A complete waste of money.
Trident was at least useless only in its own ostensibly defensive terms, whereas any new programme would be useless in any terms whatever, in addition to the fact that nuclear weapons (like radiological, chemical and biological weapons) are morally repugnant simply in themselves.
They offer not the slightest defence against a range of loosely-knit, if at all connected, terrorist organisations pursuing a range of loosely-knit, if at all connected, aims in relation to a range of countries while actually governing no state. Where would any such organisation keep nuclear weapons in the first place?
Furthermore, the possession of nuclear weapons, in addition to offending against Islamic (and much other) theological opinion, serves to convey to terrorists and their supporters that Britain wishes to "play with the big boys", thereby contributing to making Britain a target for the terrorist activity against which such weapons are defensively useless. It is high time for Britain to grow up.
Britain's permanent seat on the UN Security Council could not be taken away without British consent, and so does not depend in any way on her possession of nuclear weapons; on the contrary, the world needs and deserves a non-nuclear permanent member of that Council.
Most European countries do not have nuclear weapons, and nor does Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Are these therefore in greater danger? On the contrary, the London bombings of 7th July 2005 were attacks on a country with nuclear weapons, while the attacks of 11th September 2001 were against the country with by far the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. The only "nuclear power" in the Middle East is Israel; is Israel the most secure state in the Middle East?
It is mind-boggling to hear people go on about Iran, whose President is in any case on the way out, is in any case many years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and in any case only wants one (if he does, and see above about Islam) to use against the only Middle Eastern country that already has them. What does any of this have to do with us?
A new nuclear weapons programme could only be commissioned on grounds purely ideological in the most irrational and doctrinaire sense of the word.
Nor would any such programme represent or effect national pride or independence, but rather the wholesale subjugation of Britain's defence capability to a foreign power (however friendly). That power maintains at least no less friendly relations with numerous other countries, of which almost none have nuclear weapons.
Diverting enormous sums of money towards public services, and towards the relief of poverty at home and abroad, precisely by reasserting control over our own defence capability, would represent a most significant step towards One Nation politics, with an equal emphasis on the One and on the Nation.
Let's get that movement started.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel uneasy about the idea of a Europe without nuclear missiles, while Israel has got them - I don't think an Israeli nuclear assault on Europe is at all unlikely, and they are the only possible nuclear threat.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with Trident, as with any successor, is that it seems very dubious whether it is independent, in any real sense,i.e. it could only conceivably be used for American purposes, not even for a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike against Israel - can you imagine the USA allowing that? I know what you're thinking: " Can I imagine the USA allowing Israel to nuke Berlin, Athens, Rome, Paris, Madrid...?" All to easily, I'm afraid.
Terrorism is not a serious threat; neither, obviously, is an Arab bomb (still very hypothetical), except so far as it stops us stealing their resources with impunity.
Sad to say, quisling Sarkozy has made moves to bring the only genuinely independent European nuclear deterrent, France's, under Nato (i.e. American) control, through something known as the European Defence Initiative - there's been an eery silence on this since last year.
History has shown that the defenceless get dumped on.
Indeed they do.
ReplyDeleteBut why do you think that Israel might attack Europe? I can't see anyone in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, bothing to attack Europe these days unless we did something daft like, oh, invading Iraq.
We like to think that they might still want to. But instead, we should be glad that they no longer do. Why would they?
Israel would have to be led by an authentic Messianic death cult for that course of action to be even vaguely conceivable - since a nuclear attack on Europe would invite the instant obliteration of Israel in response. (Which wouldn't be that hard to achieve, given Israel's minuscule size).
ReplyDeleteSo even if Israel had a conceivable motive for such an attack, which they don't, they still wouldn't do it. Not least because Jock "Stalin wasn't that bad" McTrousers' argument that the US would stand by and let them doesn't stand up to a nanosecond's scrutiny either.
In fact, if Israel did that, it would provide the perfect excuse for the US to ditch a very expensive millstone, in much the same way that the British government would have loved a good reason to wash their hands of Northern Ireland.
"One Nation politics, with an equal emphasis on the One and on the Nation."
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth does this mean?
I'm tempted to reply that if you have to ask, then there is no point telling you.
ReplyDeleteEconomically social democratic, morally and socially conservative British and Commonwealth patriotism. In other words, where most people are, even if they don't necessarily use the terminology.
"I'm tempted to reply that if you have to ask, then there is no point telling you."
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm tempted to reply that if you can't be bothered to tell me, you won't be getting my vote.
Does anyone have one nation politics with more emphasis on the one than the nation? Or one nation politics with more emphasis on the nation than the one? Would would these positions, respectively, involve? I honestly haven't a clue.
"Does anyone have one nation politics with more emphasis on the one than the nation?"
ReplyDeleteOstensibly social democratic Eurofederalists and supporters of American domination (the real point of the EU since the Forties), and ostensibly social democratic supporters of the loosening and eventual dissolution of the United Kingdom. Very often the same people, of course.
"Or one nation politics with more emphasis on the nation than the one?"
Far less likely to use the term, but Eurosceptical and/or Unionist "free" marketeers, actually rather a dishonest lot, who are not really opposed either to the EU or to the breakup of the UK at all. Given the true character of those things, why would they be? And given the true character of the "free" market, how could they be?
In both cases, how are these "one nation" positions? And what do you mean by saying that they have more emphasis on "one" or on "nation"?
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't believe that they are, of course. That's why I'm against them.
ReplyDeleteBut the overtly Eurofederalist/anti-Unionist tendency, which tends to present itself as somehow something to do with social democracy, over-emphasises the One bit while neglecting and scorning the Nation.
And the purportedly Eurosceptical/Unionist wing of the Right at least pretends to over-emphasise the Nation bit while neglecting and scorning the One.
"over-emphasises the One bit while neglecting and scorning the Nation."
ReplyDeleteI just don't understand what you think you're talking about. How could one be a "one" politician? How, for that matter, could one be a "nation" politician?
I don't believe that you can be.
ReplyDeleteBut there are those who see themselves as economic social democrats but not British and Commonwealth patriots, or indeed moral and social conservatives, the point of wanting a social democratic economy in the first place.
And there are those who see themselves as British (tellingly, less so Commonwealth) patriots, and sometimes even as moral and social conservatives, while opposing the economic means necessary to conserve those things.
But you'd have to ask them how they square it, because I can't see it, either.
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "one". And of the word "nation".
ReplyDeleteMore to the point, I think you've got yourself wedded to a slogan that doesn't actually mean what you want it to mean, because you think it sounds good. The sad thing is that it doesn't even sound good.
The phrase "One Nation" is hardly original to me. I have, if anything, simply returned it to its Disraelian roots.
ReplyDelete