Posturing on the World Stage

The good news is that the British public are to be consulted about a replacement for Trident; the bad news is that the decision has already been taken by the Cabinet, or rather it has been taken by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet got to rubberstamp it. 'Consultation' seems an odd word to use about the process of telling us what we are going to get - and what we will have to pay through the nose for.

It is hard to see who we would ever unleash such a weapon against. If (when) Al Quaeda get through with a major atrocity where are we going to nuke: Kabul? Mecca? Bradford? Nuclear weapons are useful, if at all, only against other states, and the Geneva Convention - and our own rules of engagement - bar their offensive use; they are there to deter. Who, then, might wish to attack the UK but be deterred by our possession of a nuclear capability? The thought of an attack by any of our immediate European neighbours is absurd, an attack from hundreds or thousands of miles away by an Asian or African state even more so. Perhaps, in a changed world order, a rogue USA might turn on its poodle and aim a kick our way - but Trident wouldn't be much use against them, they have the power to prevent us launching our 'independent' deterrent! Perhaps a paranoid observer might still fear Russia - but they have far more nukes than we do and Trident would hardly deter them unless it was backed by the far larger US nuclear armoury - again, we're safe as long as the USA stays on side and dead if they don't, regardless of our possession or otherwise of our 'own' weapon.

The apologists for a Trident replacement talk of not knowing what the future may bring in a dangerous and uncertain world. Have they considered that disarmament would make it less dangerous? In the analagous situation on our streets the police are quite clear that the best way to reduce fatalities is to get teenagers to give up carrying knives and guns. Or compare the number of deaths by shooting in the USA, where every citizen considers it his God-given right to own a gun, with just about anywhere else on the planet where that idea has failed to take hold. In society weapons make for deaths and injuries; in the global situation weapons make for wars, and nuclear weapons carry the danger of nuclear wars.

The way to make the world a safer place is to remove the grievances that so many people and so many countries feel at the present world order: close the wealth gap between rich and poor; provide adequate resources to fight diseases such as Aids, TB and malaria; get serious about climate change; stop propping up dictators because they're 'our dictators', and stop shouting about democracy until you do. The UK could not do all of that alone, but our fair share of it would be more than covered by the 'peace dividend' of not replacing Trident.

Keeping it is simply pandering to our leaders' desire to posture on the world stage, pretending that Britain is still a world power, or at least capable of 'punching above our weight'. When are we going to get beyond this pathetic jingoist agenda?

Comments

[guymonde]

The decision, as you say already taken, to replace Trident beggars belief. Even in the days of the Cold War it was an unusable weapon: today it is impossible to think of a scenario where its use could even be considered. There are only two reasons I can think of that the govt want to replace: either they are still scared of electoral rejection of a post nulear Britain, or this is simply hubris, Britain playing at being a superpower to keep it at top table in world level discussions.
I believe the electorate could be fairly easily persuaded off nuclear, though I guess the Tories would mount a strong political campaign against "cheese eating surrender monkey" mentality irrespective of what they really think. In any event, backing nuclear on this ground would be pusillanimous in the extreme - OK I concede that would hardly be a novelty for this government.
As to the second reason, I guess Trident is a penis extension par excellence for the PM, but I fail to see it delivers any benefits to citizens to be a world power. Rather the opposite in fact. I would not argue for isolationism or neutrality, but what is wrong with putting our foreign policy and military resources firmly in line with our partners in the world and European communities.
Given the real threats to our security, as you so eloquently set them out, our best interests would be served by making a real and visible break from imperialism: out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as is practcable and decent, or continuing under a UN mandate if the UN so elects; a clear decision to go non-nuclear with the resulting savings substantially directed towards support to the weakest parts of the world, many of which were the recipients of this week's apology about the slave trade.
These actions would enhance our security by reducing our negative image amongst those who resent our present approach, would be morally unimpeachable, and would give Britons reason to hold their heads up in the world.

[honda-radio]

Thx! :)