click on the menu
to reveal the arrow buttons and scroll to more pages
Debates & Lectures archive
Cheapside Debate: ‘Can we afford the nuclear deterrent?’
Speakers:
Andrew Gilligan (London Editor, The Telegraph)
Quentin Davies, Lord Davies of Stamford
This debate took place on the 19th July 2011
Andrew Gilligan began by alluding to the desperate weakness of Britain's armed forces in Libya. He said that Britain is rapidly exhausting its stocks of [conventional] weapons, and that similar weaknesses had been seen in Afghanistan. There is a credibility gap, he said, between what Britain purports to do and how it underachieves. This ineffective performance is entirely due to underinvestment; soon, he warned, Britain would have no effective military capability.
It would be madness to spend £25bn on nuclear weapons which have no military purpose. A nuclear bomb is not an appropriate response to any of our significant threats. Yes, it could be seen as an insurance policy for the future, but that prospect is remote. Nuclear bombs are simply too big to be anything other than political weapons. Britain is now a cultural superpower, not a military one. To safeguard the nation's place in the world, we need to invest in future talent, not bombs.
Quentin Davies agreed that the government is running down Britain's defence capability, but not because of a hole in our defence budget. (He pointed out that air power was enhanced while he was defence minister.)
After 9/11 threre were three possible choices: (a) do nothing, and encourage al-Qaeda; (b) hit al-Qaeda with great force, which would have resulted in huge numbers of civilian casualties; or (c) put our troops on the ground and suffer casulaties in doing so.
The Cold War meant that, for 60 years, we faced a Soviet enemy with overwhelming conventional capability; out nuclear deterrent meant that an attack was out of the question. Do we still need that insurance policy? Yes - because of the threat posed by North Korea, and potentially by Iran; it is inconceivable that we should lose our last source of defence. If we were to 'give up' militarily, it would have no effect as other members of the nuclear states would refuse to follow suit as it would be irresponsible. Even if maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent costs £30bn, that will be spread over 20 years; it is a small price to pay for the security we must continue to enjoy.
You are viewing the text version of this site.
To view the full version please install the Adobe Flash Player and ensure your web browser has JavaScript enabled.
Need help? check the requirements page.
