Time To Talk Trident?

Monday saw the news of a further £1 billion being invested in reactors for the Navy's nuclear submarines - a significant step towards replacing Trident.

This prompted Robert Fox, Defence Correspondent of the Evening Standard to comment:

"The biggest surprise is the way the Government has so skilfully suppressed serious public debate about going on with Trident. This debate is now urgently needed."

I am not surprised. We have three main political parties that all agree on far more than they disagree.  The three main political parties are all committed to the principle of nuclear deterrence. The three main parties all see this as part of the UK's commitment to NATO.

That leaves very little room for debate, even if the contention that the UK can afford the billions being talked about in this process, lacks real evidence to sustain it.

Comments

[Oliver Steward]

If Britain abandons its nuclear capability, it also risks delegitimizing its place as a permanent member of the UN security council. I feel we should have a proper debate about whether (a) Britain can afford a minimal credible nuclear deterrence? (b) whether Britain actually want to carry on with a nuclear weapons credibility? There is a wider argument as to whether Britain wants to carry on as a permanent member of the UN security council and see's itself as a great power still. Britain is in relative decline, that much is certain and has been punching 'above its weight' for decades, if not centuries. It's position on Trident embodies such a position. Can it justify to the public spending an estimated £75 billion pounds in the lifetime of a nuclear weapons system, when so much of that money could be put to other use.

[Paul Stott]

Hi Oliver - I think debate has to go back in the direction you suggest. Why does Britain want to be on the UN Security Council? Does it actually want to do something with that position, or does it want to hold it for reasons of prestige? What is defence policy for - what do we want it to do?

I am not sure where nuclear weapons actually fit with the threats supposedly faced either. The previous PM, Gordon Brown, told us the greatest threat to the UK's security came from the tribal areas of Pakistan. Pakistan is an ostensible ally, and a nuclear power. Nuclear weapons do not protect us from religious lunatics who are more than happy to die in their cause.

One writer I have enjoyed recently in this field is Lee Jenkins. You can read his views here: http://www.indhome.com/2012/06/freedom-free-defence-matters/