Government and Military

11/2/00

Dear Tony Blair, Ref: Request to have our major question answered

Thank-you for your reply of 19/1/00 to our letters of 31/8/99 and 16/11/99, in which you apologise for the long delay in responding. We are extremely concerned that you feel unable to add anything substantive to explain rationally why the ’Government remains confident that the United Kingdom’s minimum nuclear deterrent is consistent with international law’. Democratic accountability relies upon the public being given answers to the questions they raise and this is of prime importance when the issue under investigation is the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. This is even more important when our country is still engaged in daily bombing raids on Iraq, ostensibly because that country is trying to build such weapons for its own use.

We have still not received an adequate response to how a 100 kiloton nuclear warhead could ever be used lawfully even in self-defence and in extreme circumstances? We should like a plain answer to this plain question. We would like to know how you expect to be able to control the destruction in such a way as to be able to confine it purely to your specific military target, how you could possibly contain the spread of radiation to that specific military target guaranteeing that it does not contaminate civilians or neutral countries over time, and how you could guarantee that your use of even one nuclear weapon, however small, would not tend to escalate into the all-out use of high yield nuclear weapons?

An answer to this question does not require ’speculating about hypothetical circumstances’. You have already stated very clearly that the Government would only ever contemplate using nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence. Although it might not be either rational or advisable for us to believe this promise, we are nevertheless, for the sake of this question being answered at all, agreeing that the context of any nuclear weapon use would be in extreme circumstances of self-defence. In this context, what would be the effects of a 100 kiloton nuclear weapon on any of the military targets that are presently held by the Ministry of Defence if these were to be assessed impartially in the light of the requirements of intransgressible principles of international humanitarian law? Such an exercise is hardly hypothetical. Indeed it is an essential, rational and responsible investigation, the results of which should be open to public scrutiny and debate. If you are right that present UK nuclear defence policy, practice, plans and preparations are all ’consistent with international law’ then you have nothing to fear. Your inability to answer our reasonable questions, time and time again, only further strengthens our beliefs that the UK’s Trident nuclear system is unlawful.

In response to your last point about not being prepared to meet with us ’while Trident Ploughshares 2000 is not prepared to confine itself to legitimate and peaceful means of protest’, we would like to point out that we are not engaged in ’protest’ but in nuclear crime prevention. Our disarmament work is both legitimate and peaceful. Indeed, it is our opinion, along with the majority of the world’s nations, that it is the UK Government that is engaged in illegitimate and violent war crime preparations and is thus breaking international law and undermining the whole international legal order. We call upon you once again to at least talk face to face with us about our serious allegations of your Government’s criminal activities.

It should have been brought to your attention that Trident Ploughshares is continuing its ’people’s disarmament’ actions and will be taking part with others on 14th February in a blockade of Faslane Base in Scotland. We are unhappy that ordinary people like ourselves have to continue taking such disarmament actions. It is shameful that the UK Government refuses to implement its obligations under the NPT and gives support to the USA in its continuing nuclear arms proliferation. In line with our commitment to uphold international law and with our policy of openness and accountability I have enclosed the current list of 159 ’global citizens’ from 13 different countries who have Pledged to Prevent Nuclear Crime.

In peace and love,

Kathryn Amos, Morag Balfour, Sylvia Boyes Maggie Chamley, Marilyn Croser. Helen Harris, David Mackenzie, Joy Mitchell, Brian Quail, Jane Tallents, Rachel Wenham, and Angie Zelter.

Printer friendly version

Home | Top