Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Defence

Killing is wrong… right?

Nov 9

Posted by Malc in Defence, Democracy, International | 34 Comments

In my younger, more radical days (hang on – at 26, can I really make the claim that I’m all grown up and “sensible” now? Jury still out…) I was much more vocal, and aggressively so, in my opposition to capital punishment. Cases like this one, though utterly horrific had me arguing in no uncertain terms that capital punishment was wrong, that no matter how bad the crime, state execution was simply not a valid means of punishing a criminal for their action.

Don’t get me wrong – I still don’t think it is right. Killing is wrong (though I can make a case for Margo’s End of Life Assistance Bill being okay, but that’s another debate). Whether it is a drug lord slaying a rival gang leader, a policeman shooting dead a potential terrorist or the state executing a prisoner guilty of what our American cousins would call first degree murder – killing is wrong. You don’t need a religious or theological position to agree with that – basic morality will do.

When I was in my early teens I vividly remember the Oklahoma City bombing, the subsequent trial of Timothy McVeigh and the morbid fascination I had with the American legal system which was inevitably and without any shadow of a doubt going to pass a death sentence on the perpetrator. I vaguely recall news reports in the week up to his execution stating the exact time that he was due to be killed. I remember that it was supposed to be held on 16th May (its my birthday – hence remembering precisely) but that it was delayed for a month (until 11 June – the day before my brother’s birthday!). Anyway, I took such an interest in the case that I knew exactly what time the execution would be – and watched news reports confirming his death. Even though I knew McVeigh had killed 168 people I did not believe that his death was justified, nor that the state had a right to end his life. The fact that he had been wrong in the first place didn’t matter – killing is wrong.

There are 4 broad arguments against the state being allowed to kill: morality (killing is wrong), lack of ability to be a deterrent (evidence suggests so), lack of certainty surrounding guilt of convicted and monetary factors (total costs of execution and appeals process exceed cost of life imprisonment without parole in the US). But for me, the latter three are secondary considerations to the first – that killing is wrong, whether state sanctioned or otherwise.

How many times have I used the phrase “killing is wrong” thus far? I count 6 (and a seventh if you count the question in the previous sentence). Do you get the feeling I’m trying to convince you of something… or myself? Because here’s a kick in the balls: I’m not convinced killing is always wrong.

Let me qualify that statement. I’ve always been more of a utilitarian than a consequentialist (and, indeed, hold J.S. Mill as one of my ideological standard-bearers) but I do have a Masters in Terrorism and International Relations, so here’s a flip side for you. If you could save 20 people from certain death (okay, I know death is certain – I mean a premature death via a terrorist attack) by killing one person you know is planning to attack, would that killing be wrong? If the state had known McVeigh was going to bomb Oklahoma City and shot him dead on the way – and in the process saving 168 lives – would that be justified? I think you could make a case for it (and I can hear the civil liberties types queueing up to whack me as I write this).

I’d still argue that killing is wrong – and you won’t get me to say otherwise – but I think you can justify this type of action. Look, I’m not saying its right. And I’m not saying we should give police new powers in this field, nor that security trumps civil liberties (despite what some might argue!) just that in some cases – perhaps when we can be almost sure that acting will avoid the widespread loss of life – that state sponsored killing could, perhaps, be justified. There, I’ve said it.  But this is a very grey area – things are not black and white here.

Now, I suspect there will be some responses pointing out my objections to capital punishment – we’ll never be 100% sure, costs involved, deterrence and, of course, that killing is wrong – and say that I’m being inconsistent, nay, a hypocrite! I see your point. But I do think I can hold both positions consistently – that killing someone to avoid large-scale loss of life can be justified but that killing them after the due process of law has been followed is wrong. Here’s how. In the former case, the death of suspect/potential convict serves a purpose that is directly related to the physical well-being of society (that is, the avoidance of terrorist incident and/or multiple fatalities). The latter is simply vengeance – an eye for an eye, the state attempting to “even the score” with the criminal. This will not bring back those whom they have killed – but in the former case it stops them from being killed in the first place.

I know its not a perfect argument. And of course there are instances where action will prove ill-considered and wrong. And, inevitably, those concerned with the human rights of those who could not give a flying **** about the human rights of those they intend to kill will scream bloody murder. And yes, that is what it is. But I’m not sure that we can’t – sometimes – look beyond that.

I know that’s controversial, particularly in today’s polarised world. I know what I’m saying condones what is some cases (Israel particularly) would be described as “state-sponsored terrorism”. And I know – and I believe – that killing is wrong. I just think – sometimes – it can be justified.

The Thin Red Line

Nov 4

Posted by Jeff in Defence, Europe | 14 Comments

As comforting as the word may be to a vulnerable little citizen like myself, I’ve always found ‘Defence’ to be the wrong choice of word when it comes to military spending. A shield or a bunker is a good form of defence but bombs, guns and warships are attack equipment, surely. Either way, the slice of spending that goes towards the military and MoD is surely the most primal of our country’s budgets and, unfortunately, one of the most expensive.

Attack may well be the best form of defence but it seems at the moment that Defence is the best form of cost-cutting diplomacy. The UK entering into a defence treaty with France this week is very welcome news. ‘Cheaper together, more expensive apart’ could sum up the philosophy behind the arrangement as the economies of scale that can be achieved through two similarly sized nations pooling resources and expertise could be considerable. I don’t know whose idea it is and I don’t know how much money will be saved but one can’t fault the coalition or David Cameron on this venture.

So why stop there? Why not bring Germany in, and Italy? That’s a diverse range of WW2 players all under the one umbrella which must make the continent, and indeed the world, an even safer place than it already is.

And why not go even further, why not just have one single European Army? Think of the money that could be saved and the security that would bring. How could Slovenia wage war on Denmark if they both share the same armed forces? A blurring of combat units away from national borders and towards UN, NATO and EU distinctions would surely make for a more integrated, harmonious planet.

Of course, the Tory right who cheered Cameron’s Treaty would balk at the distinctly pro-Europe prospect of a single Armed Force, even if there was a veto on where a country’s soldiers could be sent to fight. A convergent military across Europe would no doubt count as a red line for the current Government but a thin one that could perhaps be broken through if the argument was strong enough. After all, I don’t see why a single European Army isn’t just a simple continuation of the logic that brought Cameron and Sarkozy together.

In a strictly UK context it makes perfect sense too. A Scandinavian super-state was ruled out a couple of decades ago primarily because Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland had inconsistent views on NATO and the EU and defensive views were generally just too disparate to reconcile. (Not to mention Norway not wanting to share its lucrative oil revenues, but we’ll leave any such analogies with the UK out of things) Nuclear weapons to one side, it has not been particularly difficult for Scots, Welsh, English and Northern Irish to see Defence in the same way so there should be a capital of British confidence there, available to be spent on building up a bigger base, pooling costs and strengthening ties with allies.

There are of course political considerations involved. The unapologetically pro-EU camp has lost (or at least avoided) the argument on the benefits of Europe to such an extent that I no longer even know who is making that vital contribution at the upper political echelons. There is not many amongst Cameron, Clegg or Miliband’s ranks who would push for defence treaties beyond this one with just the French at this stage. David Cameron would no doubt need one of his somewhat absurd ‘sovereignty referendums’ if it went any further anyway.

So who could be in favour?

Well, I do not know the Green party position on this general area, if one even exists, but I would imagine that, with their peaceable nature, the Greens would be broadly in favour.

For the SNP, I would imagine that there are key advantages for Nationalists to be behind a single European defence force. It helps to nullify the ‘stronger together, weaker apart’ argument that all of its opposition parties delight in using. If the ‘together’ part of that phrase was Europe then it doesn’t matter if the ‘apart’ part is the UK or Scotland, as far as I can see.

A Europe talking together, working together, planning together and, where necessary, fighting together? All the while saving money to spend on schools, science and health? That’s real progress in my eyes, that’s Euro-topia and that, unbeknownst to the man or not, is the direction that David Cameron is now nudging us towards.

Scotland’s newest ghost town

Oct 22

Posted by Malc in Defence, Economy, Westminster | 4 Comments

The CSR and the SDSR have provided bad news for Moray. RAF Kinloss, which employs anything between two and five thousand people depending on your source, is to close. Those jobs were directly linked to the RAF, but beyond that, the town of Kinloss itself will effectively collapse. Added to that, the future of RAF Lossiemouth remains uncertain. Moray has taken a huge hit from these spending reviews and, even if RAF Lossiemouth remains open, the effect of cutting RAF Kinloss will be felt for years to come.

At this point, I’ll declare an interest – my parents live in Moray (though about as far away from Lossie and Kinloss as you can be yet still be in Moray!) and I know a couple of folk who work(ed) at Kinloss, as well as local elected representatives in the area. So this case of cuts, more than many of the others, seems a lot more real to me, and I’m perhaps a little more circumspect when it comes to discussing them.

Of course, losing one and possibly two RAF bases in the area is an absolute disaster for local people, the local community and the local economy. Jobs will go, there will be mass migration from the area, shops will be forced to close through lack of business leading to further job losses and a prolonged period of pain for those in the area trying to escape the economic downturn.

The UK Government established RAF Kinloss for use in the Second World War and have held squadrons based there since 1939. For 70 years the government has made use of the permanent facility there, sending Nimrods from Kinloss to numerous conflicts, including the Persian Gulf in the early 1990s and Iraq and Afghanistan more recently. Around the Air Force Station, the local community grew, with much business based upon their continued presence in the area. In short, the local community relied upon the base for its economy to survive – which meant that the government was effectively responsible for protecting the local economy. This isn’t the same as a car plant or whisky bottling plant closing for business reasons. This is a government deciding to cut the heart out of a local community. I don’t see how this will help the economy here at all, which is the main reason the government has given for the cuts.

On the other hand, look at this from the government’s perspective for a moment. You have a £150+ BILLION deficit to get under control. First on your list of things to do is identify things which are necessary and ring-fence spending on them. Then trim the fat – which means that everything which is not necessary is expendable. You then examine your needs, work out what may be needed for particular policies – in this case, for the defence of our borders – and again, ring-fence spending in these areas. Everything else… well, you cut, or get rid of entirely. You can’t be sentimental when there’s a huge debt to recover. And so RAF Kinloss and its Nimrods were deemed expendable, unnecessary for the future of Britain’s defence.

From this perspective, it makes some sense. We’d be hugely pissed if they’d turned around and said “look, we’ve decided that defence is our priority, so we’re going to keep RAF Kinloss, order more Nimrods and spend much more on air defence. To do that, I’m afraid we have to make cuts elsewhere – which means the NHS will no longer be free and we’re doing away with all welfare spending”. Obviously, that’s an overstatement. But can you imagine what the left would have said – particularly those who are also anti-war types – if that had been the case? The bottom line is, the government has identified that RAF Kinloss no longer fits with Britain’s defence and will no longer fund it. If they’d kept it open and not used the personnel, they’d be decried as wasting taxpayers money simply to maintain the local economy in Moray.

So yes. There are good reasons for closing the base, and I understand the thinking to an extent. But I don’t like it.