Corbyn stance on scrapping nuclear missiles makes sense

Military’s default ‘deterrance’ position on nukes more to do with prestige than defence

Jeremy Corbyn: Was accused by Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton of undermining “the credibility of deterrence”. Photograph: PA

Jeremy Corbyn: Was accused by Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton of undermining “the credibility of deterrence”. Photograph: PA

 

General Sir John Hackett once put me right about the meaning of nuclear deterrence. As far as the military was concerned, the concept of “mutually assured destruction” didn’t come into it.

It wasn’t that each side’s possession of nuclear bombs deterred the other from firing off its own. Nato’s nuclear weapons had a specific, strategic purpose –to deter the Red Army from sweeping across the north German plain, isolating Denmark and sealing off the Baltic.

Certainly, Nato’s conventional forces could put up a fight but, just as certainly, would speedily be overwhelmed. At that point, only the threat of escalation to nuclear combat would force a Soviet rethink and withdrawal back to the cold war lines laid down in 1945.

This may or may not have made military, political or any other sort of sense. Hackett’s point was that the circumstances requiring nuclear deterrence had to be definable, that war wasn’t a cartoonish matter of national leaders engaged in a stand-off spooking one another by jabbing a finger towards the button while muttering – Go on, I dare you . . . Which is the way some British political and military leaders now appear to envisage the scenario unfolding.

His declaration

The general was well-placed to make the relevant judgment. He had served as commander of the British army on the Rhine and as deputy chief of the general staff. He had also had a stint in the early 1960s as commander of British forces in the North. It was in this context that I had come to see him at King’s College in London, where he had become principal after retiring from the army in 1968. I wanted to talk about the British strategy towards the IRA. The obsolescence of nuclear deterrence apart, he wanted to reminisce about Ruairí Ó Brádaigh issuing the order to dump arms in 1962 and to recall pleasant occasions when Provisional IRA leader Dáithí Ó Conaill had visited him at his holiday home in Donegal. This was during a period of intense conflict in the North. Hackett was never numbered among the buttoned-down tendency within Britain’s top brass.

At his death in 1977, every broadsheet obituary referred to the likelihood he would have become Britain’s number one soldier, the chief of the general staff, had there not been, as a writer in the Telegraph put it, “a touch of the maverick” about him. Nobody has ever accused Britain’s current top soldier, Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, of maverick tendencies. On the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1 last Sunday, he claimed that Corbyn’s position had undermined “the credibility of deterrence”. Unless the enemy believed that you were willing to nuke them, they wouldn’t be frightened off. Houghton didn’t say and Marr didn’t think to ask – deterring which enemy from doing what and why are nuclear weapons needed to achieve this outcome? “Deterrence” appears to have become a free-floating concept, an abstract noun in no need of a sentence. Britain’s nuclear weapons and the Trident delivery-system are both hugely expensive and utterly useless.

We have the word of David Cameron that, “overwhelmingly”, the most dangerous threat to Britain today arises from the blow-back savagery of Islamic State. But neither IS nor any other discernible threat can possibly be deterred by nuclear submarines prowling the ocean waiting for word from Whitehall to tap in the co-ordinates of whatever city or facility has been selected for vaporisation.

In his memoir, A Journey, Tony Blair conceded that Trident’s value was “non-existent in terms of military use” – before adding that cancelling the system would represent an intolerable “downgrading” of Britain’s place in the world.

Renewing Trident

Crispin Blunt

Corbyn has caused consternation among British conservatives and almost all of the mainstream media not because his ideas are odd-ball or extreme but because upon examination, many make plain sense. It is for this reason that many in positions of privilege in Britain are determined to subject him to raillery and skit rather than subject his politics to serious scrutiny.

You can learn all you need to know about British politics these days from the fact that only the mavericks now make sense.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
GO BACK
Error Image
The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment.
Comment Sign In

Forgot password?
The Irish Times Logo
Thank you
You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.
The Irish Times Logo
Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.
Screen Name Selection

Hello

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
Forgot Password
Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.