Friday March 16, 2007
It is disheartening, although not surprising, that the decision to upgrade Britain’s nuclear arsenal, at the cost of something between twenty and over seventy billion pounds, has succeeded in making its way through parliament despite the existence of several better things that tens of billions of dollars could be spent on. Despite a revolt by backbenchers, it was pushed through thanks to support from the Conservative party.
When it comes to questions of nuclear ‘deterrence’ there is often a very curious logic at work. On the one hand we possess weapons that are designed never to be used, but on the other hand, we can’t just knock up a few decoys out a papier-mâché (cheaper, and with far less grave implications) because there needs to be an element of uncertainty about whether we might use them after all. Thus the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons must be a necessary part of the logic of deterrence; and we are entitled to ask whether, if these weapons could possibly be used, given the implications of their use, whether their possession is ethically defensible at all.
Beyond this somewhat tattered logic of deterrence there is a further justification that has been used to support this decision. Tony Blair’s full statement on the subject from the December of last year reads like this:
There are perfectly respectable arguments against the judgment we have made. I both understand them and appreciate their force. It is just that, in the final analysis, the risk of giving up something that has been one of the mainstays of our security since the War, and moreover doing so when the one certain thing about our world today is its uncertainty, is not a risk I feel we can responsibly take.
Our independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate insurance. It may be, indeed hopefully is the case that the eventuality against which we are insuring ourselves, will never come to pass.
But in this era of unpredictable but rapid change, when every decade has a magnitude of difference with the last, and when the consequences of a misjudgement on this issue would be potentially catastrophic, would we want to drop this insurance and not as part of a global move to do so, but on our own? I think not.
I’m glad that thinking differently should still be considered respectable, although I am not sure that Mr. Blair nor all who voted with him truly do understand the arguments against nuclear weapons or appreciate their force. Do they really appreciate the force of the possibility of millions upon millions killed, maimed, mutilated, their bodies torn by radiation-induced sickness? Do they really understand the global implications of any possible use, a use that is, as I have said, a part of the logic of possession?
The crux of Tony Blair’s justification is the idea that we are living in times in which the only thing certain is uncertainty, as if this insight into uncertainty is an insight into the nature of ‘our world today’. Yet it is no such thing. The certainty of uncertainty is not a local condition that obtains just here and now, but it is a general condition, the condition into which we are born, in which we all live, in which we will all die. There is no escape, and there never was, from the certainty of uncertainty. All things are subject to change. All things are without enduring essence. This is no more true now than it was when the Buddha first said it two and a half thousand years ago. Nor is it any less true.
But here is a deep flaw in Tony Blair’s argument – the claim is that for the time being (whilst, of course, we remain committed to the idea of disarmament) conditions are such that we should continue to keep these weapons. Yet these conditions upon which we argue we should keep this ‘deterrence’ are not local, but global. They will always be there. We will never escape uncertainty. The argument that it is uncertainty that requires us to renew Trident is incompatible with any claims about having a commitment to disarmament. It is, in fact, a commitment to never giving up such weapons. And if we never give them up, because the logic of deterrence is such that it must be possible that we should use them, then some day we will.
Comments are turned off for this article.
Today's Most Popular
What do Buddhists Look Like?: Tuesday September 19, 2006
This post includes a handy field-guide for identifying Buddhists…
Slip Slidin' Away: Thursday March 19, 2009
Thoughts on experience
A Viable Way: Friday January 15, 2010
Wisdom from the bestselling book “How to Marry a Western Woman”…
Buddhism and Philosophy Part I: Friday December 2, 2005
What has philosophy got to do with Buddhism? Practice, that is what!
Finding Peace in the Eye of the Storm: Thursday August 7, 2008
One must cultivate one’s garden.
The Woal of It: Friday December 8, 2006
Hiedegger, Riddley Walker, and how to make friends with your own head.
Buddhism Without Buddhism?: Friday July 29, 2005
From Buddhism without Beliefs to Buddhism without Buddhism…
Are You Buddhish?: Saturday March 10, 2007
Buddhish. Adjective: Not quite Buddhist; Spuriously or falsely claiming to be Buddhist;
Awakening to Awakening: Friday September 15, 2006
Slippery metaphors and debased coinage…
Insulting the Buddha: Wednesday January 24, 2007
Sri Lanka’s draconian new legislation.
Zen, Brains and Making Friends With Your Own Head: 10 Nov, 2008
It’s a complicated business having a brain.
Lies in Which not Everything is False: 10 Sep, 2008
Stories – they are nothing but a pack of lies.
The Sutras of Abu Ghraib: 30 Oct, 2007
Aidan Delgado on Buddhism, ethics and the war in Iraq.
Baboon: 06 Jun, 2006
Feeling like a grumpy old baboon?
Meditation as Unphenomenology: 07 Feb, 2008
Meditation, cartography and the territory of the mind.