Don't miss it! Nuclear Blood Scandal Documentary

Documentary: BBC’s Britain's Nuclear Bomb Scandal: Our Story

This Wednesday, the BBC aired Britain’s Nuclear Bomb Scandal: Our Story, a deeply moving and revealing documentary that sheds light on the devastating human cost of the UK’s nuclear bomb tests. Through the voices of veterans like John Morris, who witnessed the tests on Christmas Island in the 1950s, the film uncovers harrowing stories of health conditions, genetic damage, and loss that have haunted these men and their families for decades. The program also examined allegations of cover-ups, including the destruction of medical records and secret radiation tests, sparking renewed calls for justice. 

This documentary is essential viewing, offering not only a window into a troubling chapter of British history but also a powerful case for transparency and accountability. As the veterans fight for recognition and answers, the film poignantly explores the enduring impact of these tests, including their toll on Indigenous communities in Australia. Catch up on iPlayer here.

If you’ve already watched the documentary and would like to learn more about the contributors to the piece, please find the link here.

A Chinese Perspective on the Path to Nuclear Disarmament

Alison Williams, Wimbledon CND Disarmament Coalition, reports on a Pugwash webinar featuring Zhou Bo, on 8 October 2024.

Pugwash-UK had a speaker well qualified to report on this topic: Zhou Bo had been a Colonel in the Army, in charge of Arms Control in the Civil Service and he is now an academic; a Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Strategy and Security in Beijing. 

In the wider context of the Chinese approach to Nuclear Disarmament he spoke most about their commitment to a No First Use policy.  He accepts that a nuclear ban is not going to be globally effective short-term and that amid growing competition and modernisation Nuclear Weapon States will not reduce their arsenals. That being so, China argues that a “No First Use” policy would be the most realistic way to reduce nuclear threats. 

He said there are two myths about China’s nuclear policy: first that they don’t want to talk about it and second that the US needs to be prepared for a nuclear conflict against the combined forces of China, Russia and North Korea.  That American “Nuclear Employment Guidance” he regarded as “completely ridiculous”. 

He thinks strategic stability would be achieved by a “trust and verify” policy for Cyber, AI and Outer Space as well as nuclear weapons. A No First Use pledge would allow a state to take the moral high ground without limiting its capacity for retaliation   And the policies of America, France and Britain are not far from China’s as things stand: America would only consider using nuclear weapons “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners”; the UK “in extreme circumstances of self-defence, including the defence of NATO allies”  and France would adhere to a policy of “strict sufficiency”. 

Among the UN’s P5 countries he sees Russia posing the greatest challenge because deterrence seemed to be working: faced with Putin’s nuclear-use threats the US imposed strict limits on Ukraine’s use of American weapons. But it would be suicidal for North Korea to attack US partners (South Korea, the Philippines and Japan) given the fallout that would impact the region including itself. 

Zhou Bo suggests a two-track approach.  In Europe NATO could make a unilateral No First Use pledge against Russia as a gesture of goodwill.  And in exchange for Russia adopting a No First Use policy they could pledge no further expansion of their alliance. At present only Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine are on the waiting list and their entry into NATO would bring more trouble than benefit anyway. In Asia Russia and China already have a mutual No First Use agreement. The US and China could have the same arrangement and thereby de-escalate potential conflicts with US allies in the region.

History suggests that mutual diplomatic agreements can work – for example Non-targeting, a symbolic sign of goodwill.  In 2000 all the P5 countries agreed not to target weapons on one another.  Non-targeting is not verifiable but he thinks that it could be the next step beyond a No First Use commitment.

To those who object that China’s No First Use promotion is a diplomatic ploy he responds why can’t everyone adopt that ploy?  It would be morally binding because it is clearly verifiable. And if we are all agreed that a nuclear war cannot be won why can’t we all pledge No First Use?

Listen to Pugwash Zhou Bo’s Pugwash webinar here

Activists rally to say “No US Nukes at Lakenheath!”

This article was originally written for Labour Outlook by Christine Shawcroft

An intrepid group of peace campaigners totally repulsed a missile attack from Donald Trump, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden at Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk on 2nd November. Unfortunately, the missiles were cardboard and the American politicians (or crook in one case) were CND supporters with face masks on.

The dramatized battle, choreographed and presented by CND’s new general secretary, Sophie Bolt, was fun, but with a serious message: we are all in danger from the proposal to return US missiles to the Lakenheath airbase.

The rally outside RAF (more accurately, USAF) Lakenheath was well supported by London Region CND and local groups including Nottingham, Leicester, Norwich and elsewhere, as well as the Lakenheath Alliance for Peace. Local speakers explained that the noise from the jets at the base is deafening; people living in the vicinity can’t use their gardens or open their windows in the summer – and are even reluctant to let their children play outdoors!

Melissa Parke, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) travelled to Lakenheath from her home in Geneva, Switzerland, to join us. Focussing on nuclear dangers in Europe, she emphasised the need for peace in Ukraine. ICAN is the organisation that won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work promoting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by the UN in July 2017.

Other excellent contributions included Kirsten Bayes Campaign Against Arms Trade, Green Party peer Jenny Jones and former Green MEP Catherine Rowett. Peter Burt from Nukewatch outlined the shameful history of nukes at Lakenheath, including some near-miss nuclear accidents. Bimal Khadka from MedAct, described the work of Don’t Bank on the Bomb UK, and played a harrowing soundtrack of what happens when a nuclear bomb is detonated.

We were told that the UK government spends billions every year on contracts to companies like Babcock International, Lockheed Martin, Rolls Royce and BAE systems – over the past five years, British spending on nuclear weapons rose by a staggering 43%, and the present government is pledged to raise it still further. The companies involved are also funded through investments made by banks and financial institutions. Your pension fund might be funding weapons of mass destruction.

Planes from Lakenheath have been involved in joint exercises with Israeli and Saudi air forces as well as being deployed in the Middle East as part of NATO forces. The F35 planes cost £58 million, and when flying costs £28,000 an hour. On a ‘normal’ day there are between 15-30 flights a day from the base, but during exercises and military interventions that number massively increases. Militarism is also very bad news for the climate. Around 6% of global greenhouse gases come directly from military activity. Nuclear weapons sites have contaminated land and water with radioactive waste which is lethal for at least 100,000 years.

Lakenheath Peace Alliance described the camp and its work, musicians and singers entertained us, and CND Vice Chair Carol Turner, concluded proceedings with a mercifully short speech on what was an overcast and drizzling day.

Finally, I noticed a sign on the gate saying that tobacco is prohibited on the base apart from in a few designated areas. Because, of course, tobacco is very bad for your health, but nuclear weapons will bring us peace and freedom!

Budget 2024: Military budget continues to grow faster than peace building and overseas aid spending

After the Budget was published on 30 October 2024, the following analysis was published by the Global Campaign on Military Spending UK

Summary

In the government’s Autumn Budget, the UK’s core military spending rose to £56.9bn this financial year – 2024-25 – with an additional £2.9bn announced for next year. This means that this military spending is rising at an annual rate of 2.3% above inflation. While the government is still committed to eventually reaching a spending level of 2.5% GDP, it continues to avoid setting a target date. Core military spending is 4.3 times the budget for overseas aid - which is mainly managed by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office - and 5.5 times the budget of the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero – which includes most climate-related spending. The government continues to fail to meet the UN target on overseas aid, while climate action also remains seriously inadequate.

In more depth…

The Autumn Budget 2024 (AB24)[1] – the first by the new Labour government – revealed that the UK’s core military spending[2] reached £56.9 billion in the financial year 2024-25.[3] This is £3.0bn higher than in 2023-24, and £5.2bn higher than the previous Conservative government had projected for this year in its Spring Budget 2024 (SB24)[4] – see Table 1. This very large spending gap seems to be another element of the much discussed ‘£22bn black hole’ in the government’s finances. The new government has also announced an additional £2.9bn for military spending in 2025-26 bringing the total expected for that year to £59.8bn. Over the period 2023-26, the annual rise will be 2.3% above inflation.

Table 1 – A comparison of core military spending for 2023-26 as stated in Autumn Budget 2024 (AB24)[5] and the Spring Budget 2024 (SB24)[6]

The UK was the sixth largest military spender in the world in 2023[8] - and it is likely to retain a high spot after this budget settlement. The government repeated its aim to reach a level for military spending of 2.5% Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but continued to avoid setting a date.[9] This aspiration is well above the NATO target of 2.0% GDP.

Of the extra £2.9bn in 2025-26, £1.9bn will be for investment in new military equipment, with the remaining £1.0bn being for day-to-day costs. No specific information is given about which equipment programmes will receive the extra funding, but the programme for replacing Britain’s nuclear-armed submarines is currently running well over-budget,[10] so this is one of the most likely destinations.

The government has also made a commitment to provide £3bn per year indefinitely for military assistance to Ukraine,[11] an increase over previous years. Statements by the previous government revealed that the UK was spending nearly nine times as much on military support than on humanitarian aid to the country.[12]

The core figures also do not include some other areas of military spending, in particular, veterans’ pensions, which are not directly related to current government policies on the armed forces. If all these other categories are included, the total spending by the Ministry of Defence is £83bn.[13]

Comparing core military spending with other civilian budgets continues to be revealing, as follows.

●      In 2024-25, core military spending was 4.3 times the overseas aid budget,[14] which is mainly managed by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It is especially worrying that the government is to continue not meeting the UN target to spend 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) on overseas aid, while still being committed to exceeding its NATO military spending target. This undermines Britain’s contribution to helping to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including efforts to eradicate international poverty and hunger. The failure of the international community to properly fund these efforts is costing millions of lives each year.

●      In 2024-25, core military spending was 5.5 times the budget of the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero – which is responsible for much of the government spending on reducing carbon emissions. With Britain having fallen behind on climate action under the previous government, and global temperature rise currently projected to breach the Paris target of 1.5C by 2031,[15] this is an area which has required much greater priority. Since the general election, there have been several announcements on new funding and projects, but climate scientists have questioned whether some of them will actually be effective.[16] The government does not have a spending target for climate action, so it continues to be difficult to judge how far short expenditure is in this area.

●      In 2024-25, core military spending was 8.0 times the budget of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – which includes spending on nature protection. With biodiversity loss at critical levels, this is an area that also needs much greater funding.

In summary, despite a new government coming to power, the UK’s commitment to high military spending is undimmed – especially when compared to key areas such as overseas aid and climate action.

Dr Stuart Parkinson is Chair of GCOMS-UK and Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility.

References

[1] HM Treasury (2024a). Autumn Budget 2024. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/autumn-budget-2024

[2] Core military spending is expenditure by the Ministry of Defence under its ‘resource’ and ‘capital’ budgets. It excludes certain other military budget lines as discussed in the main text.

[3] All figures in this briefing are calculated from those on pp.35-38 of HM Treasury (2024a) – except where otherwise indicated.

[4] pp.25-27 of: HM Treasury (2024b). Spring Budget 2024. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spring-budget-2024

[5] As note 3.

[6] As note 4.

[7] ‘Current prices’ means that there has been no adjustment for inflation.

[8] SIPRI (2024). Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2023. April. https://www.sipri.org/publications/2024/sipri-fact-sheets/trends-world-military-expenditure-2023

[9] p.55 of: HM Treasury (2024a).

[10] National Audit Office (2023). Ministry of Defence: The Equipment Plan 2023 to 2033. December. https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/equipment-plan-2023-to-2033/

[11] p.55 of: HM Treasury (2024a).

[12] GCOMS-UK (2024). Spring budget 24: Military spending continues to grow at the expense of climate funds and overseas aid. 7 March. https://demilitarize.org.uk/spring-budget-24-military-spending-continues-to-grow-at-the-expense-of-climate-funds-and-overseas-aid/

[13] p.164 of: HM Treasury (2024a).

[14] Calculated using figures from pp.87-88 of: HM Treasury (2024a).

[15] Climate Change Tracker (2024). Indicators of Global Climate Change. 29 October.  https://climatechangetracker.org/igcc

[16] The Guardian (2024). Climate scientists call on Labour to pause £1bn plans for carbon capture. 25 September. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/25/climate-scientists-call-on-labour-to-pause-1bn-investment-plans-carbon-capture-blue-hydrogen

Book your place on the London CND coach to RAF Lakenheath

CND is organising the next national demonstration at RAF Lakenheath in protest against US nuclear weapons returning to the base. London CND will be travelling together on a coach and we hope you can join us! We’ll be departing from Victoria Embankment, outside Embankment underground at 10am travelling to RAF Lakenheath, where we will join the CND demo.

The main event will start at 12 noon outside the main gate with speakers including Melissa Parke, ICAN’s Executive Director. We’ll also be (unofficially!) declaring Lakenheath a nuclear-free zone!

It’s essential to keep showing the government that we don’t want these weapons here!

It’s a vital time for this campaign, and with no parliamentary oversight or debate of the decision to return US nuclear weapons to the UK, we must continue to draw every attention towards them

Tickets on the coach are available at unwaged, general and solidarity rates.

For more information you can contact the London CND office.

Israel takes us to the brink of another Middle East war

Israel’s Defence Force is now engaged in day-to-day action on three fronts: Gaza, the West Bank, and most recently Beirut. This latest and most dangerous phase of Israel’s military incursions began when Beirut was targeted, drawing Iran into a potential region-wide conflict. Read about it by visiting Carol Turner’s guest blog on the CND website. Carol will be giving an update on the nuclear threat posed by the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East at the CND Conference in October.

Art, Activism, and an Unlikely Trip to Hiroshima: Insights with Apolonia J. Lobo

On behalf of London CND, Daniel Britton recently had the opportunity to sit down with Apolonia J. Lobo—an artist, activist, and passionate advocate for nuclear non-proliferation. In the comfort of her flat in northwest London, Apolonia shared the remarkable story of how an unexpected visit to Hiroshima in the summer of 2006 got her involved.

The experience she shared moved her, not just to become active, but also to inspire her to create art that captures the emotional intensity of her time there. Our conversation took place shortly after the 79th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing in Tavistock Square, where Apolonia first introduced herself and her journey. Looking ahead to the 80th anniversary, we share her story.

Apolonia started the conversation in 2006 when her then-partner, Francesco, was invited to attend the third International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) conference in Hiroshima as a moderator and technical expert. The four-day event, focusing on the impact and use of uranium-based weapons, initially seemed like an opportunity meant for Francesco alone. Yet, despite having no formal ties to the conference, Apolonia, a freelance artist by trade, soon found herself drawn to the powerful message being conveyed. With her camera, originally bought for personal use, at the organisers' request she found herself supporting by taking photos of the event.

The conference began with the laying of wreaths ceremony at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, a solemn moment of remembrance that set the tone for the days ahead. Over five long days, Apolonia immersed herself in discussions spanning the scientific, political, and humanitarian dimensions of depleted uranium (DU). From 9:30 in the morning until 7 in the evening, she opened her eyes to the long-lasting effects of DU and nuclear weapons. One of many emotionally charged moments, she recited listening to soldiers recount the harrowing news of Gulf War Syndrome affecting their children, and doctors who described patients having to turn to expensive black-market medications to manage exposure to DU.

Laying of the wreath ceremony, Atomic Bomb Dome in the distance

The emotional weight of the conference was compounded by Apolonia’s visit to Hiroshima’s Peace Museum. A solitary experience that moved her to tears: “It wasn’t just the facts and the story of how it happened,” she recalled, “it was the survivors’ paintings and their expressions of suffering”. The five-day event saw a wide range of speakers, activists, and politicians come out in opposition to DU weapons and set the scene for Apolonia’s further involvement.

Apolonia at the confrence

At the end of the conference, attendees joined the public for the official ceremony at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial on 6th August. With speeches from Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, peace doves were set a flight. The evening culminated with floated lanterns bearing messages of hope and peace along the Motoyasu River as Buddhist monks recited prayers.

Closing ceremony

““I write to my MP and get nothing but a generic email”[...]“but the Dalai Lama? I had his signature in days.””

Later that year, Apolonia travelled to India for medical treatment. Not far from Dharamshala, inspired by her time in Hiroshima and a book she had read by the Dalai Lama on the environment, she set out on a four-hour round trip to deliver a letter to the Buddhist monk, petitioning that he sign an appeal against the use of depleted uranium. To her surprise and delight, within three days, she recalls receiving a call confirming that the Dalai Lama had signed the petition, she quipped: “I write to my MP and get nothing but a generic email”[...]“but the Dalai Lama? I had his signature in days.”

In 2007, a year after the Hiroshima conference, Apolonia attended an exhibition at the European Parliament featuring the work of Naomi Toyoda, a Japanese photographer whose images continued to resonate deeply with her. This time officially the photographer for the event, Apolonia alighted on one photograph she had taken of Toyoda’s—visitor to the EU Parliament—"A man gazes at a photo of 5-year-old Omar who suddenly developed leukaemia” (Iraq) (see below). She explained how this powerful visual connected the stories she had heard to a real human tragedy. Dr Caroline Lucas was also present at the EU exhibition along with German and Dutch MEPs; all spoke in support of “The Human Cost of Uranium Weapons” exhibition 14-16 May 2007.

These experiences—both in Hiroshima and Brussels—ultimately led Apolonia to create a piece of art she titled “In Memoriam: Sadako’s Wish.” The piece is a tribute to Sadako Sasaki, a young girl who died at the age of 12 after contracting leukaemia from radiation exposure in Hiroshima. Revisiting and touching up the piece for the first time in years, Apolonia tells me the emotions of her time in Hiroshima came flooding back.

The accompanying blurb to the piece reads:

“Sadako Soul takes wing as a beautiful white crane, a symbol of peace over the A-dome, while Buddha presides, his countenance and meditation somewhat stern as lessons have yet to be learned regarding the maintenance of peace on the Motoyasu River. Buddhist monks chant for the souls of the dead and stoke the fire symbolic of the flame that burns in Hiroshima, the flame that was lit by a survivor, a fireman from the fire that swept Hiroshima after the A-bomb was dropped and which will not be put out until the day all humanity is nuclear-weapon-free. Creeping green foliage, like a shadowy green dragon emanating from the weeping willow, represents nature, life that goes on, hope that that which was obliterated will return. But the dragon may also represent the shadow side we refuse to recognise, using the mask of so-called civilisation and acting out the hideous and heinous, destroying that which sustains us all ultimately.”

In the years since Apolonia’s activism has extended beyond nuclear non-proliferation. She has also been a vocal advocate together with the ME Community against the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for ME/CFS which went to court in 2009 when the ME Community lost. NICE subsequently changed their minds over 10 years later and the guidelines have been amended in 2021. In 2009, she also held an exhibition at the Royal Society of Medicine at a conference regarding ME/CFS, which included art, photography, and poetry.

Apolonia's story is moving and underscores the importance of activism from our members. Her journey from a freelance artist documenting a conference to an impassioned advocate for nuclear disarmament illustrates the potential for art, activism, and spirituality to intersect in deeply meaningful ways. Her reflections offer a timely reminder of the devastating legacy of nuclear weapons and the urgent need for nuclear disarmament.

In a world that often feels weighed down by darkness, Apolonia’s story reminds us that art and activism, rooted in compassion and conviction, can still light the way forward.

Apolonia at the end of the interview with the piece inspired from her time in Hiroshima

Push for de-escalation as danger of nuclear conflict escalates

As the war in Ukraine continues and escalations risk a much wider war, London Region CND Chair Carol Turner wrote the below article for Labour Outlook on the need for de-escalation.

The call by President Zelensky to be allowed to use long-range cruise missiles supplied by its NATO allies deep within Russian territory posed an imminent threat of a Europe-wide war between nuclear armed states. The announcement by Prime Minister Starmer, that talks with President Biden resulted in no decision permitting Ukraine to do so is a welcome though temporary respite in this rapidly escalating conflict.

In a statement at the end of the talks, Starmer reiterated his ‘ongoing’ and ‘unequivocal’ support for Ukraine, and emphasised the discussion had been ‘productive’ and concentrated on ‘strategy’, rather than a ‘particular step or tactic’. The White House issued a similar statement. Behind the scenes, the talks also signal the UK government is positioning itself to become the NATO lead amongst European allies. This will put Britain on the front line.

This current phase of the Ukraine conflict started on 7 August when Ukraine launched a ground incursion into Russian territory for the first time, after the US and other NATO allies gave the go-ahead for weapons they’ve supplied to be used against military targets within Russia. This permission is needed because many of these weapons require access to guidance systems controlled by the US.

Russia responded to the August incursion with heavy bombardment of Ukraine’s second city, Kharkiv, and stepped-up its military action in the Donbas region. This prompted Zelensky to seek US and UK agreement for long-range cruise missiles, including the Anglo-French Storm Shadow system.

The summer escalation in the Ukraine war took place against the backdrop of a NATO Summit in July that signalled further steps towards ‘globalising’ the role of the North Atlantic Alliance –beyond its Euro-Atlantic axis, to further extend its growing presence in the Indo-Pacific. Note for example, increasing references to a Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis, when discussing the Ukraine war. More tangible manifestations at the July Summit of globalisation the Alliance included:

• announcing plans for long-range US cruise missiles to be deployed periodically in Germany from 2026, and

• identifying China as the ‘decisive enabler’ of Russia’s military action in Ukraine.

Britain’s role

There can be little doubt that more calls to intensify the conflict will follow in the weeks and months ahead. The anti-war and labour movements must remain alert to the dangers of Ukraine becoming a Europe-wide war. Not only NATO but also Russia is preparing for this. In May, for example, Russia concluded an agreement to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, the first deployment of Russian nuclear weapons outside its territory since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Intensification of the war creates a particular danger for Britain. The UK recently agreed to become one of NATO’s European nuclear bases. Earlier this year, US nukes were cleared for delivery to locations in Europe. Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk already has the facilities needed to house them. The F-35 fighter bombers which will deliver them to their targets are already stationed at Lakenheath and pilots trained to fly them.

This not only puts Britain on the front line of a European war, it also makes us a direct target for retaliation. The situation remains extremely dangerous and should be treated as such.

Missile diplomacy

At present NATO and Russia are engaged in what might be termed missile diplomacy. In response to Zelensky’s threat of a long-range cruise missiles attack and the discussion taking place between the US and UK, President Putin said (quoting the English translation used by the BBC):

‘If this decision is made it will mean nothing other than direct participation by NATO countries, the United States and European countries, in the war in Ukraine. And this of course changes the very essence of the conflict. This will mean that NATO countries – the United States, European countries – are fighting with Russia.’

The Russian Ambassador to the UN has reiterated this.

Putin’s response has been widely interpreted in the West as a declaration of war by Russia. However, the English translation of Putin’s statement suggests his language is crafted to avoid making such a clear and definitive declaration.

The US and its NATO allies have both conventional and nuclear superiority over Russia, although the number of US and Russian nuclear warheads are approximately balanced. It must also be borne in mind that a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO would be likely to prompt other states to engage on the side of Russa.

Divisions over strategy

The Biden administration was seen as divided over Ukraine’s proposal to escalate – unsurprisingly, perhaps, in the run up to a presidential election. It is already being pointed out that this doesn’t mean Ukraine won’t get the green light for Storm Shadow missiles in future, It does suggest though that the US would seek to take a back seat and, if the OK were to be given, Britain would likely take the lead.

The relentless war propaganda in the UK media and across Europe serves to cover growing unease amongst the movers and shakers – different assessments between NATO countries, as well as between military and political leaders.  

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made a call to rekindle diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine, for example, though Deutsche Welle Germany’s leading international broadcaster points out reception has been ‘muted’. Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday with Kuenssberg programme General Sir John McColl, former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said ‘the question of winning or losing is not something we will be able to achieve’. Ukraine will result in ‘some kind of  stalemated negotiations’.

The UK is particularly exposed and vulnerable to the dangers that a war in Europe between nuclear armed combatants presents. The crisis which loomed at the end of last week should leave us in no doubt of the immediate and urgent task for the anti-war movement which is to:

• alert the public to the real and present danger that intensifying the war in Ukraine brings

• put pressure on the UK government to encourage de-escalation, and

• step up the call for a ceasefire and negotiations before it’s too late.

Mutual Defence Agreement becomes a permanent nuclear pact

The new government has put forward an amendment to the Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) which removes the need to renew it. Since the bilateral nuclear pact was first signed with the USA in 1958, the MDA has been brought before parliament for approval every 10 years. When the amended MDA – the Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes to give it its full title – is signed this year Britain’s nuclear sharing arrangement with the US becomes permanent.  

Amending the MDA was one of the Prime Minister’s first foreign policy initiatives. Defence Secretary John Healey presented amendments to parliament on 26 July, three weeks after Labour took office. No change in the law is needed for the MDA to become a permanent agreement. As CND General Secretary Kate Hudon observes ‘this spells farewell to even the smallest notion of parliamentary responsibility’ for Britain’s foreign and security policies.

In an explanatory memorandum Healey explained the MDA ‘provides the necessary requirements for the control and transmission of submarine nuclear propulsion technology, atomic information  and material between the UK and US, and the transfer of non-nuclear components to the UK’. A Freedom of Information request from the Nuclear Information Service reveals that 955 components were imported from the US between 2020-2023.

The MDA is the basis on which the US provides Britain with nuclear weapons materials and know-how without which Trident could not function. As Richard Norton Taylor rightly points out: ‘It gives the lie to persistent claims by the Ministry of Defence that Britain’s submarine-launched nuclear arsenal is “operationally independent”.’

In exchange for nuclear capability, Britain provides the US with intelligence facilities. Menwith Hill makes signals intelligence available to the US from across the norther hemisphere, intercepting  both military and commercial electronic communications. Fylingdales radar station is one of three that comprise the USA’s Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. Information from them initiates a nuclear response from the US or Britain to a perceived threat.

Healey’s memorandum also claims the MDA ‘is consistent with the UK's obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and commitments under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty’. It does not provide for ‘the transfer of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices’.

On the contrary, as the world moves closer than ever before to nuclear war, extending the Mutual Defence Agreement indefinitely is not only a further step in perpetuating Britain’s nuclear arsenal but also in promoting proliferation. The US exercises de facto control over Trident by virtue of the materials and know-how provided. Inevitably, this means too that the US exercises leverage over Britain’s foreign and security policy which is likely to be enhanced by the MDA amendment.