‘Nuclear arms give us security? That’s complete nonsense’
With the Cold War over, cyber warfare is the biggest threat, says Lord Bramall, the ex-armed Forces head
THE Government should abandon its plans to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent and instead spend the money on improving the nation’s cyber defences, according to one of Britain’s most highly acclaimed generals.
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, who was head of the Army during the Falklands War in 1982, said Britain’s nuclear deterrent no longer has any credibility.
Instead of spending the Ministry of Defence’s estimated £31billion on replacing the Trident submarine-based system, Lord Bramall, 94, said the money would be better spent on developing a new generation of smart weapons, such as cyber technology.
“The nature of conflict is changing and is very unlikely to go back to how it was,” said Lord Bramall, who participated in the 1944 D-day landings and went on to become the head of Britain’s Armed Forces under Margaret Thatcher. “The sort of all-out war we experienced in the First World War and Second World War will not be repeated. With the modern technology of cyber you can do all kinds of things and it is now the greatest threat we face.”
Lord Bramall’s comments come after Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, the current head of Britain’s Armed Forces, warned that the country faced a new array of threats, including the ability to disrupt Britain’s internet access and trade by cutting vital undersea communication cables.
Lord Bramall, who served much of his career during the Cold War, when nuclear weapons were seen as vital to preventing an attack by the Soviet Union, believes the deterrent is no longer valid to the threats we face.
“People see nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantee of their security, but this is complete nonsense,” he said.
“I can think of no circumstance whatever in which a British prime minister would authorise the use of nuclear weapons. For example, having a deterrent did not prevent the September 11 attacks on America.
“And if a dictator uses a chemical weapon, no one is going to use a nuclear weapon in response. The fact that we have nuclear bombs does not deter them. It no longer does the job it was designed to do. It is a white elephant.”
Rather than spending billions on a like-for-like replacement of Trident, which relies on four submarines to carry nuclear-armed missiles on a continuous basis at-sea, Lord Bramall believes a better option would be to run down the current Trident programme to having just one submarine for emergencies, and spend the money on new equipment which is more relevant to the threats the nation faces today.
“There are lots of other ways in which you can deter today,” he said. “You can invest the money on better intelligence, developing new smart weapons and improving our cyber capabilities.”
Lord Bramall, who supported the nuclear deterrent during the Cold War, said he had changed his mind because “the world has changed”. The thinking behind his change of heart is set out in his recently published book, The Bramall Papers, which discusses in detail his views on Britain’s future defence arrangements.
“The great thing about the nuclear deterrent is that is has to be credible, and there has to be a reason for you to use it. It was very effective during the Cold War when we faced superior odds from the Soviets and they understood that if they attacked they would suffer badly,” he writes. “Now the credibility has gone completely and it no longer
‘You can invest the money on better intelligence and on improving our cyber capabilities’
deters. We would set a great example to the rest of the world by getting rid of them. The money could be better spent elsewhere.”
Instead, Lord Bramall believes the National Security Council, which is currently undertaking a thorough review of Britain’s future defence and security requirements, should spend the money on developing a new generation of weapons.
“Of course, you need to have some weapons with a high-end spectrum that are precision weapons and do not cause too much collateral damage,” he said. “We need more frigates, for example, because we need to project naval power to defend our interests. And we need to have a lot more investment in cyber, as that is going to be one of the biggest threats we face in the years to come.”