Comments on: Brown on disarmament

By: Bruce Roth

Bruce Roth — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:21:54 +0000

Regardless of what Brown could be doing more than making these remarks, let’s appreciate what a vast departure they are from those of his predecessors and other chiefs of nuclear states. Even if his comments are just empty talk, they are more heartening than the deadly serious rhetoric we have been hearing from Washington like “preemptive nuclear strike,” “regime change,” “strength beyond challenge,” “unilateral military action,” “Global Strike,” and “full spectrum deterrence.” Brown is to be wholeheartedly commended for taking a bold position on disarmament. I personally don’t believe that Brown is telling us a fairy tale, and I plan to send him a thank you note for his positive leadership in nuclear disarmament so sorely lacking in the world today.

By: Andreas Persbo

Andreas Persbo — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:17:44 +0000

Don’t be modest James. You were and are pretty involved in the enterprise as well. Shame you moved on to greener pastures :)

By: oceanfront_property_in_krygyztan

oceanfront_property_in_krygyztan — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:37:07 +0000

James, Maybe like Bush, Brown is still wrestling with determining how few weapons are enough to provide the UK with that elusive credible deterrent against not only states but them pesky non-state actors too.

By: James Acton

James Acton — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:31:59 +0000

Paul: Thanks for that. I thought freer was an odd word to use.

James

By: James

James — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:14:57 +0000

I agree with Daryl PLUS:

-what about immunizing non-nuclear states from nuclear attack? Both the US and Britain have claimed the right to use nuclear weapons under various scenarios including, on the part of the US, if they are simply doing badly in a conventional war.

-what about “No First Strike?”

-what about criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons?

In the end, Brown’s assumptions are quite common: he feels threatened by states that don’t have nuclear weapons, but might in the future. He just can’t understand why other people might be more concerned about the nukes that already exist rather than notional future weapons. Even stockpile reduction does not address the fact that if the possessor states feel free to use their weapons, then any possible target nation would be foolish not to acquire a deterrent.

By: Paul Guinnessy

Paul Guinnessy — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:11:04 +0000

The text has a small mistake in it (now corrected on the Downing St web site). The word freer should be replaced with free.

By: Daryl Kimball

Daryl Kimball — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:19:28 +0000

P.M. Brown’s remarks on nuclear and conventional weapons are indeed titillating … but they raise some important questions that the U.K. government must reckon with and should be pressed to answer, especially given the fact that he gave the speech in India.

First, on the “impasse” on CTBT and FMCT. The U.K. can do more to change the current USG opposition to a verifiable FMCT. It could also call upon India to join the U.K., France, United States, and Russia in declaring publicly that is will cease further fissile production for weapons until such time as a global FMCT is concluded.

On CTBT, where is his call for India to formalize its test moratorium pledge, or even sign the CTBT?

And, given Brown’s advocacy of an IAEA-backed “uranium bond” for states that meet the highest nonpro standards, does this apply to India, which is seeking U.K. support for a new IAEA-India safeguards agreement that would provide fuel supply assurances? The current U.S. proposal for an NSG exemption for India <http://www.armscontrol.org/projects/India/20060327_DraftNSGProposal.asp> would NOT automatically cut off NSG trade if India tests.

Until and unless the U.K. gov’t clarifies these issues, it is hard to determine whether Brown’s “nuclear freer” talk is just talk, action, or doublespeak.

- Daryl Kimball