By Morys Ireland
Before you read the rest of this post, consider this: Are there any circumstances whatsoever in which you would be prepared to have the deaths of hundreds of thousands people on your conscience?
No one can deny that right now the public finances are in a bad way: in order to pay back the debt incurred by the state over recent months taxes will have to be raised and public spending cut. So what better way to alleviate some of the pressure on the public purse than by ditching the plans to update the totally unnecessary Trident nuclear missile system?
The true cost of replacing the system, including maintenance costs of the new system spread over its 30 year life-span, is estimated at an eye-watering £76 billion. The fact that the cost is spread over 30 years is irrelevant as it’s likely we will still be paying for the recent government spending for at least half of that time.
The arguments in favour of updating Trident are largely based upon an outdated, Cold War view of geopolitics. It’s said that nuclear weapons are the reason the Cold War never escalated to an all out conflict - and maybe so. But the fact is we no longer live in the cold war era and the dizzying pace of globalisation has resulted in an economic interdependence between countries that make the chances of a full scale world war seem very remote indeed.
Another argument in favour of Trident is that without it, Britain would lose its standing in the world. Well, if our ‘standing in the world’ is based solely upon our ability to indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of people in one fell swoop then perhaps we don’t deserve such a standing. Such blind patriotism is frankly sickening. Britain’s standing in the world is not a result of its possession of nuclear weapons, it is a result of our long history of democracy, our commitment to human rights and a language and culture that has spread right around the globe.
The threats and problems we face today cannot be solved by nuclear weapons. We cannot fight terrorist cells or Somali pirates with weapons designed to take out entire cities. What’s more, polls have consistently shown that the British public do not support the replacement of Trident. What better time could there be to scrap such an unpopular and expensive public spending program and lead the way in the noble cause of global nuclear disarmament?
To return to the question posed at the beginning of this post, try to foresee a situation in which we would actually use our nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons used today are many times more powerful than those dropped on Japan in 1945. Millions of innocent people would die, and for the sake of what? Retaliation? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth - a city for a city?
In the 21st century, one hopes that even the most eccentric world leaders have grown out of that mentality. I never want to see a situation in which the death of millions would be forever on the collective conscience of the British people - the only way we can ensure that such a situation never arises is by getting rid of Trident, now.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I can take your point that there is a definite double standard in this. Why should one country have them and others not? But what we are talking about is the worst possible scenario. In the end, if it were to ever come to using these weapons I want them. When you are defending the country you don't want a level playing field.
You make an interesting point about equiping our allies with these weapons. Remember that Israel has been covertly armed for years. It may not sit well but Saudi Arabia could conceivably undergo a civil revolution in a way that Israel never could. Again, I'm not saying it will happen or is likely, but because of the consequences these things have to be considered. If we were to arm them this would mean defending them in any circumstances. It is an interesting point though, who knows you else has been armed.
In the end, when it comes to defending the country I want every possible defence, if this isn't responsible then I'll take that. Its not a happy situation, Oppenheimer knew this, he was appalled at the destruction caused by his invention, but as I said before nobody wants to need a nuclear deterrent, but here we are.
Biological Weapons
Chemical Weapons
Anti-personnel Land Mines
Gas Chambers even
all could give some conceivable enemy cause for concern, perhaps in situations where nuclear weapons can't.
Should Britain and other 'responsible' countries be fully stocked with such weapons, or perhaps, is it a better way forward for them to be banned by internationally respected treaties - the Chemical Weapons Convention etc. Not uninvented, but neither to be held, not constructed, not sent on patrol 24 hours a day, 365 days a year - as the UK currently does with Trident.
If you can't uninvent them, and take Thomas' view, that "the whole idea of nuclear deterent [sic] is that you don't use it" then it logically follows that all states should be nuclear armed as this will deter each of them from attacking any other. If it's only Britain's possession of nukes that would stop the Taliban nuking us, then we should ensure Saudi Arabia etc. are also so equipped, as logically, deterrence will hold and all wars prevented.
Before they try to clamber onto the moral high-ground, the unilateralists should ask themselves how many millions of people have perished in the last fifty years as the result of nuclear weapons and compare this with how many millions have died as the result of "conventional" ones.
As someone said - try banning the bayonet first...
On a wider note, its not a case of that specific eventuality. That situation may never (god forbid) occur, my point is more that you cannot predict the future and to knowingly put this country behind the technological curve would be a tragedy and an error. Nukes will always exist and I for one would rather have them than not.
The problem is that you can't disinvent something, once its here you have to live with it. Because there is not a conceivable situation currently where a deterent is necessary doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Imagine a Pakistan that falls into the Taliban's hands. Imagine a nuclear attack on the US by a Pakistan backed Al Qaeda. In these circumstances an independent nuclear deterent is essential.
No one wants to have a nuclear deterent but to remove it would a dereliction of duty. You might say that we could get rid of it and only renew it if the circumstances required. Imagine the scene, "Britain renews nuclear deterent amid fears of attack". This would increase tension, not reduce it. We need to keep it and pray we never have to use it.
Tomorrow china tell us that if we don't destroy our nukes immediately they will nuke us.
Your response would be to comply because "if we aren't a threat they won't attack us". (A threat to what I wonder? What would they want to do that we might threaten nuclear war??)
Chinas record on Tibet and Taiwan (and even Tiananmen square) isn't good, but you would put the UK at the mercy of Chinas good will, and give them a green light to do whatever it was that we might have threatened to nuke them for?
Worse - what if it wasn't China (who at least seem rational, even if misguided) - but a rogue state?
(It does feel strange....)
And don't worry, I won't get you started on the climate.
I'm afraid that just doesn't add up. Far from removing the possibility of nuclear weapons being used against us, Trident actually increases that risk - any potential adversary would see us as a threat of great magnitude, therefore targeting their own weapons against us. The risk of utterly pointless retaliatory strikes would be greatly magnified.
While it's prudent to green light the initial stage of Trident procurement so a replacement programme doesn't stall I'm ticked off that no other solutions have been put on the table and discussed though I have heard *one* squeak of support for an SST replacement and general support for an airborne solution over submarines.
The other thing I'm concerned about is QinetiQ and the independency of the warheads. Apart from a dumb name the technology sharing and business partnerships with the US give me the jitters as much as the supplementary role to US military command. Also, the person who greenlit the indpendent warheads being anything but independent needs dragging outside and shooting.
Mostly, I'm not too bugged about nuclear weapons. They're not going away and people have enough stress at the moment without some ideologue trying to restart that hobby horse. Most developed states have protocols that keep idiots away from the button and slow their firing down while wiser heads negotiate a settlement. The focus has to remain on developing jobs, infrstructure, and good trading relations on the basis that happy people don't start fights.
On most readings, Saddam was attacked on the *belief* that he controlled WMDs - what a poker player he must have been. Weren't there tactical nukes available to discourage any first use of WMDs?
If you don't like trident - I'd be happy to see your comparisons with alternative nuclear delivery mechanisms - I have clearly stated what I expect of a nuclear deterrent, feel free to sell me an alternative (not that I have any influence).
By the way, have we been told how much of our 'contingency' funds have been squandered on labours wars?
Naughty: stop twisting my words...
I had - as you will know - explained my 'anarchism' as being in favour of minimalist government. The armed forces - including a modern and updated nuclear deterrent - are one of the few areas of public spending that I support.
And Peter, it's below you to claim that I "revel in megadeath". I'll leave the reveling in such scenarios to the juvenile fans of computer games.
[And please don't get me started on the futility of 'combating' global warming -- oops - I meant 'climate change'].
Unlike the Soviet Union during the commissioning of Trident, none of the potential enemies (e.g. Pakistan) has a delivery mechanism to reach the UK. Of those that potentially hate us more, North Korea also can't reach the UK with its current missiles, and Iran is five to ten years away (using the failed Iraqi estimates) from actually having a fissionable device.
So you're basically saying we should keep up the current levels of deterrence, designed for a clear and present danger of an all out Soviet attack on Europe, for these speculative future problems?
I'm surprised Max. The other day you were declaring yourself as an anarchist, and now you're fixated to the last glowing phallic symbol of state power. But these delivery mechanisms have been (mercifully) completely impotent for 60 years.
If you're really worried about future threats the money would surely be better spent on some alternative to fossil fuels or some carbon cleaning equivalent thereof.
But it takes an anarchist to revel in megadeath.
But when the failed state of Pakistan finally crumbles and the nice gentlemen of the taliban get their hands on ex-Pakistan's nukes; or when Iran goes nuclear and somebody there decides that Hezbollah could do with a nice suitcase device to further their Jihad; or when self-made famine once again threatens the People's Democratic Republic of [North] Korea and the Great Leader seeks a diversion - then, it would be sensible for us to hold a serious deterrent.
... or would you rather rely on Uncle Sam to save the day?
One thing is certain: For the foreseeable future America, Russia, China, France, India and Israel aren't going to surrender their nuclear deterrents.
Answer: Yes - absolutely.
And so long as our existential enemies (and we do have existential enemies) are certain that - if push came to shove - they would face total annihilation, Britain and the West will survive.
And yes, the whole point of nuclear weapons is mutually assured destruction - that's why we have them and that's why no one has used them since WW2.
Good luck with your unilateralism - it went down well in the early 1980s.
If we didn't have nuclear weapons it is quite possible that a nuclear state could threaten us - our choice would be surrender or die.
If you don't wan't hundreds of thousands of deaths on your conscience support trident.
It seems our Overlords aren't bothered about public opinion, money or whether killing millions is good/bad. Shame, its things like this where you can make a difference.