The Labour Party has always struggled with the ethics and philosophy of Britain operating a nuclear deterrent. It was Attlee’s late 40s government which first adopted nuclear weapons, designing and building Polaris. At the height of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’s influence (which was remarkably at the height of the Cold War itself), it carried much more weight in Labourite circles than in Tory ones. Indeed, under the leadership of Michael Foot and what I affectionately term the “Evangelical Left” Labour made a manifesto commitment to undertake unilateral disarmament. It was highlighted as one of the radical plans which frightened off the electorate.
The problem many of us have with Britain operating nuclear weapons is the clear implication that our government needs the capacity to murder tens, if not hundreds, of millions of foreign civilians. Fighting between armies is much easier to justify (though not perfectly) than the ruination of the natural world and the nations which depend on them for centuries. Proponents of nuclear weaponry point out that the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction would operate, and that by having Trident we render the use of it unnecessary. It’s an expensive paradox, but one which provides much security.
What does MAD mean? (I’m being rhetorical, not patronising!) It means that, should a foreign power obliterate the UK, our government would respond by irradiating their country similarly. If life is rendered all but impossible here, we will inflict equally terrible damage on the people represented by the aggressive state. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It’s an uncomfortable calculation, and one with a problem: why? Why would we do that to foreign civilians?
There would not be anything we could do to rescue our “green and pleasant land” and its people from total ruination- that would already have happened, unless Britain was the aggressor (which is a very different story). There would be few people left to defend from invasion, and the attacker would know that. They’d also be aware that radiation sickness renders an invading army useless.
About a month ago, I went to see Ken Livingstone, the former hard(ish) left Mayor of London address an audience on a broad range of topics. This included Thatcher’s civil defence policy when Livingstone led the Greater London Council in the 1980s. Military assumptions were that, in the event of a nuclear holocaust, a small number of people in rural areas might just scratch out an existence provided the survival rate nationally was low enough. Therefore, procedure in the GLC was as follows: the Council Leader and one other Council member of their choosing would be whisked off to the main government bunker in Essex (and would live with the Tory Cabinet for the rest of their lives) while soldiers would be ordered to surround Greater London and shoot any survivors attempting to leave. This would prevent an exodus of survivors to the countryside and the shortages of basic essentials that would result.
I have also watched the “Protect and Survive” public information films prepared in the 70s to be shown if there was a heightened theat of nuclear attack.
To be continued
