Nuclear Deterrent Discussion HARDtalk

It is mad and that is official. Mutually assured destruction kept

the peace when the US and the Soviet Union confronted each other,

but the Soviets are gone, and the nature of the threats the world is

facing have changed. So do the nuclear deterrence still makes

sense? North Korea is the new kid on the nuclear block, and China has

promised not to have -- seems to have dropped his promise not to use

its weapons first, and even Barack Obama has been asked why he is

modernising part of the American arsenal. My two guests today had

differing views. His nuclear the answer to global insecurity or one

Douglas Murray and Kate Hudson, welcome to HARDtalk. You are

associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, a society who

would admire men like Henry Kissinger. Most alarmingly, the

likely would that non-state terrorists will get their hands on

nuclear weapons is increasing, and non-state terrorist groups are

conceptually outside the bounds of a deterrent strategy. It is a

changing world with new threats a nuclear deterrence no longer makes

sense. You can come to that conclusion without having to agree

with Dr Kissinger. Obviously the combination of nuclear weaponry and

terrorist groups is a nightmare scenario. Of course they also

oppose an issue of how on earth you would respond to them if you are a

nuclear state, but to think that this means that nuclear weaponry is

obsolete is ludicrous. Terrorist groups, if they were to obtain such

weaponry, from Pakistan, would be able to be traced. They will be

traced to the people who proliferated it, and allows such

groups to acquire such weapons, but to think in any case, that there is

only one answer to global security issues, is a terrible mistake.

There are a state actors and non- state actors, there probably always

have been, but the fact is to think that you only have one tool with

which to respond to any security threat is a mistake. Nuclear is a

response, a deterrent to other nuclear states. It is not a

deterrent to terrorist actors without such weaponry is to have

such forces, it is not an either or situation.

Kate Hudson, let me put you what David Cameron the British prime

minister said recently, in defending his commitment to

renewing Britain's nuclear deterrent. The Soviet Union no

longer exists about the threat has not gone away. There is a new risk

of a new armed states emerging. The threat may have changed but it is

still there. He is absolutely right and that is

why we have to take major steps to ensure that the threat of nuclear

proliferation is diminished and eradicated. The only way we can be

certain is to deal with the problem now and move towards full global

multilateral disbarment, or we will face an increasing number of

nuclear weapons states, non-state actors, as Douglas suggests, will

be an increasingly widespread access to nuclear weapons, which

will end in use, either intentionally or accidentally.

Hasn't deterrence get the peace? There has been an awful lot of war

since 1945, so it certainly has not kept the peace.

Obviously it has kept the peace during the Cold War. The Soviet

Union was defeated by America, Britain, by NATO, without firing a

shot. That is how the USSR crumbled, that is how it's turning over of

Eastern Europe ended. To think that because you had that stand-off,

that there would not be any other countries, is of course nonsense.

There was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, many other conflicts,

but it is a terrible mistake to think that the deterrence of

complete annihilation is not a deterrent of some kind. Of course

it is. It stops walls between such actors. We are in such a situation

between India and Pakistan. It is such a volatile relationship.

Because they are both in nucleic States, has to date, manage to stop

a full sake -- full-scale war. former commander of the US Air

Force, he wrote in March of this year, scholars disagree on the

extent of whether the existence of nuclear weapons on the subcontinent

have lowered the presence of nuclear war, but the ever

possibility that some future crisis could escalate out of control, the

consequences could be horrific. That is not a voice, that is a

military boys, and he is worried about that. That may suggest that

deterrent is not doing it now, whatever it may have done in the

past. Nobody is in favour of more proliferation. Both Kate and I, and

she said she is in favour of non- proliferation, nobody wants any

more countries to become a nuclear, ideally the number of countries

that are currently nuclear would not be nuclear, but to think that

the solution to current global instability, at the very moment

that countries such as North Korea and Iran are seeking and acquiring

nuclear weaponry, for countries like the US and the UK to dismantle

their nuclear weaponry, is madness. It is a manners to propose it and

there is no blueprint for doing it. There is not a blueprint. We have

to look at this in the global context. I was at the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation treaty conference in Geneva, and it reminded me in what

a small minority Britain is in considering to be a nuclear weapon

state. There are 180 countries there, the vast majority of which

do not have nuclear weapons for their security, many of them in the

whole of the southern hemisphere, is organised in very different

nuclear-weapons resigns. All these countries believe that nuclear

weapons are not necessary to their security, and to continue with them

is a grave disservice to humanity. There is an increasing global

dialogue about this when the majority of states are objecting to

the fact that a very small number threaten their livelihoods, the

continuation of their lives in fact, and the human race as a whole. That

is the reality of the situation. Britain does not threaten the

livelihoods at everyone around the world because we have got Trident.

You conduct your remarks in a polite fashion. The fact that we

are in a situation where a minority of states have nuclear weapons is

of course the States. And they are all obliged... to undertake steps

in good faith, towards disarmament. We are a nuclear-armed state for

the next 50 odd years, it is not a good faith its mood. The minority

of State is a good thing. We want as few countries as possible.

less the better. Absolutely. We are in agreement on that. Fewer is

better. However I do not think it is a wise situation, none would be

wonderful, it would have been wonderful if this Pandora's box

never opened, but it has, but the question for the future is whether

we have countries like North Korea, as Iran may be able to in the

picture, where they may be able to break out nuclear weapons, and

countries such as the US have no response to that? And do we want a

world... are able to have power, and we have established...

North Koreans and the British are both proliferating. Exactly that

point. You said in your remarks earlier that many of the countries

do not want nuclear weapons and they do not want their neighbours

to have them, but their neighbours to have them. Two surveys are

conducted after the 30 nuclear test by North Korea, one by Deloitte and

the other Institute for Asian Studies, it found that up to 65%,

supporters South Korea's developing its own nuclear weapons, New York

Times as bow to an injured knee in South Korea, saying having a

nuclear North Korea is facing a person holding a gun with just

their bare hands. South Korea should have its own nuclear

capability, not least if the US pulls out, like it did in Vietnam.

They want to go nuclear, and the members of the Non-Proliferation

treaty makes no difference. They would have to pull out like North

Korea did. They were a member and the early to thousands, when George

Bush said it was on the axis of evil, it left the NPD and said it

had a deterrent need to develop a nuclear weapons for its own

security. Exactly the same argument for Security and nuclear weapons

possession as we and the other nuclear weapon states perpetuate.

Would you recognise any moral difference between for instance,

the UK and North Korea? I think any country having nuclear weapons is

unacceptable, we are obliged under international law... but do you

think there are any differences between North Korea and Great

Britain? But in the case of nuclear position, it is wrong. Equally

wrong, for any country to have nuclear weapons. You are aware of

history and you know the only country that has ever used the

nuclear weapons is the United States, and use them against a

country which did not have a so- called nuclear deterrent. In order

to close World War II. And we already know from the testing, many

senior politicians and military people, that Japan was already...

that is the CND's version of history. You would hear what people

like Winston Churchill had to say. It is an accurate one. Let's not

argue about the past too much. I'm quite keen to talk about the

present and the future. On the present, Douglas Murray, we talked

a bit about North Korea a way they -- why they may be motivated. Is

there a danger, the system that we had at the moment, it is perversely

encouraging proliferation? I give the example of North Korea. You

wrote an article in which you specifically said that there is

this does on it -- desire among rogue states and states that want

to prove themselves on the international States to join the

big boys' club. North Korea believes they can bypass all the

team from -- all the tedious and steps, in getting an economy, human

rights, a go straight to nucleic arms. -- to nuclear. It is a case

for making sure that countries like North Korea never have nuclear

weaponry. Where would that take you? Meaney you did everything you

could to stop countries such as North Korea up and Iran... who else

would you accept? It is a closed club. We do not know what the state

of Iran's nuclear ambitions are. They say they are only interested

in energy. Other countries say they want to acquire a weapon. If we get

to that stage, where it is alleged... of North Korea's weapons

programme, there is a moral obligation on other states to it

eliminate them? To everything and anything you can. Sir bomb them?

Including bombing. There is a very interesting lesson to be learnt

from North Korea. Why, for instance if you were the regime in Pyongyang,

use oil and this is an important point to make, you saw Colin

Gaddafi volunteer up his nuclear programme to President Bush and

Prime Minister Blair after the invasion of Iraq. Subsequently...

there are some cases of May sent a nuclear programmes such as Libya.

It was more advanced than some people thought. It was much further

advanced than some people thought. Gaddafi gave them up as some years

later, when he started brutalising his people again, there was in

international intervention. But if you were the regime in Pyongyang,

you would probably noticed that NATO was able to go and intervene

when it was not nuclear, they're very much fears intervening in

countries where there are nuclear. So the international community

gives off a very bad signal. If you are able to nuke up fast, you can

remain in power forever. It is the same idea meant that we need them

for our national security and we are not prepared to give them up.

What I would be interested in hearing from Douglas, given that we

are signed up to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation treaty, our own

Government, they are very committed to that multilateral disarmament

goal, about progress towards disarmament, how would you propose

We should reduce the number of nuclear warheads worldwide. That is

in the treaty we stand up for. should not at any stage be thinking

of this arming ourselves. If America disarms itself, when we

have seen in recent months, we will see in the months ahead, but rogue

regimes are able to acquire weapons. It is madness. You are in a small

minority win your opinions. So are you. No. In Britain, you have the

opinion polls. The majority of the population is in favour of

scrapping and counselling. Globally, it is massive. You are on a losing

ticket. You are in the minority I cannot hear you when you are both

Speaker at once. We are in the majority in Britain and around the

world. The argument has not been listened to. Nor should it be

listened to. Are things changing? Of course. Debates are always

changing. It does not matter whether I am in the minority or not.

I cannot keep count. Can I finish my case? No. We are allowed to talk

over each other. They are both doing well at it. The point worth

repeating, of course, we are all for non-proliferation. I do not

think any of us would for nuclear weaponry in the world. If I can

just finish. I would like to Britain retain a nuclear deterrent.

With the US as well. I wish Pakistan and India did not have

nuclear deterrence. We are where we are. Whatever decision you come

from however, it is madness to think that we and Pyongyang are on

a moral equilibrium. We touched on that already. On a specific point

about we are where we are, do we have to be, Kate Hudson, where we

are? Other incentives or mechanisms, given that non-proliferation for

all of its virtues have not stopped country since the treaty being

established in 1970 acquiring nuclear weapons and status were

thereby leaving the MPT order the joining it in the first place,

other incentives that could actually persuade some countries to

leave? Is there a mechanism that would help people say, we want to

relinquish NSW nuclear weapons? have seen some countries give up

nuclear arsenals. South Africa, for example. It gave up after the

apartheid regime. We saw some successor states from the Soviet

Union give up their nuclear weapons. Many countries around thes, with

the borderline technology capacity chose not to do that. I think that

in terms of moving forward globally, there is a strong recognition that

something else would be better in terms of Britain, what could be

better. If you are looking at how we spend money on defence, for

example, the opportunity cost in defence terms, of maintaining

Trident is absolutely massive. There was an op-ed in the New York

Times last week. A senior US official said Britain can either

have tried and in terms of NATO a military capacity, it can be a

nuclear weapon state or it can be a useful military partner. If we have

a Trident, a nuclear weapon state. But if not, we can have a whole

range of other things we can have, to restore some of the troops we

lost because of the defence cuts. We could have used for things.

Which is one of the reasons why some senior military figures say we

should scrap Trident because it is a useless and we should spend it on

his fourth defence capacity. In this government's own national

security strategy a couple of years ago, they downgraded the threat of

State on a state of nuclear warfare. Level one threat, things likes of

warfare, terrorism, pandemics, climate change, will things we need

to change. Do you find it perverse that the British Government wants

to spend billions on renewing weapon it has no intention of

using? It would be a failure of diplomatic a military strategy if

it had to use it. At the same time, it cannot find the money for an

army any bigger than it was when Napoleon was the biggest threat in

Britain? This is like talking about the NHS in terms of should the NHS

cure cancer or should we have hospitals? The NHS tackle diabetes

or should be deal with another disease? You deal with the problems

in front of you. Is this the right day of dealing with them?

cannot have all that rare to early. Yes, you can. -- militarily.

can have cuts. We have already had cuts. The money is not there for

the profits. Personally, it is obvious he could have a nuclear

deterrent and have conventional forces. In the world of living

today, we both need nuclear deterrence for nuclear-armed states

to deter them and we need commercial forces. That is wishful

thinking. The money is not there. You have been thinking like that

for many decades. The money is not He should be a gentleman. Of course

senior members in the military are always going to be aggravated. They

see their own troops being cut. They see people being sent off to

Afghanistan on very low pay, of course military leaders are

aggravated by that. But to think you are not going to need all of

these tours in the talks to respond so to the problems of the could

first sentries ludicrous. Where would you cut the money from to pay

20 years from now, what will the state of the world's nuclear

arsenal look like? What will be different as a result of the debate

taking place internationally? 8? Had a year's time.I would like

to think that an optimistic forecast would be that we would be

the final stages are for global eradication. -- complete. What is

possible is that we will see increased bilateral reductions

between the US and Russia, which are both committed to. When we get

down to a certain level, it is possible, this is being mooted in

international circles, that other nuclear weapons states will be at

the table and talk about reducing together. That is a very possible

thing, in terms of nuclear weapon Estates and state with nuclear

ambitions, they can also be drawn into the discussion. I want to see

a situation in which countries like the US, US as are, scale down the

number of warheads the half. Russia. I'll like to see a situation where

this country retains its nuclear deterrent. Award nobody else

joining the nuclear club. Iran was not a nuclear power. Pyongyang was

not a nuclear power. I would a situation where no more countries

break out. For the years from now however, if those believe that the

onus is on us to have their way, he was Richard will have the worst

weapons and the best way should will have none. -- the West regimes.

Nuclear weapons charitable thing. Does that mean there is a moral

obligation to eliminate them? Bombing weapons sites? I do not

believe that bombing is the way to resolve what is very often the

result of complex regional problems. We talked about proliferation. We

have to prevent nuclear proliferation through the peaceful

dialogue process. We have to be aware that steps we take ourselves

will have consequences. If we decide to replace stride and now,

will be contributing to global proliferation. -- Dryden. Pyongyang