Monday, 21 June 2010

Shirley sets the pace over Trident


As this blog has asserted before the case against the replacement of Trident needs to be argued. It is clearly potty to have a comprehensive defence review and not include Trident.

Shirley Williams of this parish-well Crosby- has entered the fray with an article in the Guardian today. It is not quite the solution that many of us would favour but it does map a way forward that might help us achieve the final objective. As she says:

Nuclear weapons are very expensive weapons seeking a role and a purpose in the post-cold war world. But other than possibly ensuring a place at the top table, it is difficult to find one. Against terrorists, they are less effective than conventional weapons or the soft power of men and women with the skills to reach people's hearts and minds. Against psychotic states like North Korea, a nuclear attack would almost certainly lead to retaliation capable of destroying much of the population and most of the economic infrastructure of our ally, South Korea. Against other current nuclear powers, their usefulness is again questionable, since erstwhile enemies like Russia and China are now our partners or allies........

and later

We do not have to decide between a vastly expensive like-for-like renewal (which would send all the wrong signals to potential nuclear proliferators) and abolition at this point in time. We can minimise our nuclear deterrent stage by stage, at each encouraging others to join us in a global move towards nuclear disarmament, and doing so in the light of the responses of other nuclear nations.

1 comment:

  1. Since she has not only publicly admited that our government, with her support, has engaged in war crimes, genocide & mass murders so obscene that even Hitler cannot be accused of matching them but then tried to justify it with the most disgusting & obvious racist lies I trust nobody will suggest that such a Naqi has any moral superiority or indeed equality in this debate.

    ReplyDelete

I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.

Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.

I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.

Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.

The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.