Today marks the 70th anniversary of the mass murder of between 90,000 to 160,000 people in Hiroshima through the dropping of the first atomic bomb on a civilian population, Swiftly followed by a second, larger, bomb being dropped on the city of Nagasaki a couple of days later killing between 39,000 and 80,000 innocents. War crimes which there have been very little remorse for and which has gone unpunished and even celebrated, despite a growing awareness that these are indeed what they were. This glorification of the use of nuclear weaponry on a civilian population is a major factor in why the establishment within the UK, and further afield, refuse to surrender their nuclear arsenal in spite of the knowledge that should two nuclear powers come to a disagreement resulting in war the end result would be that famous cold war solution of mutually assured destruction.
If we have any backing to assertion that we are a civilised species surely a path which resulted in the complete annihilation of two countries, but possibly most if not all of the world, would never be considered a viable solution to any disagreement. Surely now, on the anniversary of the first nuclear war crime, would be a good time for our government and the people to discuss the sensible solution to continually harbouring weapons of unspeakable destruction, complete nuclear disarmament.
The attitude towards our nuclear capabilities does not offer much hope of this coming to pass. As was evidenced by the leaders debates during our recent general election, the idea that Britain could still have a 'positive' effect on the world and maintain its status as an influential force in world politics was continuously framed, by the right, as being eternally tied to our status as a nuclear state. The assertion that renewing our nuclear missile programme, Trident, would be a waste of time and money by the leftist parties present, Plaid Cymru, SNP, and the Greens, was dismissed with that old troupe by the newspapers as being the inane ramblings of the 'loony left', whilst the right wing parties on stage, Labour, Tories, Libs Dems, and UKIP all insisted that it would leave us defenceless. None of this is true.
There are currently between 192 to 196 independent nations in the world today depending on your definition. Of those nations only 8 are officially known to have nuclear weaponry, USA, China, Russia, France, UK, Pakistan, North Korea, and India, with a 9th country possessing a nuclear arsenal but refusing to declare it, Israel. So of the near 200 countries on the world map. Thus, only 9 are rogue states possess a capability to unleash horrendous levels of destruction on the world. The only argument for the continuation of a nuclear programme by these countries is that it is a response to the continued existence of nuclear weaponry by the other 8 states. That any disarmament of the warheads would leave their nation vulnerable to the weapons of the remaining nuclear powers.
If that was true then the world would be infinitely more violent than it currently is, with nations such as Australia, Nigeria or Chile, or many of the others being invaded routinely by the nuclear powers for their land and resources. If it was impossible to walk the path of nuclear disarmament and still protect your citizens from the nuclear bogeymen then South Africa would have never done so in the early 1990's having developed their own capabilities in the 80's. The reason the UK would still be able to protect itself, and as has been the case recently, continue to kill hundreds of thousands around the world is that traditional defence capabilities are all that are required. Any nation that possesses nuclear weapons know that no matter what goal they wish to achieve they cannot use them. If you are invading a country you cannot use it without large swathes of the 'prize' essentially becoming useless to you. If you are being invaded you would have to damage your own country to use it. The are expensive and highly deadly deterrents. A role a traditional army serves just as well.
Another key component of the right wings argument for the continuation of our nuclear programme is that they are required to respond to the ever changing threats in our modern world. This also displays a lack of nuanced reasoning for their defence of the irrationality of nuclear weaponry. Since 1991, where there was at least a degree of support in their argument through the perceived threats to the nation, the UK has been engaged or supported in various ways wars with or within Iraq (twice), Sierra Leone, Nepal, Afghanistan, Kosovo (as part of NATO), Congo (as part of Operation Artemis), Horn of Africa (as part of Operation Enduring Freedom), Somalia, Trans-Sahara region (as part of Operation Enduring Freedom and operations against Boko Haram in parts of the same region), Libya, Syria, Northern Mali (as part of the EU), and intervention against ISIS/ISIL across various Middle Eastern countries, none of which would have ever required the use of nuclear weaponry.
All of the wars since 1991, which Britain has played some role in, have been played out on foreign soil, and with little to no risk to the UK civilian population and have not involved two nuclear powers on opposite sides of the conflict (the only one being a short lived conflict between Pakistan and India). In fact the only real threat the British populace faces from opposing forces are in acts of terrorism on its own soil or abroad, which cannot be countered or deterred with nuclear weaponry. The only realistic threat we face as a nation requires intelligence gathering on groups or individuals who seek to harm our population and, more importantly to preserve the safety of our nation, an end to warring with other nations to further the interests of the ruling class, also achievable without possessing nuclear weapons (although I would prefer their interests not to be met).
As a nation with a huge amount of 'soft power' internationally, warring to further the elites agenda is not as essential as it may be if Britain had not exported its ideology and national hegemony to a global audience.
The Committee on Soft Power and the UK's Influence had this to say on the subject of soft power, "In the context of shared global threats and high economic and political interdependence between states, and because military coercion alone is proving insufficient for defending a nations' interests, being able to build positive international relationships and coalitions-as well as being able to export goods and services-is vital for modern nations' security and prosperity. The degree to which populations now form networks across borders gives this soft power a newly increased impact because it relies to a significant degree on popular perceptions" (page 40).
Due to the increased connectivity of individuals across the globe, a hyper-connectivity, the influence of the West (or capitalist powerhouse nations if you prefer) has never been greater. Every aspect of their dominant culture of the west is penetrating and having influence on other peoples around the globe. The agenda pushed by the Bourgeois class in Britain, America, France, any other global source of 'soft power' on its own populace, for better or worse, is now as easily accessible in countries they otherwise would have had little to no impact upon. Culture has become and is becoming more and more trans-national. With it the need for 'hard power' to further the ruling class agenda becomes significantly lessened. Social media platforms and news sources, mostly on the internet, have become platforms for the spreading of western ideologies. The BBC is a immensely influential source of soft power that Britain wields around the globe and is one of a number of assets Britain has to influence other nations, such as sporting institutions, international NGO's, educational institutions, and other aspects of popular culture, all having the effect of making the nations values and people more desirable in the eyes of other populations. The committee also wrote that "the UK finds itself with a tremendous range of institutions and relationships politics, economics, science and culture, often amassed over generations, which give it a great deal of internationally recognised soft power" (page 20).
They concluded, in the section of the report titled 'Radical Changes to Balances of Power' that "if the UK is still effectively to protect and promote its interests its interests, how it interacts with other nations and communities will need to fundamentally alter.... this demands a radical change in the mindset of those who direct the UK's foreign policy and shape its international role" (page 34). Given that since the dawn of the UK's imperialist ambition, when foreign policy became synonymous with military actions, then surely a lessening on the reliance on 'hard power' to further the nations' (or our Bourgeois class') agenda would be prudent. The removal of our nuclear capabilities would be a clear signal of intent and the beginning of a transition to a UK where we can all be safe, prosperous, and above all proud of. Despite what the right might wrongly assert.
