Britain wants new nukes for "insurance"

LONDON — When Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev first put their nuclear weapons on the negotiating table 20 years ago, it heralded a new era of disarmament and the hope, however faint, of a nuclear-free world.

That hope, already overshadowed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons to four new countries, dimmed further last week after Britain unveiled plans to spend around $39 billion to replace its submarine-based missile deterrent known as Trident.

The system, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, would provide crucial "insurance" against threats in a changing world.

The move has divided opinion, but experts on both sides agree the decision highlights the urgent need to revive some form of global nuclear-weapons framework.

The alternative is to risk a new arms race with many more powers and a heightened risk that a warhead might actually be used.

"When the cold war was over, there was a hope, even an assumption, that the main reason for having nuclear weapons would disappear and they would be negotiated away," recalls Frank Barnaby, a nuclear physicist who witnessed a test more than 50 years ago and opposes nuclear weapons. "That hasn't happened."

But now, major nuclear deals like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) appear to be coming apart at the seams.

Congress this month passed a bill that reversed a 30-year policy that opposed nuclear cooperation with India because it is not an NPT signatory. Besides India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea also have atomic capabilities, not to mention Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the "big five" — Russia, the U.S., France, China, and Britain — are updating their systems, setting a poor example to powers who have thus far desisted.

In its defense, Britain points out it is cutting its number of warheads from 200 to 160, leaving it with less than 1 percent of the world's warheads.

Proponents argue Britain's updated program will enable it to be a "force for good." And it will keep recalcitrant enemies at bay, whoever they may be in 10, 20, or 40 years.

"Given the uncertainties around the world, it would be a strange time to get out of the business," says Michael Quinlan, a former top official at Britain's Defense Ministry.

Opponents — who include nearly two-thirds of Britons, according to a recent survey — counter that nuclear weapons do not address threats like climate change or terrorism.

"Quite apart from the morality of being willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people, security is not being enhanced, it's being reduced," says Bruce Kent, vice president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. "We are sending the message to anyone who feels like it that they should have the same security."

The 1968 NPT treaty was signed by so many non-nuclear countries based with the understanding that the five nuclear powers were obliged to advance nuclear disarmament and prevent proliferation. That hasn't happened.

A review is due in 2010, and experts are calling for intensified global cooperation.

Lee Willett, head of the maritime-studies program at London's Royal United Services Institute, says that with nine nuclear powers and five or six others looking to go nuclear, "the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. The only way to put it back is through a multilateral framework."