Trident

Can someone explain to me why the prime minister is telling us that Trident will be out-of-date by 2024, that we need to take a decision to renew it this year because it will take 17 years to build a new one, but we're also being told that Iran could potentially magic up a nuclear bomb that could imperil us more or less immediately?

Of course, trusting the prime minister isn't the easiest thing to do these days, and in this regard, experts are on record saying that our current generation of nuclear weapons should last us 100 years.

Morally, there is just no justification for holding nuclear weapons. Even if someone were to fire one at us, there's nothing to be gained from killing millions of innocents somewhere else. Remember when Geoff Hoon was defence secretary, he mooted the possibility of using nukes on Iraq, presumably to aid us against WMD. Those who are for nuclear weapons will say that there is no point in having the weapons unless you say you're willing to use them. Good, let's not have them then.

The fact though is that having nuclear weapons is actually accelerating the proliferation of these weapons across the world. The same machismo that spurs Britain into thinking it needs the most up-to-date WMD is seen in other countries across the world. Meanwhile, we have a Non-Proliferation Treaty promise to decommission which we've not even pretended to advance. With us going back on these deals, it's little wonder that more and more states want their own "deterrent". Having them is the surest way of not having war declared on you.

More from me in today's Scotsman

Comments

[Mustafa Arif]

Osama, are you into game theory?

I can't see where unilateral disarmament will get us other than to lose our potential seat (as a nuclear power) at the table in any future negotiations.

The fact is this: nukes exist. They are not going away. There will never be an effective way of preventing others from making their own. We have to find a way of living with these facts.

[Mustafa Arif]

Also, citing just *one* physicist who says that the Trident submarines should last 100 years and using that to imply that there is an expert consensus that their lives can be extended is precisely the sort of insideous underhand tactic that you often (rightly!) complain is employed by the Downing St press office.

Incidentally, I'm not sure if you realise that the British trident submarines (Royal Navy Vanguard class) are different to the US ones and we were independently built by the UK. We share the missile technology (Trident) not the submarine technology. Just because the US Navy has found a way of extending the life of its submarines does not automatically mean the British ones can also be extended. They have very different designs.

I don't know of the engineering competence of the single atomic physicst you cited but I've not read any qualified engineer give an opinion that life extension of the British submarines. On the contrary, the reports I have read suggest that the "economical" option would be to adapt the Trident system to be fired from the air, land, or warships. The downside of this, of course, is that these can be more easily detected and permission may be needed from third countries for access to waters, air space, etc. when deployment is required.

From a quick read of the white paper it seems the UK is, however, intending to work with the US on the life extension programme for the Trident missile system itself. That seems reasonable to me.

[ainelivia]

I'm with Hardeep Singh Kholi's view, in the Scotsman.

[Ted]

Sir Humphrey: "With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Jim Hacker: "I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Sir Humphrey: "It's a deterrent."
Jim Hacker: "It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."
Jim Hacker: "They probably do."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."
Jim Hacker: "They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would."

[George Carty]

Now that the Cold War is over, do we really need expensive nuclear submarines anymore? Most of the 'rogue states' which might attack Britain with nukes could be hit by cruise missiles (or even air-dropped bombs).

Also, I hope that any Trident replacement isn't American-controlled in the way Trident is! (I remember reading something that suggested that since 1983 Britain had to participate in all of America's wars in return for its access to Trident. Don't know if it's right though...)

[Mustafa Arif]

@George Carty: "I hope that any Trident replacement isn't American-controlled in the way Trident is!"

It is unlikely that the UK could afford to develop a new generation of nukes independent of US efforts. The bill to the tax payer would be enormous.

[Osama]

Mustafa: I can't see where unilateral disarmament will get us other than to lose our potential seat (as a nuclear power) at the table in any future negotiations.

Future negotiations?

BSSC points out well that those that argue we become a small country by not having nukes, ignore that most, nay virtually all, states in the world do not have them.

Ted, you really like your Yes, Minister!

[Mustafa Arif]

@Osama: "most, nay virtually all, states in the world do not have them:

Yes. Which is exactly why, quite frankly, any views or efforts expressed by them are generally deemed irrelevant. We can join this irrelevance if we wish. Or we can play a part in working out how to deal with the existence of this potential firepower.

Pandora's box was opened when physicists first succeeded in splitting the atom. You can't turn back history. The potential for these weapons will always exist hence forth in human civilisation. Deal with it. (Without putting your head in the sand and pretending we can make them go away.)

[Osama]

So let's spend tens of billions making weapons so we can negotiate getting rid of them.

[abusinan]

If you look at the state of our economy here in the USA, it is clear we cannot afford it anyway. But as long as the money goes to the big corporations, someone here will do it anyway.

[fugstar]

Submarines are a characteristically sneaky british way of operating. murky, sneaky, surreptitious, snakelike in the grass.

Mustafa, Game theory breaks down in most real life situations, too many assumptions, main one being complete information.

why dont we do what saddam did, pretend! i think that saves money which can be better used on affordable housing and enabling a return to harmless rural life.

[joe90]

The British One Party State (with two factions, New Labour\Conservative) in action - what an embarrassement last mnght's vote was. I actually watched the end of the debate and the voting on tv (Freeview BBC Parliament channel). I forgot Parliament is now available on the telly but as it is a complete irrelevence to the voting public, I'm surprised I remembered.

They have a cheek to criticise undemocratic one-party state North Korea and its nuclear weapons programme as well. At least they've got an excuse - it's called America.

As the illegal unprovoked attack on defenceless Afghanistan and Iraq made plain to the rest of the world - if you want to prevent the US (also run as a one party state with two factions, Republicans-Democrats) from attacking you, you had better get tooled up and get yourself a deterrent.

All the best everyone!

ps
I haven't read up yet on this particular issue, but I believe all this blatant anti-democracy of British state is giving a boost to the popularity of self-government here in bonnie Scotland.

Even some of our English cousins are beginning to see the implications of an independent Scotland and an independent Englandandwales (all one country - all one word)
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1173740307.html>Scottish Elections - Trident!!!
MediaLens.org messegeborad
12 March 2007

As I have said before, the real 'Official Opposition' in the British Imperialist state has always been the Nationalist 'Celtic' countries, and not the one the phoney British Parliamentary party system generates.

[Mustafa Arif]

@Osama: "So let's spend tens of billions making weapons so we can negotiate getting rid of them."

I'm not arguing for complete (nuclear or any other) disarmament. It's a nice idea but I don't believe in it. The knowledge to create these weapons exists and won't go away. The only way we can prevent such weapons from being created is by a "world order" in which "great powers" use their considerable economic and conventional military strength to subjugate "rogue states" and others from acquiring nukes. Do you really want the expansion of US Hegemony?

@ fugstar: "why dont we do what saddam did, pretend!"

In a sense we're doing the next best thing. We have a genuine system that we can use. But it's not entirely independent as it is reliant on key U.S. technology.

@ joe90

If you want to put forward valid criticisms of either the Union between England (and Wales) and Scotland, or of the Westminister system, they would be better served by not being included in a classic leftist tirade where you jumble together mulitple issues that are inherently discrete.

It is true that the standard of debate in the United Kingdom parliament is somewhat lacklustre. Yet you must remember that there is a basic problem with any parliamentary system - the government is drawn from the parliament and hence is not really geared to providing genuine scrutiny. This is even more evident in the unicameral Scottish parliament (whose debates are sometimes televised by BBC Parliament and are usually much more boring).

There are many other reasons why parliamentarians can be lacklustre. Yet these are all good reasons for parliamentary and electoral reform. Breaking up the Union would not, in and of itself, correct these flaws. It may, however, act as a catalyst, or otherwise provide the circumstances that encourage reform.

Nevertheless, a lack-lustre or ineffective parliament is not necessarily "anti-democratic". On this example, I think you'll find that most opinon polls show that the majority of UK citizens in favour of retaining a nuclear weapons capability. You might not agree with that position but it is the majority view and it's what the Commons have voted for.

P.S. In case you hadn't noticed a disproporationate number of UK parliamentarians are the Scottish elite, including the Prime Minister and many of his Cabinet.

[joe90]

Breaking up the Union would not, in and of itself, correct these flaws
- well, it wouldn't really matter to anyone in an independent Scotland because it would be an independent Englandandwales issue, and nothing whatever to do with the Scots

a lack-lustre or ineffective parliament is not necessarily "anti-democratic
- no, I said it is a one-party state really, which is very different from your characterisation of what I have said i said

I think you'll find that most opinon polls show that the majority of UK citizens in favour of retaining a nuclear weapons capability
- unlike Scots, the vast majority of whom don't wnat this ultimate White Elephant and totally useless luxury item -
- hence the reason why independence for Englandandwales and Scotland would be very democratic, each gets what they really want

Your P.S. is neither here nor there to my arguments - so what?

[Mustafa Arif]

Apologies for my earlier assertion that the majority of UK public opinion supports Trident renewal. I’ve since checked up on this and it seems that most Brits support retaining a nuclear capability but change their mind when a £20 bn cost is mentioned. I understand this to be the case through all parts of the United Kingdom. The attention on differences of opinion is exaggerated by the fact that there has been more recent and frequent polling in Scotland where it has also become an indirect election issue (and there is an up-coming election).

Nevertheless…

@ Joe 90:

On breaking up the Union and parliamentary flaws…

My point was that these flaws arguably affect the Parliamentary system at Holyrood as well as at Westminster. Scottish Independence, in and of itself, is not going to free you what you consider a “one party state”.

“no, I said it is a one-party state really”

I apologise for incorrectly characterising what you had written. I now appreciate that you are simply sulking about the fact that most Brits (north and south of Hadrian’s Wall) are basically centrists, like the majority of our politicians, who have no time for your fire-brand socialism. I suppose for a follower of an out-dated ideology you probably do feel as if you are in a one party state. Nevertheless isn’t that aspect of our democracy one that Marx and Engels would have approved of? :-p

“hence the reason why independence for Englandandwales and Scotland would be very democratic, each gets what they really want”

Yes, that’s always *a* reason for any form of devolution. It cannot, however, be *the* reason. There are plenty of government policies that are unpopular in London but command national support. Should we in London (with a population nearly double that of Scotland) therefore secede from the UK? In any state, however small, there will always be regional differences of opinion on individual matters. Statehood (for a nation state) should be based on the strength of national identity, nothing more, nothing less. I feel that those who argue for/against the Union on economic or other considerations somehow miss the point.

“Your P.S. is neither here nor there to my arguments - so what?”

Well the key point to it is this: At present most of the cream of Scotland’s political talent is in Westminister, not Holyrood. An independent Scotland would see most of these people heading back up north. That would fundamentally change the nature of Scottish politics politics. In many ways this should be positive for Scotland, but there would be a fundamental shift towards the very corpus of political thought that you seem to despise.

[aineliva]

"a classic leftist tirade where you jumble together mulitple issues that are inherently discrete...... " "fire-brand socialism",

Finely identified, MA, which I did ages ago, but then he only takes notice of other men, it seems.

Well MA, you had me chuckling away here in the seccessionate state of the Home Counties, thanks for the amusing and accurate analysis, that's made my Paddy's Day one of the best ever. ;-)

[joe90]

If London wants independence that's their problem, I don't see what it has to do with me as I couldn't care less.

fire-brand socialism...Marxism etc etc
Another wannabee tabloid writer.

The only way politicians who migrated north from their publicly-paid pig-troughs in the English capital would be if they get voted to represent Scotiish people as their political representatives. Nothing more.

[joe90]

erratum

interpolation in bold

The only way politicians, who migrated north from their publicly-paid pig-troughs in the English capital, would be able to make a difference is if they get voted to represent Scotiish people as their political representatives. Nothing more.

[joe90]

How your Member of Parliament voted (and more) -
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2007-03-14&number=78&display=allvotes>Trident Replacement — 14 Mar 2007 at 18:53 — Commons Division No. 78
The Public Whip website

Just as a matter of passing interest, here is some historical background, polling questions, answers and results on -
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2005/greenpeace.shtml>Attitudes To Nuclear Weapons
by MORI
25 Oct 2005
As you can see, it was those raving loony Greenpeace types would commissioned the poll which reveals how many commie-pinkos there in Britian - it seems they are in the majority, in contrast to foreigners who own seedy little tabloid fascist chip-papers, like Racist Murdoch, and his brainwashed mindless followers.

Also from MORI, a survey of MP's attitudes to Trident -
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/niauk.shtml>Majority Support In Parliament For Replacement Nuclear Plants
25 September 2006

And just a little somthing from the SNP website itself -
http://www.snp.org/press-releases/2005/snp_press_release.2005-05-02.4571032118/view?searchterm=system%20three%20poll>Blair committed to replacing Trident
02 May 2005
"A recent poll by System Three in Scotland asked: In the next parliament, the government is due to make a decision on the purchase of a new generation nuclear missile system to replace Trident, at a cost of around £20 billion. Would you support or oppose the government buying a new nuclear missile system to replace Trident?

The results were: Support - 13% Oppose - 78% Don't Know - 9%"

All the best folks!

[aineliva]

And as if to prove my point that Joe90 has neither a sense of irony or a sense of humour, he failed to notice that I was quoting Mustafa Arif's comment,.....so let me quote it in full, just to clarify the matter Joe.

Quote from MA's comment = "I apologise for incorrectly characterising what you had written. I now appreciate that you are simply sulking about the fact that most Brits (north and south of Hadrian’s Wall) are basically centrists, like the majority of our politicians, who have no time for your fire-brand socialism. I suppose for a follower of an out-dated ideology you probably do feel as if you are in a one party state. Nevertheless isn’t that aspect of our democracy one that Marx and Engels would have approved of? :-p".

Reading, is an important element in full comprehension J90

[Mustafa Arif]

Persistent sense of humour failure is a recognised symptom of being an SWP-sort of socialist.

[Mustafa Arif]

@joe90: "it was those raving loony Greenpeace types would commissioned the poll"

I never suggested that only nutcase lefties are opposed to Trident renewal. It's a perfectly legitimate point of view to hold. I only support the renewal from a pragmatic perspective.

I was actually referring to your ranting about living in a one-party state as evidence with which to diagnose you as a loon.

Finally: "The only way politicians, who migrated north from their publicly-paid pig-troughs in the English capital, would be able to make a difference is if they get voted to represent Scotiish people as their political representatives"

Again you miss the point: Many (most?) of the Scots at Westminister DO represent Scottish seats. (Blair and various Tories being notable exceptions.)

[Osama]

Mustafa, Blair doesn't call himself Scottish. I don't think anyone else does either.

[joe90]

Where would I be without you - Scots MPs at Westminister represent Scottish constituencies!

Whatever next one wonders - English MPs representing English constituences etc etc ...zzzz