I have today, submitted this article, on reasons not to renew Trident to Labour’s “Your Britain” site, I am now looking to see how to submit it to the Labour Party’s trident review. My submission focuses on the defence arguments, its ineffectiveness as a defence weapon, its questionable independence, its cost and its opportunity cost. If you agree, please visit the Your Britain site and vote for it.
The Law has changed. Acceptable behaviour when in a state of war is much more restricted than in the period following the 2 ndworld war and thus the moral arguments for not having/using strategic nuclear weapons are greater than in the ‘80s.
The debate is about Trident Renewal and so-called strategic nuclear weapons and not total nuclear disarmament[1].
Trident should not be renewed,
- It is not an effective defensive weapon, its proponents state it deters, or did so in the 70' through to the ’90s. The argument is hard to prove but it didn’t deter Argentina in invading the Falklands, China during the negotiations to return Kowloon and the New Territories, nor has it deterred Russia in its occupation of the Crimea nor has it brought peace to the India/Pakistan borders. The fact that Trident is not a defensive weapon is obvious, it’s a deterrent maybe.
- One has to question its independence. There are questions about…
