'You do believe in the nuclear deterrent?'

Whom or what exactly do our Trident nuclear submarines deter?

This was the question I posed earlier on Twitter, swiftly generating a few responses.

Answers included ‘MOD spending cuts’, ‘fish mostly’, and one from my most hawkish friend which read ‘At the moment, nothing. In the future, possibly the Iranians, Chinese, North Koreans, French, Germans’ - I think he pines for the days when you only needed to have a shufti across the Channel if you fancied a bit of swash and buckle.

The logic of maintaining a nuclear deterrent during the Cold War, while much debated, was at least clear. Indeed, it can be argued that the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, acknowledged by all sides, prevented leaders from going that fateful extra step in one of the many moments of high tension. But, these days it is hard to identify a single country vaguely deterred by our nuclear arsenal whatsoever.

Defence secretary Philip Hammond was pretty clear on the Today programme that now is not the time to downgrade our nuclear options. He said: 

‘We have had for 45 years now a continuous-at-sea deterrent posture which has served this country very well and we do not believe that with nuclear threats, if anything, proliferating, with more countries seeking to get nuclear weapons, this is the time to downgrade, certainly not to go to a part-time deterrent.’

But this argument simply isn’t coherent. In his very comments, Hammond exposes the intellectual dishonesty of the deterrent claim. Despite our ‘continuous-at-sea’ posture, no country has been deterred from seeking a nuclear weapon. Proliferation has, as the minister acknowledges, continued. If anything our retention of nuclear weapons has simply spurred others on to join the club.

After all, does Iran, pressing on with its nuclear programme, look over its shoulder nervously, worried if a British submarine might rise in the Strait of Hormuz? Seems unlikely. North Korea appeared perfectly happy to indulge in a bit of silly sabre rattling, making all sorts of wild claims about its military capabilities, regardless of Britain’s nuclear weapons. But the government remains committed to spending billions – some claim up to £100billion over 30 years – on a new generation of weapons just in case.

And then there is the question of whether a Prime Minister, or defence minister would actually press the button if such terrible circumstances arose.

A few years ago Denis Healey, who served as defence secretary under Harold Wilson, was asked this very question. If Britain had been attacked and Wilson had been killed, Healey would have been the minister to go to the Royal Air Force’s Bomber Command bunker and trusted with the decision as to whether to retaliate. This is what Lord Healey said:

‘I did feel rather worried about it because I knew it would be a very difficult decision to take. I realised I would find it very, very difficult indeed to agree to use a nuclear weapon – and I think most people would.’

Further pressed, Healey was asked what if the head of Bomber Command told him Russian nuclear weapons were already raining down on targets across the country. He replied: ‘I think I would still have said that that, I’m afraid, is no reason doing something like that. Because most of the people you kill would be innocent civilians.’

Lord Healey is hardly a shrinking violet and any minister today would face an even trickier decision. For Healey was talking about days when an enemy could be clearly identified; that is no longer the case. Yes, rogue states can be counted simply enough but one of one of the biggest nuclear threats facing the UK comes from rogue individuals and terrorist organisations who have no country allegiance. It would, for example, be inconceivable to launch a nuclear retaliation on Pakistan if Al Qaeda terrorists from there successfully detonated a device in London.

Of course what this is really about is prestige. Both major political parties know that in order to maintain any international authority retaining nuclear armed submarines is necessary. Whether Britain needs to play such a major role on the international stage is another debate entirely. But it would be good if those pushing to spend such vast sums of money on military toys would at least be honest about their motives.

Afghan interpreters deal a shabby cop-out

Nick Clegg said today that Britain had a ‘moral duty’ to provide resettlement assistance to Afghan interpreters who had put the lives of themselves and their families at risk to work for British forces as they battled against the Taliban.

Less than an hour later, the details of the resettlement deal became apparent and only those who were employed by the British government on December 19, 2012, would be eligible for resettlement to the UK. (Metro link) 

This means that about 600 of the 1,200 who assisted British forces will be excluded from escaping the country, regardless of what current danger they may face.

The deal unveiled in a written statement to the House of Commons - the preferred method to release anything slightly dishonourable – by defence secretary Philip Hammond is not much use to ‘Mohammed’, a 35-year-old man who spent three years working for British forces in Helmand province between 2006 and 2009 and has not left his Kabul home in months due to threats to his life.

My colleague interviewed him last week and he told how his seven-year-old daughter was stopped by a man on a motorcycle who handed her a threat vowing to kill her ‘infidel’ father. ‘Even in the presence of British and US troops we don’t feel safe,’ he told Metro. ‘Next year, when they’re gone, will be much worse. We and our families are all in danger.

‘David Cameron has talked about our safety but all the interpreters are really worried. We feel we’re being abandoned to the Taliban.’

It is known that 21 translators who worked with British forces have been killed since 2001 and Mohammed quit after his friend vanished, kidnapped by the Taliban.

It’s a fine sentiment from Mr Hammond that these clearly capable people should be encouraged to remain in Afghanistan to help rebuild the country after decades of conflict. And where it is possible it should of course be done and the package assembled by the government is pretty generous. But it’s clear in many cases this simply won’t be possible. They will be trapped, threatened by those who will inevitably occupy the power vacuum when Western forces leave, and abandoned by those whom they once served.

By way of comparison, after the Iraq War interpreters were offered far more generous terms. They could either receive one-off financial aid or exceptional indefinite leave to remain in the UK with help to relocate. Or they had the opportunity to resettle through Britain’s Gateway programme, run with the United Nation’s High Commission for Refugees.

Quite why the government is refusing to do its duty by these brave individuals and offer the same terms is unclear. Tim Farron, president of the Liberal democrats, who raised the issue in parliament this morning, told me there is ‘some resistance within the MoD’. He added: ‘They saw this differently to Iraq and wanted a different outcome.’ He has said he will continue pressing the matter.

And the campaign group Avaaz, which has been at the forefront of the interpreter’s campaign, described Hammond’s announcement as ‘half-baked’. Alex Wilks, the campaign director, said: ‘This deal may sound great in London but could be lethal in Kabul.

‘Today’s Afghan proposal remains half-baked and does not offer the escape route that Iraqi translators received.’

But truly, it’s worse than half-baked. It’s a shabby failure by a government which is refusing to live up to its responsibilities.