Trident. Yes or No

[Pink&Ginger]

GBZ / VC,

I thought for a moment that no one was going to make a decent argument, but you two have saved the day (and helped my ‘enforced’ essay no end – ta !!)

There’s little doubt that the UK’s ‘independent’ (word used wisely) nuclear deterrent serves little purpose. Against a re-emergent nuclear state (no clues there) we would undoubtedly have the US nuclear umbrella to shelter under – and why would a resurgent Russia want to attack the UK anyway? Against a terrorist nuclear incident (God forbid) the UK would need to prove conclusively that it was state-sponsored in order to have a target to strike – even then, would striking the population of a state with a nuclear missile be proportional to AQ detonating a dirty-bomb in London? Also, after the ‘dodgy dossier’ debacle, the UK government would have a hell of a time convincing the House, let alone the public, that a particular state sponsored the terrorists.

For a Labour government that has had its fingers burnt previous by its nuclear-policies, it is far easier for them to accept the status-quo and keep Trident, albeit in a new boat. Let us hope that the US decide to replace Trident in 2042 with a missile that is exactly the same size at Trident – otherwise the UK would have spent £20+ billion on 4 submarines that they no longer need, because there is no way that we can unilaterally support Trident if the US no longer use it.

The only debate worth having is whether, or not, our ‘top table seat’ is predicated on our nuclear weapon status – I suspect if we look hard, it is only the UK that thinks that it gives us status, the other nations really couldn’t care less.

P&G