Government and Military

In these times of much talk and hyperbole of the "war against terror" we note that the ultimate terror that mankind is capable of unleashing on itself is the thermonuclear weapon. The enormous heat and blast of a nuclear explosion and the accompanying massive dosage of radiation is a terrifying event that makes bombings and suicide attacks, even those of 9/11, seem paltry in comparison.

Britain’s nuclear weapons system was conceived during the period of mutual distrust between NATO and the Warsaw Pact known as the cold war. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact rendered Britain’s nuclear weapons system obsolete in the face of no threat. However the juggernaut of military, industrial and governmental policy is slow to change course, let alone stop, with the result that the Trident system came into service some years after the perceived need had dissipated. Due to logistical considerations it has now become necessary to consider a replacement for Trident in some fifteen to twenty years time. We applaud Secretary of State John Reid’s promise on 13th September 2005 of a full and open debate but note that the sane, humane and only legal option, that of no replacement, is not to be considered.

We say legal because all nuclear weapons, and their use, are illegal under international law and, more pertinently, British law. These arguments have been presented before but we feel it is useful to reiterate them. Nuclear weapons are generally illegal. Therefore their possession, with the stated intention to use them under certain unspecified circumstances, is also generally illegal. The burden of proof is on the nuclear states to show that the use of nuclear weapons could ever meet the stringent requirements of International Humanitarian Law as outlined in the treaties and conventions listed below. Because of the legal restrictions imposed on ANY weapon, it is almost impossible to see how Trident, with its 100 kiloton warhead, could be used or threatened legally. The British government must therefore show that its policy of nuclear deterrence is lawful and support its view with detailed reasoning. In the absence of such assurances it is reasonable for a person to claim that there is a very strong case, amounting to near certainty, that government policy is illegal.

It is quite clear that nuclear weapons would generally breach all of the following:

  The Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868 because unnecessary suffering would be caused;
  The Martens Clause, 1899 because humanity would not remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience;
  The Hague Conventions, 1907 because unnecessary suffering would be caused and there would be no guarantee of the inviolability of neutral nations;
  The UN Charter, 1945 because in 1996 the International Court of Justice unanimously confirmed that “A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to article 2 , paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter...is unlawful.
  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 because long-lasting radioactive contamination would interfere with innocent people’s inherent right to life and health;
  The Geneva Conventions, 1949 (which has been brought directly into UK law through the 1957 Geneva Conventions Act) because protection of the wounded, sick, the infirm, expectant mothers, civilian hospitals and health workers would not be ensured;
  The Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 (which have also been directly brought into UK law through the 1995 Geneva Conventions (Amendments) Act) because there would be massive incidental losses of civilian lives and widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment. The British Government, and other nuclear weapons states, have made “Statements of Understanding” that nuclear weapons are excluded from certain aspects of the Protocols. However, nuclear weapons are subject to the rules governing the use of weapons in general. In 1996 the International Court of Justice stated that: [i]" Under humanitarian law, "methods and means of warfare, which would preclude any distinction between civilian and military targets, or which would result in unnecessary suffering to combatants, are prohibited. In view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, ... the use of such weapons in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for such requirements;"[/i]

Serious violations of these treaties and declarations are defined as criminal acts under the Nuremberg Principles, in that Principle 6 defines crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Nuremberg Principle VI (b) defines War Crimes as ’violations of the laws or customs of war’ and Nuremberg Principle VI (c) defines Crimes against Humanity as ’murder, extermination ... and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population ... when ... carried on in execution of, or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime’.

In addition The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1968 is being violated now, in that the United Kingdom is not fulfilling its obligation to negotiate in good faith a nuclear disarmament. If the government chooses not to develop new nuclear weapons systems but simply extends the operational life of the Trident system beyond 2020 this would mean the retention of the British nuclear deterrent into the lifetime of our grandchildren. Part of what is meant by negotiating in good faith is that the negotiating partners should refrain from doing anything which undermines the intended result of the negotiations - which is to achieve nuclear disarmament. In addition it is a legal requirement of negotiations in good faith that they should proceed "with all deliberate speed", and not in fits and starts over decades.

Reviewing earlier correspondence with Alan Wilkie on 20/04/2000 Steven Willmer of MoD spoke of a “maintenance of a minimum nuclear deterrent as a means of ensuring the stability in which nuclear disarmament can become a reality”. Conversely, in correspondence with Angie Zelter on 28/09/2000 Mr Willmer stated that the government does not believe that the security of Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan, or international security and stability more generally, are enhanced by their keeping a nuclear option open. These statements, that nuclear weapons ensure stability and do not enhance security and stability, are clearly contradictory. (Perhaps this is part of the government’s policy of creating “uncertainty” in the minds of any potential aggressors as to what would provoke a first or a retaliatory nuclear strike. This policy of “uncertainty” is surely conducive to brinkmanship on the lip of a hellish abyss.)

The intervening six years have seen an alarming collapse of stability with terrorist attacks eliciting a massive military retaliation against Afghanistan and fear of nuclear weapons programmes (despite a lack of substantive evidence) used to excuse an invasion of Iraq and now threats to Iran. Nuclear deterrence, in these cases, has not contributed a jot to stability and security. Nor has “maintenance of a minimum nuclear deterrent” deterred India and Pakistan from developing and detonating nuclear weapons. The policy of the UK government is clearly a failed policy. What is needed now is new initiatives, new leads.

We also note with alarm the brewing crisis with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons programme and urge you to enter into negotiations, and to encourage the USA and other nations, to develop a policy of collective and meaningful security for Iran, its people and their neighbours.

We urge you, in the first place, to commit HM Government to fulfil its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and:

  recall the Vanguard class submarines presently at sea and not send any future patrols,
  immediately cease the refit of HMS Victorious presently at HMNB Devonport,
  end the extensive, and expensive, building programme at Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston which, despite denials, gives the impression, both domestically and internationally that HM Government is preparing a "next generation" of nuclear weapons,
  announce publically that you will not replace the present Trident missile system with any other delivery system.

Trident Ploughshares maintains that all nuclear weapons are illegal under international law and that the state has a responsibility to disarm. Failure by the government to comply with international law compels us, as responsible citizens, to undertake disarmament ourselves, wherever and however possible. All disarmament action taken by members of Trident Ploughshares will be carried out in a peaceful and non-violent manner, in accordance with our binding principles, and we are prepared to be fully accountable for our actions

This was signed by all the Tamarians Affinity Group

Printer friendly version

Home | Top