One Hiroshima, one Nagasaki are enough

The new British prime minister, Theresa May, wanted to revamp the UK’s nuclear capability and convinced the House of Commons to vote in favour of constructing four new submarines for this purpose. 

So far so good. London has a right to keep up with other nuclear powers, especially as the new global geopolitical circumstances have ushered in new threats and dangers to the world. 

But when May was recently asked by members of the House of Commons whether she is prepared to use a nuclear weapon even if entails the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, her reply was an unequivocal yes. 

This is where the new prime minister may have erred and erred terribly. 

It is one thing to upgrade Britain’s nuclear arsenal to serve as an effective deterrent against the country’s foes, but to go to the extent of saying outright that she is prepared to deploy nuclear weapons even if that would entail the death of thousands of innocent people is something that the international community has a right to take issue over with London. 

The effective use of a nuclear weapon as a deterrent does not mean and must not mean using it against innocent people, killing hundreds of thousands of them and injuring perhaps half a million or more. 

The deterrent objective of nuclear weapons can be attained without killing thousands of people by simply deploying them against non-civilian targets — and they are plenty. 

No nation wants to risk the lives of so many of its people or the peoples of other nations at times of war, as had happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. 

Surely, military strategists can think of several targets for nuclear weapons without purposefully targeting civilian areas where innocent people live. 

One Hiroshima and one Nagasaki are more than enough. 

It is scary, therefore, that May seems prepared to go that far in promoting her country’s nuclear arsenal, especially when such a position runs counter to the International Criminal Court’s statute to which London is a party and the 1949 Geneva norms on the conduct of wars.  

The prime minister could be accused of flouting international norms by even rhetorically declaring that she is prepared to use weapons indiscriminately against civilians. 

It behoves the new premier to explain her position on the use of nuclear weapons and consider reversing it altogether to contain the damage that has ensued from her announced stance.