Labour MP, Eric Joyce – who resigned earlier this month as parliamentary aide to Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth – has called for the future of Trident to be considered as part of a defence review. Writing for Compass, Joyce says:
“to leave out from a strategic defence review the thing which is supposed to be our major strategic asset suggests to many that the arguments for the status quo might not truly stand up to close scrutiny.”
Joyce also questions whether Trident is, in fact, a serious deterrent since:
“it seems inconceivable to most people that we would ever really destroy a developing country – and do that, remember, wholly independent of the United States.”
And in response to the prospect of the loss of 15,000 jobs if Trident were scrapped, Joyce writes:
“Yet while jobs are important, as with all major procurement projects, it’s hardly possible to argue that this of itself can justify the maintenance of a capability to immolate tens of thousands of people and despoil the environment for decades.”
Joyce goes on to say that, “Trident is not really primarily a matter of defence at all. Rather, it’s both a symbol which is perceived to give us bigger geopolitical clout when it counts, and an ace up our sleeve when it comes to multilateral disarmament talks.”
Joyce’s carefully considered words come in the week that Left Foot Forward published a widely cited opinion poll setting out that two-thirds oppose the renewal of Trident. On Monday, online civic organisation 38 degrees launched a petition calling for Brown to “reopen the decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system.” The petition has been signed by nearly 5,000 people in just three days.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
8 Responses to “Joyce: Trident not primarily a matter of defence”
Richard Tebboth
Correction:
It has been suggested that if we were to give up our “independent” deterrent, this lead to the loss of our permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Would that matter?
eric joyce
Rory, the way I see it the NPT is a matter of foreign relations more than truly Defence. The Clausewitzian analysis would only apply if you believe that we’d deploy Trident, which I don’t. And, Richard, it would seem to me practicable to extend the life of Trident and, over the next 20 to 30 years, move towards a more coherent European security relationship with the US.
Rory
Well, I would say foreign relations and defence are closely linked, just like war and politics.
I suppose your comment about Clausewitz depends on what your definition of ‘would’ is, to paraphrase Mr Clinton. I think our possession of nuclear weapons has helped create a situation where their use seems inconceivable.
On a different subject, have you ever walked through the car park outside the Falkirk cinema? It’s a frightening experience.