Tonight:
5°c
Brown: world must make deal to scrap nuclear warheads
Joe Murphy, Political Editor17 Mar 2009
BRITAIN could scrap some of its nuclear warheads as part of a wider deal on disarmament, Gordon Brown said today.
He called on the world's nuclear powers to reduce stockpiles to lower the risk of the weapons falling into the hands of extremists.
In a keynote speech to scientists and diplomats at Lancaster House the Prime Minister said: "Step by step, we have to transform the discussion of nuclear disarmament from one of platitudes to one of hard commitments."
Putting a significant portion of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent on the negotiating table, he said: "Britain has cut the number of its nuclear warheads by 50 per cent since 1997 ... If it is possible to reduce the number of UK warheads further Britain will be ready to do so."
Mr Brown said the six countries with confirmed nuclear capability had to show moral leadership by striking a "grand global bargain" to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. "We are at a decisive moment, facing risks of a new and dangerous nuclear era," he said.
His call came as Barack Obama is preparing for his first meeting with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev at the G20 summit in London, with the issue of arms control high on the agenda.
The US President is keen to negotiate a successor to the historic Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that was signed in 1991 and expires at the end of this year.
Mr Brown added: "For our part - as soon as it becomes useful for our arsenal to be included in a broader negotiation, Britain stands ready to participate."
Mr Brown also sent a warning to Iran that it will face tougher United Nations sanctions if it continues to try to obtain nuclear weapons. If Iran agreed, he said, Britain would help it develop peaceful nuclear power.
Mr Obama has said that compliance by Iran would enable America to scale back its missile defence plans, which have caused tensions with Russia, even though the Kremlin has denied that the two issues are linked.
Iran denies that its nuclear programme is for military ends.
Defence Secretary John Hutton said it was a generous offer to Iran. He added: "We have got to be clear with Iran about the consequences of them not complying. The clock is ticking on all of this."
Reader views (32)
We haven't had a truly Independent Nuclear Deterrent since our V Bomber fleet was scrapped. If heaven-forbid, the decision was taken in Whitehall to launch an attack, and the Americans thought it unnecessary, the Tridents would stay in their silo's.
- Gordo, Birmingham, UK, 18/03/2009 19:13
Report abuse
Anyone who advocates the scrapping of Britain's nuclear arsenal is a FOOL. Reduce it by all means, but remove it at our peril.
The only reason unstable nuclear countries like Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan (and God forbid Iran), behave themselves is because they know that their advantage of a nuclear arsenal is cancelled out by countries like the US, France and UK.
The primary role of a nuclear arsenal is to act as a DETERRENT. It is this hugely effective deterrent that has kept global peace for decades, keeping countries like North Korea, China, Pakistan and Russia in check.
Remove this deterrent and you open the floodgates to military aggression from these countries on a global scale. No matter how modern your military, if your enemy has a nuke and you don't, they have the advantage - end of story.
- John, Enfield London, 18/03/2009 17:09
Report abuse
Yes! Yes!! Yes!!! Spend the money on schools hospitals and culture.
- Dhanraj, basildon, 18/03/2009 14:18
Report abuse
Get rid of the lot! We cannot use the sub-marine deterrent without the agreement of the US, so, what is the point of having them? Also, are you seriously telling me that we, 'little Britain' would seriously consider dropping a nuclear bomb on Moscow, Beijing, Tehran or any other major city around the world?
- Kevin Sullivan, Roehampton, London., 18/03/2009 13:04
Report abuse
This is a excellent idea Gordon. UK only needs say 4 subs with say 4 warheads each. You only need 1 warhead to end the world so the idea that UK needs 160 seems crazy to me. The other factor is UK can't afford it. Although it hasn't been announced we will probably cut back substanially on the aircraft carriers as well. Simple economics and examination of public finances shows we can't afford them.
- Rupert, London, 18/03/2009 11:23
Report abuse
This is all so unfair !
Iran is a modern, responsible country yet the West have decided that they shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons, yet Israel, which is unstable, violent to say the least and a law unto itself is allowed to have nukes. If I was an Iranian, I would be looking over my shoulder all the time, wondering when (not if) Israel was going to launch its missiles and how many women and children would be murdered.
- Kathy Doyle, London, 18/03/2009 09:22
Report abuse
Totally agree Bernard. The mere fact that we have nuclear warheads, together with other countries is the ONLY reason we haven't had WW3. If the West get rid of them then some crackpot Eastern country will use theirs against us. Mind you, maybe that's the problem with the world today with its softness and madness, there hasn't been another World War for people to appreciate what they've already got and what actually IS important in life, instead of all this apesement, bleedin heart do-gooders that seem to be in abundance today around the world. Take a good look around you and take note of what an utter mess its all in.
- Sue, Orpington, Kent, 18/03/2009 08:40
Report abuse
all rubbish ...he just wants the money saved to pre spend on an electionering tax cut ..or another bank/ company bail out ......
defense of the nation is an irrelevance ..as long as he can get one over on the conservatives in the short term !
- Tankus, London, 17/03/2009 23:22
Report abuse
Gordon really thinks he can save the world doesn't he. Is there nobody in his inner circle explaining he's a lameduck PM? I just wish he'd try to command the tide to turn and go the way of poor old King Canute.
- Mark, London, 17/03/2009 18:51
Report abuse
Can you imagine Crash Gordon in charge of a nuclear reactor?
- Jacqueline, Hampstead, London, 17/03/2009 18:16
Report abuse
Hundreds of warheads in our subs are far too many, scrap them all. Can anybody seriously consider laying waste to another country (mainly its population).
It is sad though, that as it happened with the withdrawal of British troops in Iraq we only think of scrapping some nukes when the Americans take a similar initiative first.I
- F. Bauza, Hastings, East Sussex, 17/03/2009 18:11
Report abuse
This is a bit like banning guns, soon the only people who will have nuclear capability are the ones you wouldnt want to have it, just like guns.
- Charles, London, 17/03/2009 17:38
Report abuse
Our nuclear arsenal is low enough already. Stupid Boredom 'Doom and Bust' Clown should leave it alone, as he won't be in power much longer (less than 420 days to go), so he should just shut up. His judgement, like the idiot bliar before him, is questionable at best. The Clown is only another incompetent and disasterous politician, he is certainly no statesman; he is also delusional.
- Ralph, GB, 17/03/2009 17:09
Report abuse
Scrap the nukes and ask for a refund as they haven't been used anyway. Then use the cash to invest in an infrastructure that can cope with a couple of inches of snow each year, which is a genuine threat.
Or more likely, waste the money by giving it to ailing banks.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland, 17/03/2009 17:01
Report abuse
Never mind trying to divert attention from the sick state this nation has become under nulabor,scrap yourself Mr brown.
- Kev, London-UK, 17/03/2009 16:55
Report abuse
Attempts to reduce the stock and proliferation of nuclear weapons is hardly a new initiative and at one level this latest outburst of frenetic activism is just another ploy in Gordon Brown's attempt to persuade us all that relentless activity equals efficiency. But it doesn't - it simply leaves an impression of impotent frenzy. At another level it may signal his desire to dispose of Britain's nuclear arms since the Government can no longer afford its maintenance.
- James Elliott, Eastbourne UK, 17/03/2009 16:46
Report abuse
Stop trying to be a statesmen. We know what the US think of Brown by the mere fact that he was met at the airport by a knowbody and sent home with a box of CD's, pathetic..... Call an Election now Muppet!!
- Wayne Osborne, Hertfordshire, 17/03/2009 16:29
Report abuse
Trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the World is hardly "fiddling while Rome burns". If even a tiny fraction of them ever get used, those of us still alive will look back on these economically troubled times as the best of days.
Nukes can't be un-invented, so we'll always need some as a deterrent. But it's sensible to make it clear, that if the big nuclear powers make further big cuts in their arsenals, we'll also cut some of ours. And to employ a few diplomats, trying to make it happen.
This shouldn't even be controversial. Now, back to the economy ....
- Nigel, London, 17/03/2009 16:13
Report abuse
Any chance that Wee Gordon can concentrate on the matter at hand .... at the rate he's destroying the nation there's going to be no other nation that'll want to take us over!
- Paul, London, 17/03/2009 15:43
Report abuse
I suggest that Israel, who have never admitted to having nuclear weapons but are believed to have as many as 400, be subject to any weapons reduction programme should other nuclear powers do likewise.
- Jon Kent, Hertford. UK, 17/03/2009 15:43
Report abuse
a wonderful idea, but unrealistic.
once something is invented, it cannot be uninvented and
there will always be rogue elements who harbour the technology with a view to future threat and perhaps even usage.
- M.O'Brien, london.uk, 17/03/2009 15:33
Report abuse
This really is fiddling while the world burns. Why waste political capital on yesterday's irrelevancies when the environment poses a threat to civilisation as we know it.
- Phloss, London, 17/03/2009 15:27
Report abuse
GORDON SAVES THE WORLD, AGAIN! Try clearing up your mess first Gordon.. here in the UK!
- Tessa Nicholson, London, 17/03/2009 15:21
Report abuse
Is anyone still even listening to Crash Gordon? When’s the next election (or the first, in his case)?
People are losing their jobs and homes and he thinks we’re bothered about nuclear war-heads?
- St, London, 17/03/2009 15:15
Report abuse
Gordy Broon - What a fool.
Every time this country lets down its guard, some nutter jumps up and needs putting down. Its harder to respond ater the event and from a position of relative weakness.
- Dave Davies, Basingstoke, Hants, 17/03/2009 15:13
Report abuse
Back to 1939 ?
Why not try appeasement again?
It did not work last time! But ?
Make us vunerable to attack again ?
It was our nuclear capability that has kept our peace.
- Bernard Parke, GUILDFORD, 17/03/2009 15:03
Report abuse
Thats fine Mr Brown Britain has the lowest number of warheads of the major powers. So we can reduce ours to Zil and the others will still have more than eneough. Another Brown wheeze to bump up his own perceived image as a world leader when its obvious to all particularly the Nuclear powers that he,s just a laugh.
- Peter French, Orihuela Costa Spain, 17/03/2009 14:38
Report abuse
No nukes on subs, go along with the new type 45 destroyers going to sea with no air defence weapons systems. Admiral of the Fleet Serpentine command, come in number 45 there are birds about !
- Wills, Soton, 17/03/2009 14:24
Report abuse
Of course it wouldn't have anything to do with the huge cost of renewing Trident, or the fact that the Americans appear to have forgotten how to renew the warheads, would it?
- Roy, England, 17/03/2009 14:08
Report abuse
Couldn't we just scrap doom & bust Brown?
- Joe, Thornton Heath, UK, 17/03/2009 14:08
Report abuse
We need to scrap all our nuclear weapons. We don't need them and we never have. The billions we have spent on them, just over the last 10 years, would have been enough to properly equip our services with vital kit many times over , the lack of which is costing lives.
- Bob, Stratford, London, 17/03/2009 14:05
Report abuse
This is a non-statement that we are becoming used too from No10. An alarmist or eye catching title, which is then countered in the text, making it a pointless waste of space.
It seems to be saying I am in charge, I talk to you each day and I have an election coming.
- Ian, Reading, England, 17/03/2009 13:53
Report abuse
