LONDON: US, Europe and their Nato alliance are floundering in their nuclear policy, apparently willing to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear assault and relying on a magic umbrella of missile defence to defend themselves.

The strategy is doomed to failure, Sir Timothy Garden, visiting professor at the Centre for Defence Studies, King’s college, London, and a former air marshal, told the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies conference.

Ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, against which it operated a strategy of containment, coercion, deterrence and arms control which had slowed down the proliferation of nuclear weapons and reduced the likelihood that they would be used, it seemed to have lost its way.

“Now we seem to be moving to a mixture of pre-emption, apparent willingness to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear assaults, and developing magic umbrellas to defend ourselves.

“It does not appear to be a strategy which can succeed in the long term.”

From last year’s US defence review and the testimony of UK Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon, to the British defence select committee last March it was clear that a major change in the US and UK nuclear policy was taking place.

For the first time Britain and America were contemplating using nuclear weapons against an enemy using only chemical or biological weapons.

Referring to “states of concern”, and Saddam Hussein in particular, Mr Hoon told the committee: “They can be absolutely confident that in the right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons.”

It was now possible that the policy might be put to a practical test in Iraq.

Another speaker said that Nato might even be used by Washington as the delivery boy for a nuclear strike if it was unable to gain support for its plans through the UN.

In those circumstances, said Otfried Nassauer, director of the Berlin Information Centre for Transatlantic Security, Nato would provide a limited legitimacy, as an alliance of democratic governments.

Both speakers said Nato was at a crossroads: it could either continue to pursue its post cold war policy of emphasising non- proliferation and disarmament, or go down the Washington path of pre-emptive military action. It was more likely to go the Washington way.

Sir Timothy said Nato had no policies or much role in developing strategies to counter the three main current security threats: Al Qaeda’s fanatical followers, despairing Palestinian suicide bombers, and a defeated Iraq responding by using sponsored agents.

None of these had nuclear weapons but all would be prepared to use one if they got their hands on it.—Dawn/ The Guardian News Service.