15 separate occassions since 2007.
It has repeatedly (including recently) flown nuclear-armed bombers within miles of Britain’s shores, forcing RAF fighters to scramble to intercept them.
It has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons first, even against states that don’t have such weapons, and its official military doctrine openly reserves for Russia the right to do so.
North Korea also possesses nuclear weapons, as well as ICBMs capable of delivering them as far as Europe and the Continental US, and is now developing ballistic missile submarines (of the kind that the SNP would deny the UK).
Iran is now also developing nuclear weapons, despite its false claims to the contrary, and so far, the world’s major powers have failed to convince Iran to forego that development. Saudi Arabia, a Sunni kingdom and Iran’s biggest rival in the Islamic world, doesn’t want to be behind Tehran, and so has ordered nuclear weapons in Pakistan and ballistic missiles in China. Nobody else besides Britain is considering disarming themselves. On the contrary, more and more countries are considering ACQUIRING nuclear weapons, because they are the ONLY guarantee of national survival and security.
Contrary to the false claims of the SNP and the rest of the lunatic pro-disarmament crowd, a nuclear attack is not a purely theoretical threat of bygone Cold War days. It is more real and more deadlier a threat than ever. Consequently, the UK’s nuclear deterrent is needed now more than ever.
And the claim that nuclear weapons siphon money away from conventional capabilities is also patently false, given that maintaining the new nuclear deterrent would cost only 1.5 bn GBP per year out of an annual defence budget of almost 40 bn GBP – i.e. less than one tenth (1/10).
As you can see, all claims of the SNP and the rest of the pro-nuclear-disarmament are utterly false. Not a single of them is true. This should pour cold water on the heads of all those who seek to disarm the UK – especially the SNP lunatics who seek to break the United Kingdom apart and thus force the Royal Navy to abandon the nuclear deterrent or move it out of Scotland.
Postscript: Some leftist Scots have recently responded to this article by protesting that whatever the Scottish people decide – whether or not to leave the UK, whether or not to remove Trident from Scotland – it’s their democratic choice and should be respected. I strongly disagree, for two reasons.
Firstly, a majority vote can never make a bad, evil policy wrong. And disarming the UK unilaterally, or helping bring that about, IS evil.
Secondly, this entire “Scottish independence referendum” is the biggest scam perpetrated against the people of Scotland (and people of the entire UK) in recent decades. It has nothing to do with Scotland’s independence, building a better future for Scotland, democracy, or self-determination. All this referendum exercise is REALLY designed to do is to extract more and more concessions for the UK government and to win the SNP more votes, free publicity, and attention. In other words, it will serve no purpose other than the SNP’s and its leader’s self-aggrandizement. In still other words, the most despicable of purposes.