Modern Conflicts: Post-1945 to 2010

Cold War Britain: living with the nuclear threat

After the Second World War, Britain faced a different kind of conflict. The Cold War was a rivalry between the USA and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. Britain did not experience a direct war with the Soviet Union, but the possibility of nuclear conflict affected government policy and popular attitudes throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

Britain tested its first atomic weapon in 1952, becoming the third country to do so after the USA and Soviet Union. British politicians wanted nuclear weapons for national defence and to preserve Britain’s influence in international affairs. The government pursued deterrence: possessing weapons with which to retaliate was intended to discourage an enemy from attacking in the first place.

This policy required scientific research, weapons production and military preparations. A bomb-design establishment developed at Aldermaston in Berkshire, while the RAF’s V-bomber fleet carried strategic nuclear weapons. Britain also developed hydrogen weapons through the Operation Grapple tests. Nuclear cooperation with the USA was strengthened by the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement. From 1969, the Royal Navy maintained a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, with at least one nuclear-armed missile submarine always on patrol.

To supporters, these weapons offered protection and international influence. To opponents, the growing arsenals made the consequences of a future war terrifying. Nuclear conflict threatened civilians on a vast scale, even though Britain was not currently a battlefield. Atmospheric weapons tests also prompted concern about damage to health and the environment. Fear therefore arose both from possible wartime destruction and from weapons testing in peacetime.

CND and Aldermaston: campaigning against the bomb

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) was launched at a large public meeting in London in February 1958. It advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament: Britain should give up its own nuclear weapons without waiting for other countries to do the same. Campaigners hoped Britain could take the initiative when international negotiations were failing to stop the arms race. This differed from multilateral disarmament, in which countries negotiated reductions together.

The first Aldermaston march took place at Easter 1958. Aldermaston’s association with British bomb development made it a powerful focus for protest, and subsequent marches helped make opposition to nuclear weapons publicly visible. Scientists highlighted the dangers of the weapons, religious supporters raised moral objections, and writers, musicians, trade unionists and others joined the movement. Nuclear policy had become an issue around which civilians organised, rather than a matter left entirely to military and political leaders.

Campaigners disagreed about methods. Some favoured demonstrations within the law; others believed peaceful law-breaking was justified to prevent nuclear war. In 1960, the Committee of 100, led by philosopher Bertrand Russell, was established to organise mass civil disobedience. In February 1961, about 4,000 protesters sat down outside the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall. Sit-ins and blockades were non-violent, but could lead to arrest and imprisonment. They exposed a disagreement within the anti-nuclear movement about how far protest should go.

The Cuban Missile Crisis and changing responses

In 1962, the discovery of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba brought the USA and Soviet Union close to nuclear war. Although the confrontation centred on Cuba, its possible consequences extended to Britain as an American ally and nuclear power. The crisis made the danger behind the arms race especially immediate.

The withdrawal of the Soviet missiles was followed by efforts to reduce tension. A direct communications hotline (a teleprinter link) linked Washington and Moscow in 1963, allowing written messages to be exchanged more quickly and reducing the risk of dangerous misunderstandings. In the same year, Britain, the USA and Soviet Union agreed to ban nuclear testing in the atmosphere. This was a limited achievement, not the abolition of nuclear weapons, but it showed that negotiated cooperation could produce results.

As the immediate fear of nuclear war eased, CND’s numbers declined. From the mid-1960s, opposition to the USA’s war in Vietnam increasingly became a focus of mass protest. British nuclear policy nevertheless continued: Harold Wilson’s Labour government, elected in 1964, retained the previous Conservative government’s nuclear policy despite anti-nuclear feeling among Labour supporters. Protest influenced public debate but did not achieve CND’s central aim of British unilateral disarmament.

Northern Ireland: conflict within the United Kingdom

The IRA campaigns of 1969–1994 brought violence into civilian life in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. The IRA sought to end British rule in Northern Ireland and achieve a united Ireland. Unionists wanted Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom. These political divisions often overlapped with religious identities: most unionists were Protestant and most nationalists were Catholic. However, neither community held a single view, and support for Irish unity did not necessarily mean support for IRA violence.

In the late 1960s, civil rights campaigners challenged discrimination against Catholics in areas such as voting, employment and housing. Their campaigns were initially non-violent, but met hostility from the unionist authorities. Street violence and attacks between communities intensified in 1969, and the British Army was deployed to restore order.

The IRA regrouped and increasingly confronted British troops. Its campaign included bombings and shootings directed at military targets, public utilities and civilians. Loyalist paramilitaries also carried out attacks, particularly against Catholics. Civilians therefore faced violence from several directions, while policing and military operations became part of everyday life.

Security measures could deepen hostility

The government tried to contain the violence through stronger powers. Internment without trial was introduced in August 1971. Hundreds of Catholics were wrongly imprisoned, increasing resentment and support for republican paramilitaries. A measure intended to weaken violent organisations could therefore help them gain supporters when people regarded state action as unjust.

On Bloody Sunday, in January 1972, British soldiers shot dead thirteen people during a nationalist demonstration in Derry. This further increased support for the IRA and damaged confidence in the British Army among nationalists.

The conflict also changed government. In March 1972, Westminster imposed direct rule, replacing government through Northern Ireland’s parliament at Stormont with direct political control from London. Many loyalists resented this intervention. Attempts at compromise were difficult: a power-sharing executive established in 1974 collapsed following loyalist opposition and disruption.

For civilians, the consequences went beyond individual attacks. Violence drove people into increasingly separate Catholic and Protestant neighbourhoods. Fear, intimidation and distrust reinforced divisions, making peaceful contact and political agreement harder.

Bombings in mainland Britain and public outrage

IRA attacks brought the conflict to people far beyond Northern Ireland. On 5 October 1974, bombs in two Guildford pubs killed five people and injured 65. The pubs were targeted because off-duty British soldiers used them, but such attacks also endangered civilians.

On 21 November 1974, the Birmingham pub bombings killed 21 civilians. There was widespread public outrage, and pressure mounted on the government to prevent further attacks. Ordinary social spaces had become targets, making terrorism an immediate concern for people who were not involved in the conflict.

The government responded rapidly. The Prevention of Terrorism Act became law on 29 November 1974. It allowed detention without charge for up to seven days, with the Home Secretary’s approval for detention beyond the initial 48 hours. It also permitted exclusion orders preventing suspected people from entering Britain.

These powers showed how public fear could produce a rapid extension of state authority. Critics argued that innocent Irish people were being subjected to suspicion and monitoring: thousands were screened without being charged. The tension was between preventing further attacks and protecting people who had committed no offence.

Miscarriages of justice added to these concerns. The Guildford Four were convicted in 1975 but released on appeal in 1989, after the Court of Appeal found that police had fabricated confessions. The Birmingham Six spent sixteen years in prison before being freed on appeal in 1991. These cases demonstrated the human cost of wrongful convictions and raised serious questions about policing and justice.

Moving towards the 1994 ceasefires

Military force alone did not resolve the conflict. The IRA and British Army increasingly recognised that neither could secure a military victory. The republican movement also developed political activity through Sinn Féin, while the non-violent nationalist SDLP pursued dialogue with it.

Negotiation involved more than armed groups and governments. Business, trade union and community organisations pressed for peace. British–Irish cooperation became important, and the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 gave the Irish government a consultative role in Northern Ireland’s affairs.

In 1994, the IRA announced a cessation of military operations, followed by a loyalist ceasefire. These announcements reflected a growing willingness to pursue political dialogue. They were a major turning point, but a ceasefire stopped fighting rather than automatically settling the disagreements behind it.

Iraq in 2003: a war that divided Britain

In 2003, Britain joined the USA in invading Iraq, ruled by the dictator Saddam Hussein. Prime Minister Tony Blair supported the invasion. A central justification was the belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), including chemical or biological weapons, which could pose a serious threat.

The invasion formed part of the wider War on Terror, but public responses depended on whether people accepted the reasons given for this particular war. Some believed military action was necessary; others thought Britain was entering an unjustified conflict. The important distinction is between the government’s decision to fight and the public’s varied reactions to that decision.

Why some people opposed the invasion

Opposition was visible before the fighting began. Mass demonstrations took place in London in February 2003, and protests continued when the war started. Demonstrators disputed the justification for invading Iraq: many did not accept the claims about chemical or biological weapons as a sufficient reason for war.

Opponents also criticised Britain’s relationship with the USA. They believed Blair was following President George W. Bush rather than making an independent decision in Britain’s interests. Describing Blair as Bush’s ‘puppet’ expressed a fear that Britain was appearing weak and submissive. This was a criticism made by opponents, not a neutral description of the relationship.

There were also concerns about legality and Britain’s international reputation. Critics argued that the invasion had not been sanctioned by the United Nations and therefore might be illegal. For these people, opposition was not simply a dislike of fighting: it reflected doubts about the authority for the war and the damage it could do to Britain’s standing abroad.

Why support existed—and why it weakened

Large demonstrations did not mean that everyone opposed the war. Surveys during its first few months showed a majority in favour. Supporters believed that Iraq possessed WMDs and saw Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship as another reason to support intervention. If they accepted the threat described by the government, military action could appear justified.

Support weakened when the claimed Iraqi WMDs were not found. This undermined a central reason given for invasion: people who had accepted the war as necessary could now question whether it should have happened at all. Some also began to doubt the intelligence services because the information about Iraq had proved wrong.

The response therefore changed over time. Protest, initial support and later disillusionment were all significant. The war affected not only attitudes towards overseas military action but also confidence in political leaders and the information used to justify their decisions.

Terrorism brought conflict into civilian life

An overseas war and a terrorist attack affect society in different ways. Terrorist violence can strike ordinary journeys and public spaces, making civilian security an immediate concern.

On 7 July 2005, four suicide bombers attacked three Underground trains and a bus in London, killing 52 people. Three of the attackers were British-born. This challenged the assumption that terrorist threats necessarily came from outside Britain and encouraged debate about how to prevent radicalisation within the country.

A further attempted attack on 21 July 2005 failed when the bombs did not explode. The following day, police mistakenly identified the Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes as a terrorist suspect and shot him dead. His death showed that counter-terrorism could itself have devastating consequences when identification and judgement went wrong.

Greater security and the limits of state power

One response to the attacks was a demand for stronger security. The government argued that identity cards would help combat terrorism, and Parliament passed the Identity Cards Act in 2006. The Terrorism Act 2006 also extended the maximum period for which a terrorist suspect could be held without charge to 28 days.

These measures widened the state’s role in people’s lives. Detention without charge meant that a person could lose their freedom while still being a suspect rather than someone convicted of an offence. The central debate was therefore about the balance between protecting the public and preserving civil liberties.

Responses were not limited to policing and legislation. Some people argued that alienation and exclusion, including anger over British foreign policy, needed attention. In 2006, the government created the role of Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with preventing extremism among its concerns. This represented a different approach: trying to prevent people becoming involved in terrorism, rather than relying only on identifying and detaining suspects.

Across these conflicts, civilian suffering and fear encouraged demands for stronger protection. Yet wrongful imprisonment, mistaken identification and disputed justifications for war could undermine trust in the state. Conflict changed not only the powers governments exercised, but also whether people regarded those powers as legitimate.