Monday, 21 June 2010
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........
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.
Posted by iain at Monday, June 21, 2010