December 1, 2006 :: Financial Times :: Analysis
Nuclear deterrence should continue to play a role in Britain’s international affairs, argues Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies and vice principal (research) at King’s College, London. “What is it about our current strategic environment that suggests that this is the time to abandon the deterrent?” Freedman asks in the
Financial Times. “The obvious answer is ‘very little.’” He notes that Russia is in a “bad temper,” North Korea has demonstrated its nuclear capability, and Iran appears on the verge of acquiring its own. Despite the problem of how a full-blown British nuclear capability will deter suicidal sub-state organizations like Al-Qaeda, nuclear weapons continue to “make clear the horrific consequences of full-scale war or even a big miscalculation and so encourage states to resolve disputes without resort to armed force.” Freedman cites the case of India and Pakistan, in which the introduction of nuclear weapons into the conflict introduced a welcome element of caution. He notes, however, that some conflicts “may become so unstable that mutual deterrence will collapse and catastrophe will ensue, which is why proliferation is not to be encouraged.” Freedman, nevertheless, appears to agree with the British government’s position that “however difficult it is to imagine a plausible scenario where it would be necessary to threaten, let alone use, nuclear weapons, the future is horribly uncertain.” Nuclear weapons therefore remain “an essential insurance policy.”
» More stories on: Allies, Analysis, Nuclear Weapons, Proliferation, Terrorism
