
EXCLUSIVE No nation should dictate who can and cannot have the bomb - Peter Hitchens attacks America's nuclear hypocrisy on new Mail podcast
Atomic powers like the US employ a lot of 'bilge' to justify their nuclear arsenals while condemning other nations who seek the same deterrent, Peter Hitchens tells Sarah Vine on the latest episode of the Mail's Alas Vine & Hitchens podcast.
The acclaimed broadcaster argued that misinformation about the Manhattan Project and America's initial motivations for pursuing an atomic bomb provides an all-too-convenient explanation for why some nations are allowed nukes and others are not.
While not a 'fantasist' who believes global nuclear disarmament is possible, Hitchens said that the disputes over who can possess nuclear weapons raise questions about whether any country should have access to them.
Hitchens said: 'It has been very interesting to watch the US try to explain why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, whereas it should.
'Apparently, no one cares that Israel, Pakistan and North Korea have them. You have to wonder what the logic is behind saying who can and cannot have them, apart from who's already got them, and who's biggest.
'We have an elaborate justification for nuclear weapons in our minds. During the Cold War, I was a fairly strong Nato enthusiast because it seemed logical that it was ridiculous for us to give up ours while allowing the USSR to keep theirs.
Peter Hitchens: 'The argument that we dropped the bomb on Japan, and that's why they surrendered - is certainly not true.' Listen here
'But since then, it has been nagging at me – should they exist at all? Should any country be allowed to have them?'
Hitchens said much of the justification for nuclear weapons stems from the end of the Second World War – specifically the perceived success of the strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which led to Japan's surrender.
He explained: 'There is a wonderful museum at Los Alamos in New Mexico, where the bomb was originally developed – it has this tremendous display inside, which made the same argument over and over again.
'The argument is the bomb saved possibly millions of lives in 1945. That we dropped the bomb on Japan, and they surrendered. The trouble is, it's certainly not true.
'It was Stalin's decision to invade Manchuria that forced a surrender. The Japanese were terrified of a Russian revenge for everything they had done to them since 1904.
'The other justification for developing the bomb was that Hitler would get it first – Nazi scientists were nowhere near a nuclear weapon. It's complete fantasy.
'The West has dodged a big moral question with these justifications. In which case, why do we have it at all?'
The ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East prove that nuclear weapons don't deter conflict as was once assumed, Hitchens contended.
He added that nuclear weapons actually enable lower-level conflicts by creating a framework where conventional wars can rage without escalating to total destruction, leaving thousands dead.
'So-called conventional weapons are now of such horrifying power,' Hitchens began.
'Look at these Bunker Busters – my point being that nuclear weapons, rather than preventing war, have increasingly permitted lower-level conflicts to take place.
'Who would have thought that a war involving the Russian army could take place in Europe after the invention of nuclear weapons? Yet, here we are.'
Speaking specifically about Iran, Hitchens reminded listeners that Israel had acted dishonestly with its own nuclear programme in the 1960s.
He said: 'The reason we're in this mess in the Middle East is because the Israelis don't trust the Iranians, the Iranians don't trust the Israelis and the Americans certainly don't trust the Iranians.
'But, when the Israelis built their bomb – they weren't very public about it themselves. It only came out because an Israeli official got drunk at a cocktail party and blabbed to an American diplomat.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Beatles and Kinks would be howling about tax in Labour's Britain
'If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat / If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet / Cause I'm the taxman / Yeah, I'm the taxman.' Those lyrics by George Harrison are from Taxman, the first song on the Beatles' Revolver album, released in 1966. That same year, the Kinks released Sunny Afternoon, with Ray Davies' blunt first line: 'The taxman's taken all my dough.' Artists and songwriters are often ahead of the curve – quite literally in this case. For it wasn't until 1974 that US economist Arthur Laffer drew a line on a napkin capturing what Harrison and Davies were saying: as tax rates rise beyond a certain point, entrepreneurs and wealth creators get cheesed off. They then do less – or move overseas – and the broader economy suffers. What become known as the Laffer curve, sketched at a smart Washington restaurant during a dinner with Republican Party bigwigs, had a profound impact on policymaking in America and elsewhere. Its core idea – that there's an optimal tax rate that maximises revenue, beyond which higher rates lower total revenues by stifling economic activity – was adopted by Ronald Reagan, a showbiz-star-turned-policymaker, as he entered the White House in 1981. Laffer's insight fed into 'supply-side economics' – the school of thought that finally countered post-war 'big state' ideology. It's no good just borrowing and spending more government money in a bid to boost growth if the tax burden crushes genuine commerce. Reagan's Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 sparked much howling from vested interests grown fat on state largesse. But it cut income tax significantly – and the US averaged 3.5pc annual growth for the rest of the decade, rescuing the world's biggest economy from 1970s stagnation. Approaching the first anniversary of this Labour Government, UK tax revenues are heading for 38pc of GDP, the highest tax burden since the early 1960s – above levels which riled the Beatles and the Kinks. Yet the public finances are extremely precarious. The Government borrowed £148bn during the fiscal year that ended in April, £61bn more than the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated when that same fiscal year started. It's important to remember the vast scale of that 12-month forecasting error during current rows over whether Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, has a single-digit-billion buffer in the national accounts in four years' time – the 'fiscal headroom' that dominates political discussion. Arguing obsessively about contingencies of less than 1pc of public spending which may or may not exist in 2029 is pure displacement activity. Our political and media class meanwhile all but ignores today's stark realities – an annual debt interest bill that's twice yearly defence spending and gilt yields consistently way above those seen during Liz Truss's mini-Budget crisis of October 2022. Yes, it's important to rein-in our runaway benefits bill. Even before the Government's latest cave-in, spending on sickness and disability benefits was set to rise sharply by the end of this decade, from under £50bn to well over £70bn a year, albeit by a few billion less after Labour announced its welfare reforms. Now that Sir Keir Starmer has folded, even that minor slowdown in the rate of increase of benefit spending won't happen. The only way to fix the public finances is to get growth going, so tax revenues rise and our vast 100pc-of-GDP-plus debt burden, and near-crisis-level debt service costs, fall as a share of national income. But Labour's tax rises since last July have crushed economic activity, curtailing tax revenues and weakening the public finances further – a sure sign we're beyond the peak of the Laffer curve, with yet higher tax rates set to prove even more counter-productive. The disastrous rise in employers' National Insurance contributions (NICs) has hammered hiring, undermining NIC revenues overall. Employment has fallen every month since the policy was unveiled in last October's budget, by an astonishing 109,000 in May alone, the month after this tax on jobs was introduced. During that same autumn Budget, Reeves raised capital gains tax from 10pc to 18pc for basic-rate taxpayers and 20pc to 24pc for those paying the higher rate. The Office for Budget Responsibility has since sharply downgraded capital gains tax (CGT) revenue forecasts, wiping £23bn off the projected tax take by 2030. Labour indulged its ideological fantasies by loading more taxes on non-dom international financiers based in the UK. Now multiple billionaires have fled and foreign direct investment projects have fallen to a two-decade low – imagine the jobs and tax revenues we've lost. Building on Tory mistakes, Labour increased taxes even more on North Sea drilling, killing off countless energy extraction projects, again destroying valuable revenue streams. Then there's the spiteful imposition of VAT on school fees which has seen four times more pupils withdrawn by cash-strapped households than ministers predicted and countless school closures – another case of more taxation destroying ambition and enterprise, hitting revenues overall. Back in the early 1980s, inspired by Laffer and Reagan, Margaret Thatcher's Tories lowered tax rates, setting Britain on a path to recovery. David Cameron and Theresa May's governments gradually cut corporation tax (CT) from 28pc in 2010 to 19pc by 2017, with CT revenues hitting 2.7pc of GDP by 2019, up from 2.1pc a decade earlier when the tax rate was much higher. Taxation is complicated – the historical and contemporary examples above are subject to other factors, too. But evidence of many decades shows that countries where the state is relatively small grow faster and are more prosperous, with those consistently spending beyond their means collapsing into crisis. The Beatles and the Kinks didn't leave the UK for tax purposes, unlike the Rolling Stones. But their songs captured the national mood, speaking for the silent majority, a mood that prevails today. Taxation is far too high – and raising tax rates even more will only compound Britain's fiscal and commercial weakness.


Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
BBC axes ‘anti-Semitic' broadcaster
A journalist employed by the BBC has been accused of calling for Israel 'to be dismantled' and appearing to suggest that Jewish people 'are not meant to have a land'. Osman Ahmed has also been accused of mocking the Israeli victims of Iranian missile strikes by posting videos poking fun at people fleeing towards air raid shelters. The freelance reporter, who has previously worked for ITN and CNN as well as the BBC, has posted numerous items on social media commenting on the Gaza conflict since Oct 7 2023, when more than 1,200 Israelis were murdered by Hamas gunmen. He has made posts about the Iranian-Israeli war and has reposted several items on social media that have been described as virulently anti-Semitic. Following complaints to the BBC, the broadcaster said it would no longer employ Mr Hamed. 'Jewish people are actually not meant to have a land' One post shared on the London-based reporter's Instagram accounts showed a group of orthodox Jews from a fringe sect attempting to set fire to the flag of Israel with the comment: 'Yes, that's correct. Jewish people who truly understand their religion recognise that Israel is a terrorist state and Jewish people are actually not meant to have a land'. Another video posted on Mr Ahmed's Instagram with a sweating emoji showed airline passengers fleeing towards a shelter during a recent Iranian missile strike, with the caption: 'Chaos at Ben Gurion Airport as Israelis scramble to flee 'the promised land'.' Mr Ahmed, who recently worked as a producer on the World Service's Newsday and the BBC's breakfast radio show for listeners in Africa and Asia, has previously also worked for BBC Arabic, the corporation's Arabic language service. BBC Arabic has been repeatedly criticised for bias against Israel, amid claims that its contributors and presenters have displayed open anti-Semitism and have celebrated Oct 7 as 'armed resistance by the Palestinian people'. Another social media post on Mr Ahmed's account appeared to suggest Jews were to blame for the destruction of Gaza, juxtaposing a photograph of Jewish refugees arriving in Palestine ahead of the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 with the devastated ruins of Gaza following months of Israeli bombardment. Mr Ahmed responded to the announcement that Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, had decided to ban Palestine Action by sharing a comment stating, 'to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise'. 'Hateful tweets' The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (Camera) said: 'In Ahmed's case, his hateful X tweets and Instagram stories – some posted right next to ones where he mentioned his BBC affiliation – were publicly available online in English for months. 'The national broadcaster's failure to act sooner raises serious questions about whether this was due to complicity or sheer incompetence.' The Israeli embassy in the UK had previously complained about what it described as Mr Ahmed's anti-Semitic social media posts when he was a contributor to BBC Arabic. Orly Goldschmidt, spokeswoman for the embassy, said: 'The BBC previously apologised to us for this journalist's actions while he was working with BBC Arabic. Osman [Ahmed] has continued to promote anti-Semitism as a representative of the BBC since.' A spokesman for the Board of Deputies of British Jews said: 'We are well aware of the problems at the BBC. While the corporation has made some progress in a number of areas, the pace of change has been, at times, painfully slow. The issue of anti-Semitism needs to be a top priority.' The BBC announced in May that it was launching an independent review of its Middle East coverage, its Arabic service and its broader handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict. In March, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, called for 'wholesale reform' of BBC Arabic, after a report by Camera accused it of 'appalling anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias '. A BBC spokesman said: 'Osman Ahmed is a freelancer who is no longer engaged by the BBC. We will not be working with him again. We are clear there is no place for antisemitism on our services.'


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Iran says 71 killed in Israeli strike on Evin Prison
DUBAI, June 29 (Reuters) - Israel's attack on the Evin Prison in Iran's capital Tehran on June 23 killed 71 people, Iranian judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir said on Sunday. At the end of an air war with Iran, Israel struck Tehran's most notorious jail for political prisoners, in a demonstration that it was expanding its targets beyond military and nuclear sites to aim at symbols of Iran's ruling system. 'In the attack on Evin prison, 71 people were martyred including administrative staff, youth doing their military service, detainees, family members of detainees who were visiting them and neighbours who lived in the prison's vicinity,' Jahangir said in remarks carried on the judiciary's news outlet Mizan. Jahangir had previously said that part of Evin prison's administrative building had been damaged in the attack and people were killed and injured. The judiciary added that remaining detainees had been transferred to other prisons in Tehran province. Evin prison holds a number of foreign nationals, including two French citizens detained for three years. "The strike targeting Evin prison in Tehran, put our citizens Cecile Kohler and Jacques Paris in danger. It is unacceptable," France's Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot had said on social media X after the attack.