A debate rages around the practical use of nuclear weapons as deterrents.
‘Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded if they had nuclear weapons’; ‘we must have them in case we are required to defend our vital national interests’; ‘nuclear weapons keep the peace and deter conflict.’
It may appear logical that the current UK government has promised an extra £15bn for nuclear weapons production in preparing for war-fighting readiness. Whilst these arguments may appear convincing on first sight, we must question whether they are actually valid points and why supposedly the presence of more weapons of mass destruction creates a safer world.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine raises all kinds of difficult problems, none of which have easy answers. CND believe this is a game of bluff and if nuclear weapons were to be used (even tactical ones), that would lead to a catalcysmic event which no person could reasonably wish for. We stand with the belief that nuclear weapons are not the answer, and they do not make nations safer. Not in Ukraine, not in the UK, not anywhere!
In response to some questions we’ve been asked, here’s some important ideas to consider:
1) CND opposes the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is very concerned about the dangers it is creating. From the start of the invasion we have shown this opposition, and you can read the statement from Bruce Kent (handed to the Russian Embassy) here: https://cnduk.org/bruce-kent-at-russian-embassy-full-letter-text/
We have also supported demos in Yorkshire, with our Leeds demo getting particularly good coverage by the Press: https://yorkshirecnd.org.uk/yorkshire-protests-in-solidarity-with-ukraine-and-against-russias-war/
2) ICAN (one of our partner organisations) put together a good and worthy response to these sorts of questions. They write:
“Ukraine never had an independent nuclear weapons arsenal, or control over these weapons, but agreed to remove former Soviet weapons stationed on its territory. There is little convincing historical evidence that the possession or presence of nuclear weapons definitively prevents conflict, when many other variables may be considered, including the prohibition of the use of force under the UN Charter or even just luck. Even beyond this, it is not clear that Ukraine would have been able to take control of former Soviet nuclear weapons, technically or politically. What we do know is that the possession of nuclear weapons by Russia and the United States clearly has not prevented the threat of conflict between Russia and a U.S. ally or the potential humanitarian consequences of any conflict for civilians in the region.”
Read more: https://www.icanw.org/faq_on_ukraine_and_nuclear_weapons
3) Even if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, then according to the theory of deterrence Russia would not have invaded but in reality this would be an enormous gamble:
(a) nuclear deterrence is a game of bluff where each side threatens to use nuclear weapons and hopes that the other side will be sensible enough to blink and back down but if this doesn’t happen, or if there is a miscalculation or a breakdown of communications the result is disaster- rather like two parties trying to play a version of Russian Roulette where both have fully-loaded pistols;
(b) just as the UK may not be able to use its US-built nuclear missiles independently of the USA, Ukraine might have found it could not use its Russian-made nuclear weapons independently to attack Russian targets;
(c) instead of being deterred, Russia might have invaded regardless, leaving Ukraine to decide whether to commit nuclear suicide or ‘blink’ and accept that its ‘deterrent’ was useless – or Russia might even have tried to launch a ‘first strike’ attack on the Ukrainian nuclear bases to neutralise them.
Would possessing nuclear weapons have made Ukraine safer and prevented the Russian invasion? Nobody knows what would have happened – in reality nuclear weapons might have proved militarily useless to Ukraine and they could even have made its situation worse, bringing a risk of a complete catastrophe. The present situation is bad but CND believes that nuclear weapons have no role to play in solving it. We also still believe that for Britain’s defence the Trident replacement programme is an expensive, dangerous irrelevance.
(Thanks to Alasdair Beal for contributions to this text)
