Keir Starmer’s speeches before and after the release of the UK's Strategic Defence Review contain narratives that make nuclear strengthening seem prudent and logical. But Zeenat Sabur argues that these narratives are fallacies, that if poked at, alert us to the insecurity to which nuclear posturing leads us
In its recent Strategic Defence Review, the UK announced it would be purchasing 12 new F-35A fighter jets from the United States. These jets would enable the UK to carry out nuclear attacks from the air: the Royal Air Force has lacked this ability since the end of the Cold War. The UK also announced that it would be joining NATO’s nuclear mission. This represents ‘the biggest strengthening of the UK’s nuclear posture in a generation’, said Starmer.
In his speeches, Starmer frames Russia as a state that has ‘advanced military forces’ and threatens the UK with war and nuclear use. These threats are ‘serious’, ‘immediate’, and ‘unpredictable’. They are ‘in our waters’ and ‘menacing our skies’. Against such a threat, it makes sense for the UK to increase its nuclear capability and to protect itself with the most lethal weapon of all.
The issue with this thinking is that UK citizens are being asked to believe in deterrence theory. Starmer wants citizens to believe that the UK will deter Russia from attacking out of fear of the UK’s ability – and willingness – to retaliate with nuclear strikes. This theory relies on an assumption that Putin is rational; that he will make decisions logically, considering the costs and benefits of any action.
Keir Starmer wants citizens to believe that the UK will deter Russia from attacking out of fear of the UK’s ability to retaliate with nuclear strikes, yet this assumes that Putin is a rational being
The cost of using nuclear weapons is the killing of millions of people – Russians and non-Russians. The use of nuclear weapons is therefore irrational. But this implies that deterrence only works if leaders are always rational. If Putin is rational 99% of the time, and irrational 1% of the time, deterrence fails. For deterrence to fail (and for nuclear war to break out), it requires only a moment of irrationality. In such a scenario, no one is safe: neither Russian civilians nor UK citizens.
Another narrative that helps justify the UK’s strengthening of its nuclear deterrent is the portrayal of World War II as a battle between good and evil.
Starmer recalls the end of the War, noting that Britain's victory was also the victory of ‘good’ against ‘forces of hatred, tyranny and evil’. This is not to deny that the Nazis fought the UK and its allies and were responsible for horrific and evil acts. However, portraying the UK and its allies as entirely ‘good’ requires a selective memory. It requires us to forget the bombing of Dresden, in which the UK and US killed 25,000 people. We would also need to forget the bombing of Hamburg, which killed 20,000 people. While the UK was fighting the evil Nazis, it also played a part in the killing of three million Bengalis.
The narrative that the UK is entirely ‘good’ functions to make its increase in nuclear capability seem logical, but with any use of a nuclear weapon, innocent people would be killed
The narrative that the UK is entirely ‘good’ functions to make its increase in nuclear capability seem logical. If evil states possess these weapons, surely a ‘good’ state like the UK should too, to counterbalance what evil states might do. But in any use of a nuclear weapon, innocent people would be killed. If Russia used a nuclear weapon on a UK city, there would be no discrimination in terms of who would be burned to death, maimed, or poisoned. The reverse is also true. Any UK use of a nuclear weapon against Russia would be just as discriminatory and inhumane. To be the ‘good’ state fighting the ‘evil’ states, the UK would be just as evil. There is no ‘good’ use of a nuclear weapon.
A final narrative underpinning the UK’s nuclear posture is the claim that we can achieve ‘peace’ through (nuclear) ‘strength’. Starmer argues that the UK’s move to ‘warfighting readiness’ – including nuclear strengthening – will deliver ‘peace through strength’. This idea is a fallacy.
In 1983 the Pentagon ran a wargame – entitled Proud Prophet. It began with a simulated conflict in Eastern Germany and ended ‘when no one remained to fight over nothing’. Targeted nuclear strikes at the start of the game escalated into full-blown nuclear war. The game highlighted that once a nuclear weapon is used, the only end is total destruction. This is why Starmer’s claim that we can achieve peace through (nuclear) strength is a fallacy.
The UK does not have a no-first-use policy, so for the UK’s deterrent to be effective, the other side must be entirely rational at all times, to not provoke a nuclear use
The UK does not have a no-first-use policy. This means that for the UK’s deterrent to be effective, the other side must be entirely rational at all times, to not provoke a nuclear use. It is unrealistic to think that any ‘other side’ will meet this high bar. As long as the UK has nuclear weapons, there is a greater than zero chance it will use them. And we know that any use of a nuke will end in global destruction. Hence, the absence of peace.
The only way to be free from the threat of nuclear weapons use is for nuclear weapons not to exist. Of course, we do not live in this world. Nine states possess nuclear weapons, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognises five of them. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons advocates for a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons by making them illegal. The P5 often dismisses this treaty as ‘unrealistic’ and out of touch with their security needs.
With this in mind, it is important to remember the warning of former US Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, Secretary of Defense William Perry, and Senator Sam Nunn – none of whom anyone would consider ‘doves’. They warned that deterrence through nuclear weapons is ‘increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective’. It is time that the UK took heed of this warning and began to work towards disarmament instead of nuclear posturing.
