Dear all,
Every time this issue comes up it never fails to amaze me the number of people who gleefully demand we waste billions of pounds on such an obviously pointless purchase.
Many people talk about a replacement for Trident being necessary not just in today’s world but in the future as well. They claim that we do not know who our enemies will be in the future. Who our enemies have been, are now or will be in the future is irrelevant. The continuing misuse of the word deterrent is one of the biggest con-jobs in history. Trident as a weapons system is not about deterrence but instead vengeance.
How can I say this?
Nuclear weapons can only be used pre-emptively or retaliatory, lets deal with the each of those in turn.
Pre-emptive strike
Any use of nuclear weapons pre-emptively negates the concept of deterrence
Any politician ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a non-nuclear capable state would instantly become the world’s greatest war criminal.
Any politician ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a nuclear capable state is likely to be dooming several million of their own citizens to death in the more than likely reprisal attacks
Retaliatory strike
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack by a non-nuclear capable country would be viewed in the same light as the pre-emptive attack on a non-nuclear state as shown above.
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack by a nuclear capable country would be viewed as a massive escalation and would inevitably lead to a counter-retaliatory nuclear strike.
Any use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by a nuclear capable country shows that the concept of a deterrent was a fallacy since it failed to deter the attack.
So what I hope I have shown above is that the reasons given, both on this thread and by politicians of various persuasions, do not seem to stack up to scrutiny.
I look forward to informed and pertinent responses.
Cheers
BHR