The following is the text of a letter, dated 16 December 2010, from the Ministry of
Defence in response to the Report of the Conference. At the foot of the letter, you
can see commentary from the chair of our Working Group, Alec Gaines.
Ministry of Defence
Deterrence Policy 1
Whitehall,
London SW1A 2HB
16 December, 2010
Dear Mr Gaines,
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the role of nuclear weapons in NATO’s
Strategy. I have been asked to respond.
Let me begin by stating that the role of nuclear weapons in the UK and NATO’s
Defence Policy and Strategy is entirely a deterrent one with the intention of affecting
the calculations of the adversary. The aim of the possession of nuclear weapons is
that potential adversaries should be deterred from attacking our vital interests and
those of our Allies. The Government and NATO believe that nuclear weapons are
the ultimate guarantee of our security and a necessary insurance in an uncertain
world. There are risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapon states and state
sponsored nuclear terrorism. Therefore in the revised Strategic Concept NATO has
confirmed that whilst nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance.
We would use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence,
which includes the defence of our NATO Allies, and would not use any of our
weapons contrary to international law. We and our NATO allies have made it clear
that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be
contemplated are extremely remote.
We have seen the recent European Leaders’ Group report to which you refer but are
not in agreement with all of the recommendations it makes. Additionally, the NATO
Heads of State and Government Summit in Lisbon has now taken place. The UK
considers the NATO Summit to have been a success: a revised Strategic Concept
was agreed and nations have agreed to continue to review NATO’s overall defence
and deterrence posture and to deepen co-operation with Russia on areas where we
have a common interest, including in the area of Ballistic Missile Defence.
NATO, as an Alliance, is not able to be a member of the UN and a signatory to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the nuclear weapons which are
assigned to NATO are all owned by nations who are recognised as being nuclear
weapons states under the NPT and all NATO members are signatories to the NPT.
For the first time, NATO had a representative from its International Staff as an official
observer at the MAY 2010 Review Conference.
The Strategic Concept commits the Alliance to the goal of creating the conditions for
a world without nuclear weapons – but reconfirms that, as long as nuclear weapons
exist, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance. As an Alliance, NATO has reduced the
number of US weapons in Europe by over 85% since 1991. The UK and NATO
warmly welcomed the announcement of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
between the US and Russia in Prague in April 2010. It is a clear demonstration that
those Nuclear Weapon States are serious about their Article VI commitments under
the NPT, and a significant step on the long path towards our shared vision of a world
without nuclear weapons.
You call for NATO’s doctrine to move from a military to a humanitarian focus. It is
important to remember that NATO is a Military Alliance. However, the new Strategic
Concept does commit Allies to “prevent crisis, manage conflicts and stabilise postconflict situations, including by working more closely with our international partners,
most importantly the United Nations and the European Union.”
I hope this is useful.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. T. Anderson
Comment on above letter, by Chair of Nuclear NPT and NATO Working Group, Alec
Gainse The New NATO Strategic Concept and Global Zero
1. The response from the MOD, unlike the recent National Security Strategy,
portrays a well-intentioned Government trying to muddle through to a world without
nuclear weapons.
2. Our nuclear weapons will never be used: Start with the important ending to the
opening paragraph of the MOD's response, " We would use nuclear weapons only in
extreme circumstances of self-defence, which includes the defence of our NATO
Allies, and would not use any of our weapons contrary to international law. We and
our NATO allies have made it clear that the circumstances in which any use of
nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote." Recall how
the International Court of Justice advised that its Opinion was that it was difficult to
imagine any circumstances when nuclear weapons could be used in accordance
with International Law; the MOD's response is tantamount to a statement that our
nuclear weapons will never be used.
3. However the statement in the third Paragraph of the MOD's letter, " the nuclear
weapons which are assigned to NATO are all owned by nations who are recognised
as being nuclear weapons states under the NPT..", is factually incorrect. Nuclear
bombs originating in the US are stored on NATO bases in Belgium, Germany,
Holland, Italy and Turkey, all countries that signed the NPT as non-nuclear weapon
states. At least until recently the first four of these countries flew the bombs in the
their own planes with their own pilots. This appears to breach international law,
breaking Articles I and II of the NPT and does not encourage other countries, notably
India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, to believe we take the NPT as seriously
as we should. In fact NATO prides itself on making decisions by consensus and
"sharing the nuclear burden". Each of the 28 NATO countries has a veto on the use
of the nuclear bombs and in this sense the US retains control of them and for that
matter the UK needs to take its joint responsibility for their use very seriously.
4. Our nuclear weapons serve no military purpose: The MOD describes the role of
our nuclear weapons in terms of the ultimate deterrent of an "adversary" or "potential
adversary" and of risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and
from state sponsored nuclear terrorism. The four "Tier One" Priority Risks listed by
the Government's recent (October) National Security Strategy are: International
Terrorism affecting the UK or its interests; Hostile attacks upon UK cyber space; A
major accident or natural hazard; an international military crisis between states
drawing in the UK and its allies. Apparently, as NATO states, we face no threats
from hostile states. The terrorism we have seen is not deterred by our possession of
nuclear weapons and in the past NATO has declared that the nuclear bombs on
NATO bases serve no military purpose. It is difficult to see which "Tier One" threat or
what military purpose is served by our strategic nuclear weapons.
5. A world without nuclear weapons: The final paragraph of the MOD's response is
heartening and constructive in that it suggests actions that match the Tier One
threats to our security. Vadim Mitrofanov, head of the Foreign Policy Section at the
Russian Embassy declared at the Scottish Parliament, "A world without nuclear
weapons is not today's world minus nuclear weapons" (and he called to our attention
the possibility of a treaty with Russia on the limitation of conventional arms - an
agreement that might enable Russia to reduce the number of its nuclear bombs in
Europe). Indeed. Ask yourself whom do you hate ? What might we do in future to
cause other peoples to hate us so much as to threaten our security ? In proceeding
from the opening to the final paragraph of the MOD's letter one sees the UK's
Foreign/Defence Policy in transition. In future we should not be thinking about
"potential adversaries" but of how to work together with others to "prevent crisis,
manage conflicts...." and solve jointly our common problems of security.