Threat of nuclear response may deter rogue state - but it would be futile against terror group
Could the threat of a nuclear response be enough? Perhaps for a state, but it would surely be futile against a terrorist group.
Tuesday 16 March 2021 22:13, UK
The UK knows the mere mention of its nuclear weapons will grab headlines.
So the government would have been well aware that revelations of a plan to reverse a reduction in Britain's stockpile of nuclear warheads would have a global security impact.
As too would the hint - as carefully worded as it was - that the UK might consider a nuclear response to a non-nuclear threat, such as a dirty bomb or catastrophic cyberattack.
The UK presumably believes the effect of its decisions, set out on pages 76 and 77 of a major overhaul of foreign, security and defence policy, will be to enhance deterrence and make the UK safer.
But critics - and not just the anti-nuclear weapons lobby - are not so sure.
"It is odd," a former military officer said.
Everything to do with the UK's nuclear deterrent - delivered by four submarines armed with Trident missiles - is top secret.
The government would never spell out precisely its thinking behind the move to lift a limit on the number of warheads it could stockpile to 260 from 180.
The Integrated Review talks about it being in "recognition of the evolving security environment". It also describes an increased nuclear threat from other states.
"Some states are now significantly increasing and diversifying their nuclear arsenals. They are investing in novel nuclear technologies and developing 'warfighting' nuclear systems, which they are integrating into their military strategies and doctrines."
The document did not specify culprits but one must surely be Russia which is known to have developed its nuclear doctrine to include the use of smaller, tactical nuclear weapons to use in a conventional conflict.
The UK only has large, long-range strategic nuclear weapons and there is no suggestion in the review about whether it is planning to diversify its arsenal to include smaller devices, though there will be plenty of officials thinking up ways to counter this kind of threat.
The review also sets out as best as possible in an unclassified document when the UK might use its nuclear weapons - another revealing statement.
It offers a sense of the kind of thinking under way about how the UK could deter another state or a proxy group from launching a chemical or biological attack with the same kind of devastating impact as a nuclear weapon.
Similarly with the threat of catastrophic damage that could be caused by emerging technologies, such as a "cyber 9/11".
"The UK will not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the review said.
"This assurance does not apply to any state in material breach of those non-proliferation obligations.
"However, we reserve the right to review this assurance if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary."
Could the threat of a nuclear response be enough?
Perhaps for a state, but it would surely be futile against a terrorist group and difficult with a proxy, if the clear link to another country's involvement is hard to prove.