Posted on 03/04/2007 7:24:46 AM PST by MadIvan
Once again the General Synod of the Church of England has been wrong-footed by passing a last-minute motion declaring the renewal of Trident to be unethical. The original motion had been carefully thought-out and was supported by documents setting out the situation facing the United Kingdom and asking probing and intelligent questions about the Government's intentions. Instead, the Church has now been left in a position which can be seen as mere moralising and trying to dictate defence policy.
All of this is extremely unfortunate because the Churches in general, and the Church of England in particular, have a legitimate role in the debate on the replacement or renewal of a minimum nuclear deterrent. Any Christian contribution in this area must, of course, reaffirm its commitment to the great Biblical vision of nations and peoples beating their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Such a controlling vision of peace will lead Christians and Churches to be involved in the work for complete nuclear and, indeed, conventional disarmament. Many will recognise, though, that progress in such matters is slow, painful and accompanied by many setbacks.
In the meantime, Christians and Churches have also to take account of the real world. It is no use repeating endless mantras, as some did at the General Synod, about the end of the Cold War and how this makes a nuclear deterrent unnecessary. Those who had imagined that the demise of Communism heralded an end to significant regional and global conflict have been proved wrong. In an increasingly fragmented and disordered world, there are threats from a number of directions. The North Korean situation has, for the time being, been defused, although no one knows for how long. Iran continues to cause concern, in a variety of ways, to the security and stability of the Middle East and beyond. There is no sign that it is willing to pull back from its nuclear programme, even if significant sanctions are imposed.
It is quite possible to imagine a terrorist group, such as al-Qaeda, acquiring enough radioactive material to manufacture a dirty bomb or, indeed, for a terrorist organisation to be armed in this way by a rogue state. It is also possible that a presently stable situation, as in Pakistan, is overtaken by unforeseeable, but not unimaginable, events. More worryingly, the world is faced not with discrete terrorist groups and rogue states here and there. It confronts a global and increasingly well-organised ideological movement that has to be tackled as such and not merely in terms of the religious tradition from which it claims to arise.
Nuclear weapons are here and they are not about to be disinvented. As they have done in the past, the Churches have a duty to set out the moral criteria for having, developing or replacing a nuclear capability. It is not their task to tell government what to do or to make policy on its behalf. They need to acknowledge that the government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens, strong and weak alike. They need to ask whether the international situation is such that a nuclear deterrent is needed. In the context of the Cold War, the General Synod agreed that it was. Is the situation any less dangerous today? I don't think so.
As the General Synod's own paper, accompanying the original motion, points out, for deterrence to work there must be at least a possibility, however, remote, that the weapons may have to be used. I believe it is possible to apply the arguments of a "Just War" to the possibility of their use. In the past, General Synod has agreed that the purpose of a nuclear capability is "unmistakably defensive". As the Government's White Paper on renewing Tri-dent makes clear, the threshold for a nuclear response must be very high and the circumstances "extreme". It contains the promise that any response would be "proportionate" and it should be clear that any plan-ned use of Trident or its replacement would be based on a counter-combatant strategy that targets military and related sites keeping non-combatant casualties to an absolute minimum.
These are all factors that arise from the "Just War" tradition. However, the possession of dangerous weapons by a state or organisation does not in itself justify "preventative" action. Pre-emptive action could, however, be justified if a state or other entity was prohibited by the international community from having such weapons, and if there was well-corroborated and convincing evidence that it possessed them and that it intended to use them. Iran comes to mind here, and what is needed now is clarity of purpose rather than a show of weakness. But it must be emphasised, in this connection, that the threshold for any such action would have to be very high indeed and the precise nature of the action would have to be very carefully decided. The support of allies, who might also be threatened by such weapons, and, at least, the acquiescence of the international community in such an action would also be very important.
So far, the policy of deterrence has succeeded and there is no reason to believe that it should not be part of an overall policy to maintain global and regional peace. The Government claims it is "consistently and progressively" meeting its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is to be welcomed and it should be urged to use its considerable international influence to give impetus to a multilateral agreement for a nuclear free world.
The cost of replacing or renewing Trident is often cited as a reason for not doing so. Instead, it is argued that the money should be spent on international development or environmental projects. Yet the cost of Trident is very small compared to the UK's GDP and is a small price to pay for the security on which many other social goods depend.
Parliament will debate the question on Trident's replacement or renewal later this month. Because of what I have said above, I am personally in favour of retaining a minimum nuclear deterrent. The task of the Churches, however, is to resource this debate by setting out the moral criteria which need attention rather than trying to make Government policy from the sidelines.
Michael Nazir-Ali is the Bishop of Rochester and author of Conviction and Conflict: Islam, Christianity and World Order (Continuum, 2006)
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
Bump
What an interesting juxtaposition of ancestry, religion and defense policy.
Since the US is now decommissioning some of its older nuclear subs, I've long though that one of them could be immeasurably valuable to us in a non-military role.
That is, converted to a "loud" boat for scientific purposes, it could be priceless.
Its primary goal would be to take core samples from around the world and chart major high grade mineral deposits for future mining operations. Just by doing this alone, it could eventually be worth trillions to our economy.
Its secondary goal would be as a scientific research vessel, giving the US a monopoly on unique undersea data.
Its tertiary goal would be to pour underwater concrete to entomb threatening chemical and nuclear waste that was dumped years ago.
BBC: New nuclear warhead design for US ~ Leftists appeasers are saddened...
This needs more viewers...
Interesting read
Trident will be upgraded.
The "Yeoman Warder" will not be happy with using a
Sword for a "digging-tool !!!...;0)
(they would be wiping my finger-prints off everything in
the tower,,I would play with everything...;0)
Ping to Anglican list?
Ryle
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
I had so hoped he would be ABC instead of Rowan Williams.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.