Just who do we think that our nuclear deterrent is supposed to deter? Gordon Brown is talking about renewing Trident at a cost of anywhere between £10bn and £25bn. The way defence contracts go it will be nearer to £25bn and possibly higher.
That has to be something like £500 for every man, woman and child in the country. Is it worth the expense? Bear in mind that you could use the money to pay off the entire NHS deficit and still have more than £24bn left over.
If it is really important to replace stuff which is past its useful life, why not use the cash to buy back the water companies and replace all the leaking water mains? It would have a much greater effect on us all.
Just who do we expect to attack us if we don't have nukes? The trend is towards terrorism-type attacks for which a nuclear response is useless. The next time we get dodgy reports tipping the intelligence services off about someone being in possession of a beard in Forest Gate are we going to nuke East London? (As a West Ham supporter I obviously can't approve of that)
In a way, the whole issue of having nuclear weapons is just like our participation in the invasion of Iraq – its a hangover from the days of the empire and our inability to adjust, leading to an over-inflated view of our importance in the world.
We are the 78th largest country in the world, with the 21st largest population. For years we were punching above our weight thanks to a head start with technology. Other European countries like Spain, Portugal, France and Holland also had pretty extensive overseas territories – even Belgium had colonies in Africa – but they have more or less learned to let go.
What we have to remember is that we gained our position not through having more people or more resources, but by having better technology. That advantage does not still exist in all areas, and where it does it is not so marked.
Its a bit like a bunch of schoolchildren where one child is an early developer: he is taller, stronger and more confident than his classmates and becomes a bit of a bully. Years after leaving school, everyone else has caught up. The early developer is no different from everyone else but still thinks he is better and acts that way. At a school reunion his classmates might initially fall into their old deference out of habit, but sooner or later they will realise that they have caught up and might even have more going for them. If the bully has not changed he will likely be viewed with either hostility or pity.
Is that why we really want nuclear weapons? Not for physical security of the country but for mental security to keep kidding ourselves that we are one of the big boys?
Personally I think its a luxury we can't afford, and that's without even getting into the moral issues of whether the things are inherently good or bad. I would rather have an equivalent investment in the health, rail, water and education infrastructures instead.
I think the issue is that if rogue states like Iran have nuclear weapons then we need them as well.
This country is already a US ‘nuclear launch site’ (eg Fylingdales) stuffed full of nuclear weapons.
Well, along with our Tridents, if a “rogue state” (and that includes the US in my book) decides to nuke us (accidentally or on purpose), we ain’t half going to go with a bang.
I suppose there’s one comfort – we won’t know much about it when it happens – especially around Gatwick.
Of course the whole thing is total insanity. The most balanced people are the most insane – how can they talk about the annihilation of millions with such equanimity. How ? Because they are unhinged and insane themselves.
Our absurd “Nuclear Free Zone” signs have been replaced by the equally absurd “Alcohol Free Zone” signs (eg at the entrance of Gatwick Road/Airport end). I know what I’ll be doing when the 3 minute warning comes…
Is the best way to deal with this potential threat really to nuke them if they nuke us? Or maybe we should nuke them first, just to be sure.
I have no desire to go through another Cold War. Spend the money on health and education and international aid and development. Sounds like a much better investment to me…
“Maybe we should nuke them first, just to be sure” is another way of stating the official US policy of “Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes” – as part of its “Full Spectrum Dominance” (FSD) policy.
Both policies are obscene and insane to anybody decent and sane.
I can’t see how we can have the sheer arrogance to say that a ‘rogue state’ should not have nuclear weapons if we have them too. Could the fact that we are, in effect, saying “we can have them because we are better than you” the sort of thing that turns them into rogue states in the first place?
In practical terms, even if these states developed a bomb they would not have the capacity to deliver them to us, and our conventional weapons are plenty of deterrent surely. The forces might not be as big as they once were but still, if someone is not afraid of having their cities levelled by fuel-air weapons and conventional explosives delivered by plane or cruise missile they are not going to be afraid of the same thing from a nuke.
(And if we ever did have to retaliate for an h-bomb it would more than likely be a non-nuclear attack anyway)
Not that we could ever use Trident without permission from the US anyway…
Many of us in the Labour party used to go on the CND marches. Did we work to get a Labour government elected so that it could buy a new generation of nuclear weapons? I can’t see this going down too well at the conference.
I think the most important element is that if we start redeveloping nukes we lose the little moral high ground we have in asking “rogue” states to stop developing nukes, the fact is that no matter how much we try and develop the latest weapons we will simply be putting off the enevitable, Korea, Iran even Iraq will eventually catch up with our Nuke’s it is the way of technoligy. better to invest in makeing the years upto any trouble better for everyone.
In his excellent closing chapter of Cosmos, the late Carl Sagan said the following:
Well, I believe the excuse was bankrupt then and is bankrupt now.
@ Adele
I’ve nothing against nuclear weapons, I just think that people that want them should raise the money through jumble sales.
Nuclear weapons won’t save anyone from screwballs that go down the tube with explosives in their rucksacks but if you really want them then you pay for them – I won’t stop you.
There is a Plaque, at the entrance to the Peace Garden in Crawley’s Tilgate Park, which reads :
“Let all who stand here and read
Remember those in the past
Who made our present possible.
Now we are the guardians of the future
Let us ensure that generations to come
Can look back to us as the people
Who put an end to the nuclear arms race
Which had placed the very existence of humanity at risk”