英国发挥核威慑 被认为不利于国防

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，英国大选转向了核问题。英国国防大臣、保守党议员迈克尔•法伦(Michael Fallon)提出了一个煽情的说法：若工党(Labour)上台，该党组成的政府可能拒绝出资更新英国“三叉戟”(Trident)核威慑力量，从而“从背后捅英国一刀”。

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.

法伦在搬出上世纪80年代的老调，那时保守党(Conservatives)成功地把工党刻画成在国防上立场软弱、在核武器上摇摆不定的政党。但当今的保守党不能再以英国军力的强悍保卫者自居。相反，本届政府主政期间大举削减国防力量，延续了工党开启的下坡路。

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”.

英国陆军预计将缩减至仅8.2万人，这是自拿破仑战争以来的最小规模。曾在本届联合政府中担任武装部队国务大臣的自由民主党(Liberal Democrat)议员尼克•哈维(Nick Harvey)爵士说，下一届议会可能进一步削减国防开支，将陆军缩编至仅6万人。1977年时拥有70艘驱逐舰和护卫舰的皇家海军，现在只有19艘这样的主力战舰，无法再组成1982年福克兰群岛（Falklands，即马尔维纳斯群岛）战争时那种规模的特遣舰队了。至于空军，英国广播公司(BBC)记者马克•厄本(Mark Urban)在新书中写道：2011年的利比亚冲突表明，“出动6架轰炸机……基本上就是皇家空军(RAF)远程打击能力的极限了”。

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.

在英国军力大幅下滑的背景下，保守党准备花费逾300亿英镑来更新三叉戟潜射导弹系统，并不能表明他们认真对待国防。这实际上是一个轻率的决策——向某一个实力象征砸下数百亿英镑，却不把钱花在英国真正需要的常规军力上。

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.

苏格兰民族党(SNP)和工党左派中真正的激进分子倾向于彻底废除英国的核武器。但是，面对夸耀自己的核武器、沉迷于复仇主义的俄罗斯，以及伊朗和其他国家持续存在的核扩散威胁，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.

英国应该寻求比三叉戟更便宜的核选项来维持有核国家的地位。应当走这条道路，当然前提是坚决承诺将省下来的资金投入常规武装部队。

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.

托比•芬威克(Toby Fenwick)最近为智库Centre Forum撰写的一份报告称，更新三叉戟系统将挤占今后20年英国军事装备预算的大约22%。他表示，如果换成基于炸弹和飞机的核威慑，英国可以节省近一半的费用——约为160亿英镑。报告并未提到另一种替代三叉戟系统的方案，即核弹头巡航导弹，这种导弹可以部署在常规潜艇上，而且美国已开始生产。

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.

英国国防部门的体制内人士称，他们仔细研究了三叉戟系统的所有替代方案，发现都存在不足之处。任何不支持三叉戟的人都被斥为“不严肃”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，和我们最重要的盟友谈谈，你会得到截然不同的看法。上周，我在会议桌上遇到4名美国安全部门的体制内人士，其中有3个民主党成员和1个共和党成员，他们都曾担任高层政府职位。没有一人觉得更新三叉戟系统对英国有意义，他们全都认为还不如把这些钱花在常规武器上。

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.

相关争论的很大一部分是关于核威慑的性质。支持三叉戟的经典理由是，潜在的敌人只能被“针对英国的核打击必然会招致核报复”这样一种绝对确定性吓阻——因此需要永久的海上威慑，这样即使英国本土被摧毁，英国的海上威慑力量依然能够实施打击。由于巡航导弹的射程比不上三叉戟弹道导弹，而搭载核武器的飞机可能被击落，因此只有三叉戟系统才能提供有效威慑。

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.

冷战时期英国拟定的核计划要求英国保持摧毁莫斯科和另外8个俄罗斯城市的能力，这种哥特式的恐怖情景一贯带有某种非现实的意味。最重要的是，它们没能承认，核威慑并不需要百分之百的报复“保证”才能有效。即使是核报复及其造成数百万人死亡的较高可能性，也能吓阻任何神志清醒的对手。毕竟，这就是为什么朝鲜和巴基斯坦相对粗糙的核威慑也能有效。甚至没人能确定朝鲜的核武器能不能用。

But does anybody want to take the chance?

但又有谁想冒这个风险呢？

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.

在国防预算极为充裕的情况下，更新三叉戟系统还可能说得通。但英国的情况并非如此。在现实世界中，更新三叉戟系统只能意味着进一步侵蚀英国用常规军力保卫国家、捍卫英国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.

保守党一意孤行地坚称他们打算在三叉戟系统上挥霍数百亿英镑，只能证明他们更偏爱华而不实的象征，而非实质。他们就像一个只买得起廉价西服的人，却坚持要戴一块劳力士金表来提升自己的整体装扮。总体效果不是引人赞叹，而是显得可悲。