In this article from the front cover of Arms Control Today, Paul Ingram and Oliver Meier discuss the newly agreed draft of the DDPR for the Chicago Summit at the end of May. The authors highlight important points in the debate over U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and strategic relations with Russia, and explain various principles that should be kept in mind while leaders discuss the future of NATO's nuclear posture at the upcoming Summit.
Programmes
Evidence submitted by the Conservative Way Forward
APRIL 2012
1. Should the UK remain a nuclear weapon state?
Yes. The first responsibility of government is the security of its citizens. The United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent guards against the most dangerous threat which British citizens could face. The UK’s nuclear deterrent is the last line of defence against a nuclear attack. It provides a deterrent effect which no other military capability could match. The Trident nuclear deterrent system is the UK’s ultimate insurance policy…
Evidence submitted by the Nuclear Information Service
JANUARY 2012
NIS welcomes the invitation from the BASIC Trident Commission to submit evidence addressing the questions which the Commission is considering. Our evidence addresses all three of the initial questions asked by the Commission, and focuses on the following points in particular:
• NATO's contribution to the UK's security and the role that the UK can most effectively play in NATO.
• Risks the UK faces in remaining a nuclear-weapon state, and in particular safety issues associated with the Ministry of Defence's nuclear programme.
Evidence submitted by Nuclear Free Local Authorities
DECEMBER 2011
Evidence submitted by Squadron Leader Dave Tisdale RAF (Retd) and Mr Christopher Samuel – Founder Members of DefenceSynergia
NOVEMBER 2011
1. Defence of the realm and its people is the first priority of Government, therefore, the UK should remain a nuclear armed power. A submarine launched Trident (or similar replacement) is the best system to meet British requirements. Ultimately, after all other arguments have been exhausted, retention of the independent nuclear deterrent offers the UK the assurance that if all alliances fail this country still has the capability, and will, to deter a nuclear armed foe.
The Case for Retention
Evidence submitted by Quaker Action St Andrews
NOVEMBER 2011
Quakers are commited to peace keeping and see no justification, either morally or for practical security considerations that can warrant the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system.
Evidence submitted by Institute for Law and Peace (INLAP)/World Court Project UK
OCTOBER 2011
World Court Project’s position is that we cannot imagine any plausible scenario in which Trident, or its successor, could be used with any certainty that it would comply with the principles of International Humanitarian Law. To ensure that this argument is secure and that it addresses the United Kingdom's view of the legality of the use of nuclear weapons, we must examine the sources.
Evidence submitted by ICAN-UK
SEPTEMBER 2011
If the majority of the 184 non-nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT, who want a legally-binding timeframe for disarmament, do not see sufficient progress towards this goal, the current window of opportunity for nuclear abolition may not only close, but a new era of nuclear proliferation and terror may be opened.