Letters to a great-granddaughter (3)

One of the greatest dangers of our time is nuclear proliferation, particularly as we enter a more unstable international era.  In a recent survey of  'the new world order' the Financial Times set out a series of bleak scenarios and concluded by quoting Gramsci writing in the late 1920s as Fascism emerged alongside Soviet Communism: 'The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.'

It is worth reminding ourselves that the actual architecture of a nuclear bomb is now well understood, but to have a viable weapon you need:

1. A sufficient supply of weapons grade uranium or plutonium

2. The ability to miniaturize the weapon so that it could be used in a delivery device (the original French atomic weapon was said to be the size of a railway engine).

3. A delivery mechanism for the weapon: an intercontinental or intermediate range ballistic missile; a submarine launched missile (easier to escape detection); a cruise missile; an aircraft.  (One could notionally have a bomb on a merchant vessel in an enemy's port, but I don't rate these scenarios as very likely).

4. A robust launch mechanism (I certainly have doubts about the UK's launch mechanism in so far as it is in the public domain, but that information may be dated or there may be back up procedures).  However, each new prime minister is required to write a letter to each commander of a submarine able to fire Trident about what they should do if the UK appears to have been attacked, (see below).

The two principal nuclear powers are the United States and Russia and, even with reductions, they have enough weapons to destroy each other several times over as well as plunging the rest of the world into a nuclear winter.

China had a relatively small number of weapons recently, enough to make a potential aggressor to think twice like the French 'force de frappe'.   They are now engaged in a rapid catch up with what strategic objective in mind is uncertain.

India and Pakistan have enough weapons to inflict considerable damage on each other.   It is believed that the US has provided them with sophisticated command and control mechanisms to prevent accidental discharge.   North Korea has now become a serious nuclear power and a recent work of fiction outlines a world war it starts more or less by accident (although the scenario has been questioned).   The domino effect is shown by the fact that there is now a debate in South Korea about developing nuclear weapons.

Israel has long been assumed to have nuclear weapons, although it has never admitted their presence.  According to some reports, Iran could develop a viable device within a short time frame.

South Africa developed nuclear weapons and was preparing a test, but dismantled its weapons after the fall of the apartheid government and became the first former nuclear power to sign the prohibitions treaty. (There is some dispute whether South Africa did carry out a test, possibly in collaboration with Israel).  Brazil ruled out their development.    Countries like Saudi Arabia could develop a weapon if they so decided.

Anyway there are enough nuclear weapons in enough countries to give cause for concern.

The letter of last resort

Each incoming UK prime minister is required on taking office to write a handwritten letter to each of the missile firing submarine commanders advising them what to do if the UK and its government is wiped out in a nuclear attack, established by whether Radio 4 has ceased broadcasting.   No one knows what is in these letters and it is not true that Liz Truss wrote 'Destroy the blob!'

My letter would say [bearing in mind that the boats are most likely to be in the North Atlantic]: 'Do not fire your missiles.   Do not return to the UK whatever the crew wants.  Proceed to the British overseas territory of St. Helena, surface, re-supply and establish what has happened, whether you can be of any use in the UK, or otherwise proceed to an Australian port.'

Two cheers for the Church of England

I am writing this in a personal capacity, although for several years I have been chair of the friends of the local parish church.  As well as raising funds for the fabric of the Church, as an iconic building in the townscape (larger than many cathedrals), we have been seeking to promote its wider use as a community asset, e.g., there is a café run by Ukranian refugees (not my work). We even showed Life of Brian in the church.

I was baptised in the Church of England and attended a CoE primary school.   This was of enormous benefit to my intellectual development as I had to wrestle with complex theological ideas at the age of seven or eight.  After we had been told we could attend Catholic services if we were on holiday abroad (none of us could afford that then), it was not received well when I suggested that the main quarrel with the Roman Catholic church appeared to be that the Pope was in Rome not Canterbury and was Italian not English.

I was never confirmed and I am not in communion with the CoE and have refused to be blessed.  I have had some interesting theological discussions with the vicar, but I remain an agnostic liberal Erastian (supporter of an Established Church).   I think that many of the ethical principles listed in the New Testament are good ones.   Katja Hoyer seems to take a similar stance in her most recent blog: https://www.katjahoyer.uk/p/whats-left-of-christianity

On the specific issue of safeguarding, the parish church has been trying for months without success to secure a replacement voluntary safeguarding role and it is now going to become part of a new paid post.

The impression I have formed is that the bureaucracy of the CoE is rigid and dysfunctional, not least at diocese level.   I also think that the Bishop of Newcastle has been badly treated by her fellow bishops.

Within my town each of the churches of the CoE offers a different menu: one is Pentecostalist (having been visited by the Holy Spirit); two are hand clapping evangelical; one appears to tolerate speaking in tongues; one reserves the sacrament, has Benediction and is under the aegis of a 'flying Bishop'.  A member of the PCC kindly invited me to his house to try and explain the theological stance of the parish church and 'English Catholic's is the nearest label I can provide.

Given such variety, it is difficult to maintain an established Church, although the legislation required to disestablish it would be complex. (See: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8886/ As far as I can tell, Wills has little enthusiasm for the role of Supreme Governor.   The position of bishops in the House of Lords is best dealt with as part of a wider reform.

There also some interesting questions about who would take responsibility for maintaining the fabric of cathedrals and architecturally valuable churches.

One of the advantages of an Established Church is that its services are available to all citizens regardless of their religious standing.   I have paid up front for my funeral and asked a friend who is a lay preacher to conduct it according to CoE rites.   The timing should be ok.

Letters to a great-granddaughter (2)

In a later post I want to talk about nuclear proliferation and Cold War 2.0, but this blog is about the original Cold War.

By the time I was born the Americans had used atomic weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The Japanese then surrendered, the Emperor addressing his people for the first time in a reedy voice and saying 'The war has proceeded not exactly to Japan's advantage.'   Russia entering the war also played a part in the Japanese decision.   It  has been argued that Nagasaki was bombed because the Americans wanted to try out a different type of weapon (a plutonium bomb).

Within a few years Russia had also tested an atomic weapon and the UK raced to catch up.  Thousands of servicemen were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in tests in Australia and the Pacific and their descendants are still feeling the effects today.   By detonating a very big A-bomb, Britain managed to hoodwink the Americans into thinking they had a H-bomb and could therefore be given nuclear secrets.

My first post-war political memory is of being in Coverack in Cornwall on holiday and hearing about the war in Korea on the radio.   There was reference to the possibility of a third world war and I asked mu parents what that meant.

The Suez crisis simply revealed Britain's reliance on the United States in an asymmetrical special relationship.

I was 15 and on half-term holiday at the time of the Cuba crisis which had me really scared.  Fortunately, Kennedy was a cool decision-maker and restrained his military such as air force general Curtis Le May ('bombs away with Curt Le May.')  He did a secret deal with the Soviet Union to remove American missiles from Italy and Turkey after a few months.

However, we came very close to armed confrontation.    A Soviet submarine with an exhausted crew nearly launched a nuclear tipped torpedo at the US vessels enforcing the blockade of Cuba, but were restrained by the boat's political officer.   If the US had invaded Cuba, as they were preparing to do, local commanders could fire 'tactical' nuclear weapons at them without getting authorisation from Moscow.

Britain relied in the 1960s on its 'V' bombers to deliver its nuclear deterrent.   They were dispersed around various airfields.   One was stationed near Leicester when I was at university and we heard and saw it making endless slow circles overhead when there was a Middle East crisis.

Curiosity and the desire to earn some extra money from NATO exercises led me to join the now disbanded United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation (technically I was a RAF reservist and had a RAF uniform).   I was based in a protected above ground structure a few miles outside Exeter (near what is now the M5).

Because I had a MSc from Strathclyde they thought I was smarter than I was and trained me to use what appeared to be a telex machine (relatively easy for me as I could touch type).   I have learnt very recently that it was in fact a more sophisticated piece of machinery, perhaps useable for a back up launch capability if High Wycombe was out of action.   (The launch mechanism was very belt and braces and possibly still is).    I have also learnt that there was a device at the airport on the Isles of Scilly that could transmit instructions to the submarine fleet.

Another point of danger was in the early 1980s when a geriatric Soviet leadership thought that a NATO exercise might be cover for a first strike on them.   The placing of cruise missiles in the UK also alarmed the Soviet leadership who considered 'taking them out'.

But then Ronald Reagan (who deserves more credit than he usually gets) and Mikhail Gorbachev came to an agreement to substantially reduce the number of nuclear warheads and also engage in other forms of cooperation.   Cold War 1.0 was over.