英國發揮核威懾 被認爲不利於國防

Last week, the British election went nuclear. Michael Fallon, a Conservative and the UK’s defence secretary, made the emotive claim that a Labour government might “stab the UK in the back” by refusing to fund the renewal of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.

最近，英國大選轉向了核問題。英國國防大臣、保守黨議員邁克爾•法倫(Michael Fallon)提出了一個煽情的說法：若工黨(Labour)上臺，該黨組成的政府可能拒絕出資更新英國“三叉戟”(Trident)核威懾力量，從而“從背後捅英國一刀”。

Mr Fallon was reprising a theme from the 1980s — when the Tories successfully painted Labour as weak on defence and wobbly on nuclear weapons. But the modern Conservatives should not be allowed to pose as doughty defenders of British military strength. On the contrary, the present government has presided over a drastic reduction in defence capacity — confirming a downward trend begun by Labour.

法倫在搬出上世紀80年代的老調，那時保守黨(Conservatives)成功地把工黨刻畫成在國防上立場軟弱、在覈武器上搖擺不定的政黨。但當今的保守黨不能再以英國軍力的強悍保衛者自居。相反，本屆政府主政期間大舉削減國防力量，延續了工黨開啓的下坡路。

The British army is scheduled to decline to just 82,000 troops — its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars. Sir Nick Harvey, a Liberal Democrat who served as armed forces minister in the current coalition government, says further defence cuts in the next parliament could see the army shrink to just 60,000. The navy, which had 70 destroyers and frigates in 1977, is down to 19 such vessels. It could no longer put together a task force of the size that Britain needed during the Falklands war of 1982. As for the air force, a new book by the BBC’s Mark Urban says the Libyan conflict of 2011 demonstrated that “a mission by six bombers . . . is about the limit of the RAF’s long-range strike capability”.

英國陸軍預計將縮減至僅8.2萬人，這是自拿破崙戰爭以來的最小規模。曾在本屆聯合政府中擔任武裝部隊國務大臣的自由民主黨(Liberal Democrat)議員尼克•哈維(Nick Harvey)爵士說，下一屆議會可能進一步削減國防開支，將陸軍縮編至僅6萬人。1977年時擁有70艘驅逐艦和護衛艦的皇家海軍，現在只有19艘這樣的主力戰艦，無法再組成1982年福克蘭羣島（Falklands，即馬爾維納斯羣島）戰爭時那種規模的特遣艦隊了。至於空軍，英國廣播公司(BBC)記者馬克•厄本(Mark Urban)在新書中寫道：2011年的利比亞衝突表明，“出動6架轟炸機……基本上就是皇家空軍(RAF)遠程打擊能力的極限了”。

In the context of this drastic decline in capacity, the Tories’ commitment to spend upwards of £30bn on renewing the Trident submarine-based missile system is not a demonstration that they are serious about defence. It is actually a frivolous decision to waste billions on a symbol of strength — rather than to spend the money on the conventional military muscle Britain needs.

在英國軍力大幅下滑的背景下，保守黨準備花費逾300億英鎊來更新三叉戟潛射導彈系統，並不能表明他們認真對待國防。這實際上是一個輕率的決策——向某一個實力象徵砸下數百億英鎊，卻不把錢花在英國真正需要的常規軍力上。

The real radicals in the Scottish National party and on the left of Labour would like to scrap Britain’s nuclear weapons altogether. But in the context of a revanchist Russia that boasts of its nuclear arsenal — and with the continued threat of nuclear proliferation by Iran and others — that would be unwise.

蘇格蘭民族黨(SNP)和工黨左派中真正的激進分子傾向於徹底廢除英國的核武器。但是，面對誇耀自己的核武器、沉迷於復仇主義的俄羅斯，以及伊朗和其他國家持續存在的核擴散威脅，那是不明智的。

Instead, Britain should go for cheaper nuclear options than Trident that would allow the country to retain its status as a nuclear-weapons state. This path should be pursued, but only if linked to a firm commitment to spend the savings on the conventional armed forces.

英國應該尋求比三叉戟更便宜的核選項來維持有核國家的地位。應當走這條道路，當然前提是堅決承諾將省下來的資金投入常規武裝部隊。

A recent report by Toby Fenwick for the Centre Forum think-tank argues that Trident renewal will absorb about 22 per cent of Britain’s military equipment budget over the next two decades. But, he argues, the UK could save about half that amount — roughly £16bn — by switching to a nuclear deterrent based on bombs and aircraft. Another alternative to Trident, not highlighted by Centre Forum, would be nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, which are already produced by the Americans and could be deployed on conventional submarines.

託比•芬威克(Toby Fenwick)最近爲智庫Centre Forum撰寫的一份報告稱，更新三叉戟系統將擠佔今後20年英國軍事裝備預算的大約22%。他表示，如果換成基於炸彈和飛機的核威懾，英國可以節省近一半的費用——約爲160億英鎊。報告並未提到另一種替代三叉戟系統的方案，即核彈頭巡航導彈，這種導彈可以部署在常規潛艇上，而且美國已開始生產。

The British defence establishment claims that all the alternatives to Trident have been carefully examined and found wanting. Anybody who does not back Trident is dismissed as “not serious” or ill-informed.

英國國防部門的體制內人士稱，他們仔細研究了三叉戟系統的所有替代方案，發現都存在不足之處。任何不支持三叉戟的人都被斥爲“不嚴肅”或一知半解。

But talk to the nation’s most important allies and you get a very different perspective. Last week, I found myself at a conference table with four members of the US security establishment, three Democrats and one Republican, all of whom had held senior government positions. Not one of them thought Trident renewal made sense for Britain. All thought it would be better to spend the money on conventional weaponry.

但是，和我們最重要的盟友談談，你會得到截然不同的看法。上週，我在會議桌上遇到4名美國安全部門的體制內人士，其中有3個民主黨成員和1個共和黨成員，他們都曾擔任高層政府職位。沒有一人覺得更新三叉戟系統對英國有意義，他們全都認爲還不如把這些錢花在常規武器上。

Much of the argument is about the nature of nuclear deterrence. The standard case for Trident is that a potential enemy can be deterred only by the absolute certainty that a nuclear attack on the UK would be met by nuclear retaliation — hence the need for a permanent at-sea deterrent that could strike even if the British mainland itself had been devastated. Because cruise missiles have a shorter range than Trident ballistic missiles and because aircraft carrying nuclear weapons could be shot down, only Trident is deemed to offer an effective deterrent.

相關爭論的很大一部分是關於核威懾的性質。支持三叉戟的經典理由是，潛在的敵人只能被“針對英國的核打擊必然會招致覈報復”這樣一種絕對確定性嚇阻——因此需要永久的海上威懾，這樣即使英國本土被摧毀，英國的海上威懾力量依然能夠實施打擊。由於巡航導彈的射程比不上三叉戟彈道導彈，而搭載核武器的飛機可能被擊落，因此只有三叉戟系統才能提供有效威懾。

But the Gothic horror scenarios involved in British nuclear plans drawn up during the cold war — which demand that the nation maintains the capacity to obliterate Moscow and eight other Russian cities — have always had a certain unreality. Above all, they fail to recognise that nuclear deterrence does not require a 100 per cent guarantee of retaliation to be effective. Any sane adversary would be deterred even by a strong possibility of nuclear retaliation and the millions of deaths that could result. That, after all, is why North Korea and Pakistan’s relatively crude nuclear deterrents are effective. Nobody can even be sure that Pyongyang’s devices would work.

冷戰時期英國擬定的核計劃要求英國保持摧毀莫斯科和另外8個俄羅斯城市的能力，這種哥特式的恐怖情景一貫帶有某種非現實的意味。最重要的是，它們沒能承認，核威懾並不需要百分之百的報復“保證”纔能有效。即使是覈報復及其造成數百萬人死亡的較高可能性，也能嚇阻任何神志清醒的對手。畢竟，這就是爲什麼朝鮮和巴基斯坦相對粗糙的核威懾也能有效。甚至沒人能確定朝鮮的核武器能不能用。

But does anybody want to take the chance?

但又有誰想冒這個風險呢？

In a world of lavish defence budgets, Trident renewal might make sense. But that is not the world that Britain inhabits. In the real world, renewing Trident can mean only a further erosion of the country’s capacity to defend itself by conventional means and to protect its interests around the world.

在國防預算極爲充裕的情況下，更新三叉戟系統還可能說得通。但英國的情況並非如此。在現實世界中，更新三叉戟系統只能意味着進一步侵蝕英國用常規軍力保衛國家、捍衛英國在全球各地利益的能力。

For the Tories to insist that, nonetheless, they intend to splurge billions on Trident simply testifies to their preference for flashy symbols over substance. They are like a man who can afford only a cheap suit, but insists on topping off the outfit with a gold Rolex watch. The overall effect is sad, not impressive.

保守黨一意孤行地堅稱他們打算在三叉戟系統上揮霍數百億英鎊，只能證明他們更偏愛華而不實的象徵，而非實質。他們就像一個只買得起廉價西服的人，卻堅持要戴一塊勞力士金錶來提升自己的整體裝扮。總體效果不是引人讚歎，而是顯得可悲。