'No use as a military tool': Guardian readers for and against Trident
|
Version 0 of 1. As parliament debates on Trident on Monday, we asked our readers for their own views on the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent. The debate, the first to be opened by new British PM Theresa May, highlights divisions within the Labour party, with the party set to be split three ways by the vote – those in favour, those against, and those who will abstain. Below is a selection of our readers’ views. Against renewal ‘Let’s leave the nuclear weapons to others, and build a new identity’ The whole problem with the renewal of Trident is that it seems linked to the historical standing of the UK on the world stage, rather than the necessity of having an independent nuclear deterrent. It’s a long time since we had the biggest navy in the world, patrolling the waters of our empire. And yet, we seem intent on staying in the nuclear weapon club, despite actively persuading others to not join. If we were brave, we’d leave the nuclear weapons to others, and build a new reputation, a new identity. Conventional armed forces, geared to providing peacekeeping and humanitarian outcomes across the world. Carriers that are able to facilitate large scale air-drops of food and aid. Troops to set up and defend safe areas. That could be our legacy, not that of the kid in the playground with the biggest stick.Graeme Anderson, 42, Kidderminster ‘Its sole purpose is to preserve our place at the top table of the UN’ It has no use as a military tool. I cannot envisage a circumstance in which any politician would order its use. Its sole purpose is to preserve our place at the top table of the UN. At a time of tight military budgets, far better to spend the money on intelligence gathering and planes for the two aircraft carriers. Indeed better defensive protection would come from an increased fleet of hunter-killer boats. These to be built, of course, in Barrow. This should be Labour’s position.David Jones, 69, Sheffield ‘I am opposed to nuclear weapons as a matter of principle’ I find myself a little reluctant to be against Trident, purely because living close to it I understand the role of the military in the economy. Before moving to Glasgow I lived in Lossiemouth where the RAF base there and at nearby Kinloss were both under threat of decommission. The economic impact simply by threat was real and long lasting. However, I am opposed to nuclear weapons as a matter of principle. They are a weapon no one with a conscience could fire. While I have misgivings about Jeremy Corbyn, I appreciated his honesty when he said he would never use the weapons if he were PM. Alongside the ethical considerations, I also believe in times of austerity we should not be spending billions on a weapon system that no one would realistically use.Emily Alldritt, 24, Glasgow ‘The debate has been horribly distorted’ In the modern world, the main threats to national security come not from states, but from terrorist groups. The “deterrent” value of nuclear weaponry against such widely dispersed and flexible groups is questionable, to say the least. How can we target nuclear missiles against our enemies if we can’t even be sure who they are? There has been a recent ramping up of anti-Russian rhetoric in the media, but it is increasingly clear that the geopolitics of the Great Game are irrelevant in the modern age. We need not worry about a nuclear exchange with Putin’s Russia, a country that is facing exactly the same threats that we are from international terrorism. The debate has been horribly distorted due to years of pro-nuclear discourse among politicians and in the media - for some reason, it is “radical” to want to disarm, whereas the “moderate” position is to retain weapons capable of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in seconds.Andy Shaw, 27, Sheffield In favour of renewal ‘The security it provides is worth the cost’ I have mixed feelings on the subject of Trident renewal. I wish to see the number of nuclear warheads decrease and I hope the UK as well as other nuclear armed states will reduce their stockpiles. But I do believe that Trident should be renewed in some form, whether it continue to as a submarine based launch platform or become an aircraft delivery system. The cost of Trident and its renewal will be extremely high, but the security it provides not only to the UK but to our allies, especially within Europe, is worth the cost. Once again the UK would be shrinking its responsibilities in Europe and the world and would further the reliance of Europe on the US. We should be a leading voice in global security and the unfortunate reality seems that having an active nuclear arsenal is necessary to be part of it. Whilst I believe the UK should continue to maintain a nuclear deterrent, it should be reduced in partnership with other states, particularly other permanent members of the UN Security Council.Thomas Morgan, 23, Wiltshire ‘We cannot broker peace in the world with only carrots’ Trident is a statement about Britain’s place in the world, about our influence and about our willingness to face down the many regimes that only understand power symbols. Brexit has already diminished the UK’s influence in economic matters and decommissioning Trident would ensure our influence is removed from global military matters. We cannot broker peace in the world with only carrots - we need symbolic sticks too, not because we think such things should play a part in any kind of negotiations, but because others always will, no matter what principled position the UK were to take. The idea that the world would disarm because the UK does is just as deluded a narrative as the idea that Brexit will revive the UK’s manufacturing industry. No one on the left would disagree with Corbyn’s sentiment on the issue, but it is yet another example of his single-mindedness and willingness to selectively ignore any factors that do not serve his ideal position - a dangerous quality in any leader and a perfect example of how he does not even attempt to persuade or influence anyone who is not already in his bubble.Anonymous, 36, London ‘In this era of Trump, we need a trump card’ There is growing instability in the World. Since the end of the Cold War we have enjoyed a period of growth, stability, and relative security based on principled liberalism. The lasting global recession, Chinese and Russian expansionism, international terrorism, and malaise in strong political leadership has led to events such as Brexit and an increasingly aggressive and protectionist attitude, exemplified by politician such as Donald Trump. It is difficult to foresee what the politics of the next 50 years will look like, but the tangible risk is that instead of a more peaceful and harmonious world we will see increased division and cynicism. In such a world we need a trump card, which only the threat of nuclear weapons can fulfil.Rory Kokelaar, 32, Cardiff ‘Nuclear deterrence may not be quite as outdated as we would like to believe’ I want to see global multilateral disarmament, but I don’t see how unilaterally disarming could help in this regard. Instead it would deprive us of a vital bargaining chip in potential future negotiations. I also think that at a time of global unrest, it would be nonsensical for us to get rid of our nuclear weapons. We are already having to deal with the fallout of the EU referendum, and a potential Scottish Independence referendum, both of which will diminish us on the global stage. I think if we unilaterally disarm, we risk losing our seat on the UN permanent security council, and then we’ll lose our secular liberal voice on the international stage. This is not even taking into account the strange and scary way that some nation states are behaving on the global stage. I think this goes to show that nuclear deterrence may not be quite as outdated for us as we would like to believe. Then of course, there is the likely job losses that would result from a decision to scrap a trident successor: high tech, high skill jobs that are important to our country’s future. Obviously the money used to invest in a Trident successor could be used in other productive ways (and other potentially high tech/skill jobs), but the Labour plan to simply build the submarines and not fit then with nuclear missiles shows me that they don’t have the backbone, or the will, to come up with a reasonable and economically sensible alternative. All in all, I think this comes down to a pragmatic decision. Would I like our country to rid itself of nuclear weapons? Yes. Would this be helpful, productive, or wise given our current position and future objectives? In my opinion, the answer to the latter is an emphatic no.Sean, 22, Uttlesford |