Letter: Defence estimates fail to quantify military threats
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The Defence White Paper appears to have omitted crucial information regarding British government policy on the strategic nuclear deterrent. As a result, the casual reader may be reassured by HMG's declaration that the 'full capacity of the Trident system will not be used' and that each submarine will carry no more than 128 warheads - but may also be interested to know that the White Paper does not reveal that at present each Polaris boat carries no more than 48 warheads.
The reader might then be curious to know why Britain would need more warheads than at present. It might be because (i) the Ministry of Defence has discovered lots of new targets since the Cold War ended, in which case could ministers please say where they might conceivably be? Or (ii) the MoD is worried that more of our warheads may be shot down by new anti-ballistic missile defences. (These new missile defences may be deployed by Russia, thanks to America's sharing of its Global Protection Against Limited Strikes technology.) However, on 30 June, Archibald Hamilton, the Defence minister, in a Written Parliamentary Answer said that nothing would be done in connection with GPALS that would 'undermine the effectiveness of our deterrent'.
So why do we need to increase our strategic nuclear arsenal at all? Especially when Britain is committed, under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to cease the nuclear arms race; a fact that is curiously missing from the White Paper's section on nuclear proliferation.
Yours faithfully,
STEPHEN PULLINGER
Executive Director
International Security
Information Service
London, W1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments