Dr. Tim Street authored this comprehensive analysis of the UK’s strategic position in defence, diplomacy, and disarmament, commissioned by the Nuclear Education Trust (NET). The study incorporates insights from a survey of leading opinion makers—including politicians, academics, and civil society organizations. It presents 50 proposals to reduce international tensions and redirect global efforts towards nuclear disarmament.

Key Themes and Proposals

1. Nuclear Disarmament: Emphasizes the importance of reversing the trend towards nuclear rearmament. It advocates reducing the UK’s nuclear arsenal and encourages all nuclear states to commit to a No-First-Use policy.
2. Diplomatic Engagement: Emphasizes enhancing diplomatic capabilities and recommends increased investment in conflict prevention and resolution. It suggests creating a multipolar world order based on international law and human security.
3. Transparency and Accountability: Calls for improved democracy in UK international policy-making through more Parliamentary debates and public engagement. It also recommends inquiries into the costs and risks of the UK’s nuclear weapons program.
4. International Cooperation: Proposes convening summits with European states to explore regional security systems compatible with a European nuclear weapons-free zone. Regular meetings among nuclear weapon states are also suggested to discuss risk reduction measures.
5. Strategic Independence: The UK should consider diverging from Washington’s policies if necessary, primarily if future US administrations pursue aggressive unilateral approaches.

Contextual Considerations

Acknowledges the challenging global context, particularly military conflicts like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which complicates arms control efforts. Despite these obstacles, it advocates for a proactive approach to diplomacy and peace-building to prevent nuclear conflict escalation. The report offers UK policymakers a roadmap to navigate complex geopolitical landscapes while prioritizing peace and stability through strategic disarmament and enhanced diplomatic initiatives.

Overview

1. Global security trends

Outlines several key themes and challenges shaping the international environment. Overall, it underscores the complexity of the current global security environment and the need for the UK to respond proactively to these evolving challenges.

Shifts in Global Power

Highlights significant changes in the distribution of global power, particularly China’s rise and its implications for the United States’ position as a global hegemon. This shift is expected to lead to increased competition among nuclear-armed states.

Transnational Challenges

Emphasizes the importance of addressing transnational challenges, particularly climate change and biodiversity loss, critical threats to global security. These issues are likely to exacerbate existing conflicts and create new ones.

Technological Change

Rapid technological advancements, including cyber capabilities and artificial intelligence, are identified as factors that require careful management and regulation to prevent destabilization.

Impact of the Ukraine War

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is noted as a significant factor contributing to global instability, with fears of nuclear escalation and a potential new Cold War dynamic.

Nuclear Arms Control

Discusses the low likelihood of progress in arms control and disarmament efforts due to heightened distrust between major powers, particularly the US and Russia.

Volatility and Uncertainty

Respondents to the research expressed concerns about the increasing volatility of the international landscape, suggesting that UK policy must adapt to chronic conditions and sudden events that could alter existing trends.

2. Managing the UK’s major power relations

Discusses the UK’s approach to its relationships with major global powers, particularly Russia and China. Emphasizes the need for a nuanced and strategic approach, recognizing the complexities and challenges involved in these interactions.

Ambition for Improved Relations

Respondents generally agree that the UK should aim to improve its relations with Russia and China when appropriate. However, opinions vary on how much the UK should consider these nations’ core security interests in its diplomatic strategies.

Separate Engagement Strategies

Respondents agree that the UK should treat its relationships with Russia and China distinctly, tailoring its approach based on each state’s actions and behaviors. This means the UK’s policy should respond to each country’s specific dynamics and challenges.

Dialogue and Trust Issues

Highlights the importance of dialogue in international relations but notes that effective communication requires willing partners. Concerns are raised about the UK’s credibility, particularly in light of past actions that may have undermined trust, such as the Johnson Government’s handling of treaties.

Russia’s Role in Arms Control Decline

Many respondents attribute the deterioration of arms control and disarmament regimes primarily to Russia’s actions. There is a prevailing sentiment that as long as President Putin remains in power, the prospects for a constructive relationship with the West are bleak.

Call for Diplomatic Efforts

Some contributors advocate for prioritizing diplomatic initiatives, such as a new peace conference for Europe, rather than waiting for a resolution to the conflict in Ukraine on the battlefield. This reflects a desire for proactive engagement to address security concerns.

3. The nuclear arms control and disarmament regime

Analyzes the current state and prospects of nuclear arms control and disarmament efforts. It highlights the complex and pressing challenges facing the nuclear arms control regime while calling for a renewed commitment to disarmament and international cooperation.

Current Challenges

Highlights significant challenges facing the nuclear arms control regime, mainly due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the deteriorating relationship between major powers. The potential for nuclear escalation remains a concern, with many respondents expressing skepticism about the likelihood of progress in arms control under current conditions.

UK’s Position

Defenders of the UK government’s policy argue that the country has maintained a minimum nuclear deterrent and is acting transparently in international uncertainty. They contend that the UK is responding to the destabilizing actions of other nuclear states, particularly Russia.

Criticism of UK Policy

Conversely, many respondents criticize the UK’s approach, suggesting it is misguided and insincere. They argue that the UK’s rhetoric on disarmament does not align with its actions, and there is a tendency to blame other states rather than critically assess its role in the arms control landscape.

Multi-Domain Arms Control

Discusses the concept of a new agenda for arms control that is multi-domain and multi-capability, which would involve a broader set of actors. However, there is uncertainty about what this would entail, especially given that many key players must be more interested in arms control.

Importance of Existing Treaties

Emphasizes the significance of existing treaties, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and the need to strengthen these frameworks. Despite the challenges, respondents express hope that the underlying norms against using nuclear weapons remain robust.

Future Directions

Concludes with a call for the UK to revitalize its commitment to international arms control and disarmament efforts. Proactive engagement and focusing on building confidence among nuclear powers are essential for reducing risks and preventing conflict escalation.

4. The UK’s global role and responsibilities

Examines the UK’s expectations and challenges in its international engagements. It highlights the complexities of the UK’s global position and emphasizes the need for a strategic reassessment of its worldwide responsibilities and diplomatic priorities.

1. Overestimation of Influence: Suggests that the Integrated Review Refresh may overestimate the UK’s ability to influence global events. Many respondents argue that the UK should focus more on security issues closer to home rather than pursuing an ambitious global agenda.
2. Shift Towards Diplomacy: Critical respondents agree that the UK should prioritize diplomacy and multilateralism over military solutions. This includes reducing and regulating arms transfers, particularly to repressive regimes, to align with a more responsible global role.
3. Skepticism Towards AUKUS: Discusses significant skepticism regarding the AUKUS deal, with concerns that it could undermine non-proliferation norms, escalate militarization in the Indo-Pacific region, and provoke tensions with China. Critics argue that the agreement may not contribute positively to global security.
4. Nuclear Weapons Policy Concerns: Highlights concerns about the UK’s decision to increase its nuclear warhead cap and the lack of transparency surrounding its nuclear weapons policy. Many respondents advocate for nuclear disarmament and the reallocation of resources towards conventional military needs or civil services.
5. Diverse Perspectives: Reflects a range of perspectives on the UK’s nuclear weapons policy. Some argue that maintaining a minimum deterrent is essential for global order, while others believe disarmament is the more responsible path forward.
6. Call for a Balanced Approach: Ultimately, the section calls for a balanced approach to the UK’s global role, emphasizing the need for responsible engagement, a commitment to international norms, and a focus on addressing pressing global challenges through cooperation.

5. UK nuclear weapons policy

Analyzes the UK’s approach to its nuclear arsenal and the implications of recent policy decisions, highlighting the need to consider the impact of recent decisions and the broader context of international security.

1. Increase in Warhead Cap: The UK government has decided to increase the cap on its total number of nuclear warheads. Proponents argue this decision is necessary in light of perceived threats from Russia and China.
2. Rationale for Policy: Supporters of the UK’s nuclear policy assert that the increase is not significant compared to the nuclear expansion by other states, especially China. They argue that maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent is essential for national and global security, particularly given advancements in missile defense systems.
3. Criticism of the Increase: Many respondents expressed concern over raising the nuclear warhead cap, viewing it as an aggressive posture that could escalate tensions with Russia and China. Critics question the military logic behind this increase and call for greater transparency regarding the motivations behind the policy change.
4. Debate on Nuclear Deterrence: Highlights a debate within the UK regarding the necessity and effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent. Some argue that the current level of nuclear capability is sufficient to maintain global order. In contrast, others advocate for nuclear disarmament and a shift in focus towards conventional military capabilities and civil needs.
5. Challenges in Implementation: Notes that the UK’s nuclear weapons system, including the Vanguard class submarines and the Trident replacement program, is facing significant challenges, including cost overruns and delays. This raises questions about the UK’s ability to sustain its nuclear capabilities in the long term.
6. Diverse Perspectives on Policy: Reflects various opinions on the UK’s nuclear weapons policy. Some respondents emphasize the importance of maintaining a credible deterrent, while others call for reevaluating the UK’s nuclear strategy in light of changing global dynamics.

6. UK defence and nuclear weapons spending

Examines the financial aspects of the UK’s military capabilities and emphasizes the need for a balanced approach considering national security imperatives and broader implications for international stability and disarmament efforts.

1. Increased Defence Spending: Discusses the necessity for increased funding for the UK’s defence and nuclear capabilities, especially in light of rising global tensions and security challenges. Some respondents advocate for a significant increase in the defence budget, suggesting it should be closer to 3% of GDP to address current threats adequately.
2. Budget Allocation Concerns: There is a debate about how the defence budget should be allocated, with some arguing that funds should be redirected from nuclear weapons modernization to conventional military needs and public services. Critics highlight the opportunity costs of maintaining and upgrading the nuclear arsenal, especially during austerity.
3. Modernization of Nuclear Capabilities: Emphasizes the importance of modernizing the UK’s nuclear weapons systems to ensure their credibility and effectiveness. However, there are concerns that the costs associated with these modernization efforts may not be sustainable in the long term, particularly given the financial pressures on the UK government.
4. Transparency and Oversight: Respondents call for greater transparency and democratic oversight regarding the costs and implications of the UK’s nuclear weapons program. There is a consensus that parliamentary scrutiny of military spending and nuclear policy is essential for accountability.
5. Diverse Opinions on Spending: Reflects a range of opinions on the compatibility of increased spending on nuclear weapons with commitments to arms control and disarmament. Some argue that modernization is necessary for maintaining a credible deterrent, while others view it as contradictory to disarmament goals.
6. Future Recommendations: The UK should regularly assess its defence spending and nuclear policy, ensuring that resources are allocated effectively to meet current and future security needs.