Summary. Prof Paul Rogers gives evidence. (Legal debate about the limits
of his evidence)
Prof Paul Rogers in witness box.
John McLaughlin took Paul through his credentials; Prof at Dept of Peace
Studies at Bradford University (largest dept. of Peace Studies in the
world!), author of 15 books, 100 papers, lectured to NATO planning conf. ,
given evidence in 3 Crown Court cases (including Hawk trial), been
interviewed on Newsnight by Jeremy Paxman etc etc!
JMc asked for the composition of the British nuclear weapons system …..and
the PF objected.
Paul and jury out whilst legal submissions on Pauls evidence.
PF said that even if they were charged with damaging a Trident sub he's not
conceding that this would be relevant, but evidence about Trident isn't
relevant to Maytime!. The women had said that they hoped to delay tests on
4th Trident sub, but this didn't effect its capabilty.
'The jury are not here to judge Britains nuclear defence policy. Despite
what we see written outside the court, Trident is not on Trial!'
He thought that there was a danger that the jury could decide on the
history of nuclear weapons, emotion might come into it.
JMc said that in the High Court Appeal judgement of Helen John Lord
Caulsfield had said that possession was not criminal in Scots Law. This
witness was needed to show that Britain did not just possess Trident, it
was used as a threat. This witness knew how the system worked, knew about
accidents.
John Mayer agreed with all this, added 'the actings of the accused were
based on objective understandings, not emotional impetus.'
Angie said that Paul had been a lecturer of hers, she hadn't been allowed
to lead her evidence on accidents, and this expert could speak to that.
Sheriffs ruling: Agreed there was a danger of the jury becoming confused as
to the issues, an emotional side which does exist, influencing their decisions
Agreed that evidence on the Cold War was irrelevant.
Ev on accidents has to be presented carefully, 'if it becomes too dramatic
it runs the risk of effecting the jury's objective view of the facts'.
Although it weighed heavily on the minds of the accused she wanted v.
cautious, limited ev, without making it harrowing, more than is necessary.
For the defence of necessity there has to be an immediate danger.
She had read the ICJ Opinion v carefully.- 'It seems that the enigmatic
confusion was based on the loose question which was originally put to it.
The ICJ could not say whether in all circumstances nuclear weapons would be
illegal, because so much would depend on the actual circumstances facing a
state or country and whether that state was in imminent danger of
destruction.'
Before she can make any pronouncement to the jury about threat or use in
this case she has to know what the elements were on June 8th.
'This whole trial goes far beyond a simple case of malicious damage'
(Note: although all this was about whether Paul Rogers could give evidence
it gave some pointers to what the Sheriff was thinking about the whole case.)
Paul Rogers (and jury) back in.
John McLaughlin questioning.
They covered the composition of Trident system, one Trident warhead = 8
Hiroshimas etc
Also British nuclear defence policy, allocated to NATO, dominated by US,
1st strike.
They discussed sub-stategic weapons, Paul thought even the lowest yield
would still be a weapon of mass destruction.
Alert status, 15 mins
Deterrence - Paul said that the fact none used since Nagasaki 'most
analysts conclude that we were very lucky' 'Nuclear deterrence can only
fail once!'
They then talked about the threat to use. Paul gave examples of India &
Pakistan and effects of Military Coup this week on alert status. He also
talked about the incident with the Norwegian rocket launched to study polar
atmosphere, which nearly initiated a full scale Soviet strike.
And Cuba.
And the NATO exercise in 1983 (when the Soviet leadership was in crisis,
the Korean jet had just been shot down and Reagan had just made his Evil
Empire' speech) which the Russians mistook for preparing for the real thing.
They then went onto targetting, reliance on US technology, and times when
Britain has deployed outside NATO eg Falklands, Gulf etc
Paul said that the idea of a single small nuclear warhead being used in a
far off place is a dangerous illusion. There would always be a risk of
escalation.
Anyway the radiation from the atmospheric testing has circled the globe.
There would be widespread damage to the environment.
They then went through Production No 5 which was a paper that Paul had
written on nuclear accidents.
They covered the Windscale fire, the B47 bomber crash at Lakenheath, the
Palomares crash etc
JMc asked if there were any former leading lights in NATO now taking an
anti-nuclear position.
Paul talked about Robert McNamara and General Lee Butler
JMc asked if civil resistance has a capacity to effect change.
Paul discussed, people power at the end of the Cold War, the ending of the
Marcos dictatorship.
Also the refusal by the Austalian Gov 4 weeks ago to lead a UN force into
East Timor until there were huge public demonstrations in Austalian cities.
In Britain there was the example of abolition of slavery
John Mayer then asked a few questions.
Asked Paul to look at Production No 8. He explained that it was a request
from the White House to the Senate to ratify the CTBT, signed by Bill
Clinton. If the Senate didn't ratify then it wouldn't come into force.
JM asked 'Is this the treaty we saw on the news last night?'
Paul said that yes this was the one.
The PF objected and JM said 'No further questions!'
Adjourned for lunch
Resumed 2.10pm Professor Paul Rogers (PR) in witness box, PF cross examining
PF You said Britain has a total of 4 subs. Within your expertise can you
say at what
stage the 4th one is?
PR It is not yet fully deployed.
PF Is it fitted out?
PR It has still to undergo trials, I understand.
PF How long does it take between launch and sea trials?
PR Between 6 and 18 months
PF So it takes between 6 and 18 months?
PR A word of caution here -this is not in the public domain -it is a common
opinion. But it is very unlikely to be less than 6 months.
PF In your expertise how many countries other than the UK have nuclear
weapons?
PR There are five declared states -US/Russia/France/China and UK
India and Pakistan have tested weapons and may be ready to deploy them.
Then there is Israel which is commonly believed to have nuclear weapons
but has not declared so.
PF "Declared"- what does this mean?
PR It means a state has openly admitted it possesses nuclear weapons.
PF Could they have them and not tell?
PR Yes, Israel has been in that position since the '70s.
Also South Africa was but went for unilateral disarmament in the early '90s
PF Any others?
PR Probably no others who are close to full development, apart from India
and Pakistan. Brazil and Argentina had nuclear weapon ambitions as have
North and South Korea, Taiwan and Iran. The former Soviet Union states
Belarus, Kazachstan and the Ukraine had nuclear weapons on their soil but
all agreed to give them up, in spite of later second thoughts -concern for
NATO expansion in Serbia.
PF Is it possible for a state to have NWs and it not to be known?
PR Possible but not likely.
PF What about verification of those who had given back weapons?
PR A good example was Kazakstan who freely gave a store of weapons grade
Uranium to the US for safe keeping and the US had confidence that that was
all.
PF So the UK and seven others have nuclear weapons?
PR Yes
PF A new crisis is possible at any time and would not need to involve NATO
PR Yes, India and Pakistan is an example.
PF You said earlier that if even a small nuclear device was set off it
would not necessarily stop there?
PR Yes
PF So if Britain were to give up nuclear weapons we would still not be out
of the woods?
PR No, indeed, but if Britain were to unilaterally get rid of its nuclear
weapons it would be the biggest boost for disarmament in the last 30 years.
You have to see it in a wider context than the 8 nuclear weapon states. The
contribution to disarmament of a unilateral declaration of nuclear
disarmament would be significant.
PF There would be no guarantee that others would follow.
PR Well, we cannot argue that others should not have them if we ourselves
are unwilling to give them up.