YOU'LL HAVE had your debate. It took about an hour on Thursday for the decision to be taken by the UK Cabinet to replace Trident. The consultation will be an empty one, taking place over the Christmas holiday season, and the vote in the new year will be a formality.

Faced with a fait accompli, Labour MPs will mostly come into line after threats from the government whips of the dire electoral consequences of slipping back into unilateralism. The assumption is that the British public will never vote for a party that leaves the nation defenceless; that in a dangerous world, people will expect the government to maintain nuclear security.

Most Labour MPs dislike Trident. But the party's electoral psychology is still locked in the 1980s, like the generals who always fight the previous war. The memory of their former leader Michael Foot's crushing defeat in 1983 still haunts Labour. Never again.

So, Britain will spend between £25 billion and £70bn on a new and useless generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles designed to destroy most of the major cities in the former Warsaw Pact. Countries with which we are now at peace.

There is no known target for these missiles. They are purely symbolic, an affirmation of British national status; there to ensure that we don't walk naked into conference chambers; that we have a seat at the top table of the UN Security Council; that we don't let the French become the only nuclear country in Europe. Trident is a bit like a codpiece: a macho decoration, intended to indicate potency, but which merely conceals the diminutive size of our moral credibility.

Of course, you've heard all these arguments before, let's hear something new. We are all just a little bored by the whole Trident debate. It seems to revive every few months, but never really get anywhere. Which is exactly how the government wants it to be.

When the vote comes, we will be told the issue has been examined exhaustively over the past 18 months. Which it emphatically has not. This has been a one-sided debate, in which the opponents of renewal have been fighting shadows because there has been no clear proposal on the table. Just hints and steers.

At one stage it was thought possible that the government might just extend the life of the existing Trident system beyond 2025, and further reduce the number of missiles deployed. This looked an attractive option to some Labour anti-nukes since it would allow the government to retain the nuclear deterrent, yet meet the spirit as well as the letter of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

That agreement requires nations not only to work towards nuclear disarmament, but to refrain from developing new weapons systems and take practical steps to reduce existing nuclear capability. Britain has quietly reduced the number of warheads in the Trident system by 50% over the past decade .

 

The disaster in Iraq seems to have increased the attractions for the prime minister of a shiny new Trident. After all, Britain will somehow have to compensate for the loss of international prestige that could follow defeat by a few thousand insurgents and Islamist fanatics. This is not the time to show weakness, we will be told.

Britain must be strong to face the challenges of a dangerous new world. It is up to those who would ditch Trident to prove that they will never be needed - that will be the line.

But that, of course, is impossible. You cannot base defence policy on hypothetical enemies. It is up to governments to assess the current risk and devise a security system that is appropriate to the times, not speculate about some future revival of superpower rivalry.

We keep being told that Britain faces a wholly new threat to national security in the shape of global terrorism. But we are developing a weapons system which is even more unsuited to the challenge posed by al-Qaeda than invading arbitrary countries like Iraq. Or are we going to fire Trident missiles at Sadr City? Or Leeds, where the July 7 bombers hailed from?

Renewing Trident will not only be a waste of money, it will increase the risk of nuclear proliferation. Britain's decision will have immense international resonance. It will rob the West of any moral authority on the issue of disarmament and undo all the achievements of the past 20 years of multilateral negotiations. It will simply be impossible to lecture other countries, like Iran, against developing their own nuclear weapons while we are renewing our own.

So, it is replacing Trident, rather than dumping it, that will make the world a much more dangerous place. It is depressing that the government is apparently incapable of seeing this - as if Labour have forgotten everything they have said about nuclear weapons over the past 25 years.

It is very difficult to foresee the future of international relations. But the one thing that we can be sure of is this: that if nobody takes a lead on disarmament, the world will see more and more countries acquiring nuclear weapons. And eventually, someone, somewhere, will use them.

 

not convinced by the deterant theory tbh... it only works against people with little religious convictions... russia, but with the threat comming from some tinpot dictator with a religious quest i cant see them being bothered about being 'martyred'... they after all, will go to paradise....lol.

If the enemy is supposed to be 'from within' as we are all being told by the Govt is the case, how the hell is having trident gonna stop it...? How is a nuclear deterrant going to stop Abdul detonating his rucksack on a tube or a bus..? How will it stop a 'dirty bomb' going off in Central London..? What do we do then... fire a Trident missile at a North London or East End housing estate....? A useless waste of money, how about we actually use the money to train more Police and Mi5 officers...? It's only through actual police work and Intelligence gathering that the 'terrorist threat' will be neutralized, NOT through having Trident...

 

People talk about Iran and North Korea, but neither of them would even have the capability of having an actual ICBM for decades, and by then surely the individuals concerned in issuing these supposed 'threats to world security' will be long dead and gone.... Besides, NK and Iran only want to actually protect their own borders essentially, because they fear (and not unreasonably IMO..) an American/UK invasion....

 

Sorry, not convinced we need it....

Well, looks like the decision has already been made for us really dunnit (with Tony seeming to bypass an actual COMMONS VOTE before committing to spending the money) ..? Tony's pretty much decided to pish £20billion up against the wall replacing Trident which we're NEVER gonna use against anyone, and in the meantime the troops out in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be poorly equipped and dont even have proper armoured vehicles.... Talk about actually getting your priorities arse about tit.... <_<

 

And the cost to the taxpayer..? almost £1000 per head for EVERY taxpayer in the country..... What would you rather almost a thousand quid of your hard-earned dosh was spent on....?

 

Why the fukk does Britain NEED nuclear weapons anyway, the majority of our European partners and NATO allies are happy to do without them... ?

Spending £Billions on this seems perhaps the most crazy thing the Government has done.

Spending £Billions on this seems perhaps the most crazy thing the Government has done.

 

It's pathetic really, it is... But it's just so bloody typical of the attitude that still exists in this country.. We actually have the deluded belief that we actually matter a sh!t in the world anymore and we're not just the junior partners of a higher power, whether it is America or the EU... Well, people need to fukkin' well WAKE UP, there is no sodding "British Empire" anymore AND WE JUST DON'T MATTER ANYMORE.....

 

Britain's glory days are long behind it...

Why the fukk does Britain NEED nuclear weapons anyway, the majority of our European partners and NATO allies are happy to do without them... ?

 

Maybe he is worried the French might launch an attack on us,just a thought :lol:

 

He will get it through Parliament cause the tory's will vote for it

 

I don't think this decision is anything to do with "British Empire" more likely to keep America happy.