[I]t is a constant failing of the disarmament lobby to try to ascribe values of reasonableness, tolerance, goodwill and peaceful intent to states under the control of despots, fanatics and dictators.
Thus Julian Lewis lambasts the disarmament lobby. Only threat of deadly overwhelming retaliation could stop a despot launching a massive attack upon us.
How strong is Lewis’ point? Hitler, trapped in his Berlin bunker as the Red Army approached, thought the failure of his ambitions indicted the whole of Germany and that the punishment should be destruction. If he had had nuclear weapons at this point he would have launched them, and welcomed the retaliation: this is incontestable.
So the deterrent doesn’t work against really mad Dictators. And against the more reasonable Dictator, most interested in screwing over his own population to keep the country’s debt payments flowing (the sort entertained by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s), there’s no need for a deterrence. What can we say about the middle ground?
The sort of dictator who would be deterred by Trident will be:
– interested in conquest
– seriously thinking about using nuclear weapons
– oblivious to public health risks of his people should they be downwind of the proposed target
– not amenable to rational persuasion that launching the nukes in the first place would not really be cricket
– concerned for his self-preservation (or that of his compatriots).
A 1980s biography of Qaddafi that I read implied that he might be such a person. According to the author of the biog, Qaddafi sent officials around the world to acquire a nuclear weapon without a clear idea of just how serious a weapon it would be, and was rebuffed. It was claimed, if I remember the book right, that he was thinking of nuking Israel (though it may have been Egypt).
So perhaps here we have our candidate. It is a very serious matter to impute such ignorance and such evil intent to another human without hard evidence (Hitler, at least, put his auto-genocidal thoughts on record). The question is: if Qaddafi had got a bomb, would it only have been the thought of nuclear retaliation that would have stopped him using it. His diplomatic record throughout the 80s is diabolical, but can (maybe) be read as a rational pursuit of extremely sectoral interests in Libya – and if it is rational, then perhaps rational considerations about retailation would have stopped him using it.
The fact that he didn’t get the Bomb, though, is either testimony to the NPT, which we would be effectively be giving up if we replace Trident; or testimony to the fact that the groups he approached to get the bomb were so convinced of his irrationality that they thought that the thought of nuclear retaliation would not deter him. If the former, then that tells in favour of losing Trident but and strengthening the NPT; if the latter, then we’ve not yet found a real candidate of someone evil enough to think of using the bomb, but rational enough to be scared off by the consequences.
Which other mad dictators should we consider instead?