Trident

As a place to start a blog, there is nothing like beginning with something small and not in the least divisive.

Ignoring the stupendous amount if money involved, because its alternative value in so many sectors of our society is obvious, there is a simple question to answer: is there any validity in possessing an independent nuclear detterent?

The world has changed exponentially since the first two nuclear weapons were used, and the presence of nuclear weapons throughout the world, in the hands of a varied group of countries with differing and very different agendas, has done nothing to reduce a vast array of large and small scale wars, with devastating results. In fact, it could be argued that, during the 2nd half of the 20th century, the world’s 2 super powers used their nuclear impasse to fight any number of wars by proxy across the world. And that situation continues today.

As to the more parochial basis of the UK possessing nuclear weapons, as has been stated on numerous occasions, they are acting as a detterent every day. But against what? Against who? Our ancient enemies are now our friends – until Brexit kicks in, and don’t get me going on that! Our cold war enemy(?) is still there; smaller, no less belligerent but with a back story that deserves some respect, and with no intention of attacking western Europe, or us. After all, even belligerents doing shoot themselves in both feet.

Other rogue regimes? Maybe. But let us not forget that at one time or another the vast majority of those have been, or are expedient friends.

And any claim that it has reduced either the threat or actual activity of terrorism is ludicrous. Nor has it stopped those military involvements that we have recently been engaged in, or still have an involvement.

So what, exactly, is its purpose? Just because we have nuclear weapons doesn’t mean that we have to keep them. And if it is the entry ticket to the ‘Big Gang’ in the world, then it is too high a price to pay. It has no use, no value, and no moral or financial justification.

There would of course be ramifications to disarmament, not least ensuring that those financially dependent are adequately and sensible dealt with. We have numerous examples of where this has not been done with other industries to know what is needed.

As to our place – read influence – in the world, if our place at the top table is valid then it should be because of who we are, not what lethal weapons we have in our back pocket. And there are a large number of countries across the world with influence, impact, and all without the compromise to their integrity by the possession of weapons of mass destruction. We entered a war apparently on their existence elsewhere – any lessons to learn there?

I have absolutely no doubt that this will not make the slightest difference either to the public discourse or to the parliamentary decision,  but this is one NO!