From the editor’s desk

New world ? new nuclear policy

At the time when Tony Blair's Cabinet is said to be split over whether to renew Britain's nuclear armoury, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales has joined its Scottish brethren in calling for Britain to end its reliance on these devastating weapons. Bishop Crispian Hollis of Portsmouth explained on BBC Radio 4 that the Catholic bishops based their opposition on the fact that such weapons could never be used without inflicting massive and grossly disproportionate civilian casualties. That has always been a powerful argument, though defenders of nuclear weapons argue that they exist not to be used but to deter others from using their own weapons against us, and that that mitigates or even refutes the basic objection. When these issues were last topical, the moral debate about whether it was always wrong to possess something that it was wrong to use tended to end in stalemate. And if the missiles were aimed only at Warsaw Pact non-civilian targets, did that alter the moral case? The bishops' statement would have been more persuasive had it acknowledged the strength of contrary arguments. 

The Church's position against nuclear weapons has strengthened under the present Pope. The bishops quote Pope Benedict's World Day of Peace message earlier this year in which he calls for progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament, and they have been inspired to follow his lead. What is more, they have judged that they should make known their views now when a decision needs to be made on whether to renew or replace Trident, although they do not refer to it by name.

They rightly suggest that if the United Kingdom takes the first step and decommissions its nuclear weapons, other nuclear powers might follow their lead. Implicit, though not stated, is the recognition that the world has changed since the end of the Cold War. Any nuclear threat to Britain no longer comes from the defunct Warsaw Pact nor from post-Communist Russia, but from a dangerous mix of rogue states and international terrorist organisations motivated by religious extremism. Britain's defence strategy has to be based on a realistic assessment of such new threats, and how to meet them. It has to ask how "mutual assured destruction", the key idea in the theory of nuclear deterrence during the Cold War, can work with terrorists who value life so little that they are prepared to die as suicide bombers, or with political leaders who believe the end of the world is nigh and there is literally no tomorrow anyway. Both types exist in the Middle East, and they are likely to constitute the main nuclear threat to Britain for the next generation. Regardless of whether they are there to be used or just to deter, what role can four Trident submarines have in such a world?

The Government has promised a debate in Parliament before a decision is made, and many of these issues will have to be raised. The bishops' conference may have felt that it could not look at these issues in detail and in setting out a common view has adopted a tone that appears rather bland when compared with the more forthright language used by the bishops in Scotland. But after deliberating long and hard it has made its contribution to this national debate. Others must now follow this example so that the widest possible debate ensues.