Events in Crimea prove need for
UK Armed Forces to retain a credible deterrent capability against new threats,
says Defence Committee.
The MoD’s financial
settlement in the next Comprehensive Spending Review must be made in the light
of the need to retain a credible deterrent capacity in the country’s
Armed Forces, says the Defence Committee in its report, published today, on
Deterrence.
The deterrent strength of the UK
armed forces against conventional military threats is reliant on the
credibility of the Armed Forces to project military power. Chairman of the
Committee, the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, says:
"Deterrence must be
credible to be effective: Britain has to show the capacity and the will to
respond proportionately and effectively to threats at every level. Recent
events in Ukraine illustrate the speed with which new threats, and indeed the
reappearance of old threats, can manifest
themselves."
The Committee is concerned that
recent comments by Robert Gates, former US Defence Secretary, about the
UK’s value as a military partner for the US in the wake of defence cuts,
illustrate a deterioration in perceptions abroad of the UK’s military
capabilities. The Rt Hon James Arbuthnot says:
"Any proposed reductions in
our conventional capabilities must be considered in the light of the effect it
has on our allies – and others - rather than the purely
financial."
The Committee welcomes the
emphasis that the Government places on the importance of cyber defence and the
commitment of resources to a new cyber strike capability. But the difficulty in
identifying actors in a cyber attack makes the ability to deter that much
harder. Similar questions arise in deterrence against the asymmetrical threat
of terrorism as it is difficult to identify interests and groups against which
a response can be legitimately targeted. The Committee is calling on the MoD to
set out how it can make clear that both cyber and terrorist attack will elicit
an appropriate and determined response.
Looking at the nuclear
deterrent, the Committee points out that the UK’s ability to effect a
nuclear response is not credible in dealing with all threats, and so strong
conventional deterrence is also required. And given the importance of
communication to the concept of deterrence, investment in diplomatic and
intelligence assets must be integral to the UK’s security
apparatus.
The Committee concludes that it
would be naive to assume that a decision not to invest in the nuclear deterrent
would release substantial funds for investment in other forms of security. The
Committee believes that the decision on the retention of the nuclear deterrent,
should be made on its own merits, rather than on the basis of what else could
be bought with the money saved.
Deterrence, both nuclear and
conventional, has an important place in the defence philosophy of the
UK.
"But nuclear
deterrence must not form the be-all and end-all of our defence posture.
There may be times when it fails, and an attack succeeds. Deterrence
needs to take its place alongside a greater emphasis to be placed on resilience
and recovery. As the world becomes more multi-polar and less stable and
where the certainties of identifying an aggressor may be reduced, we shall
increasingly need a more complex security
strategy."
James Arbuthnot
says:
"Strong conventional forces
provide the UK with a contingency against the unexpected threats that may
emerge. In a rapidly changing global environment, we may have little
warning. Events might require the reconstitution of conventional forces,
but once cut back they will be very difficult to
rebuild."