Comment: The most powerful case against Trident is the military one

Vast funding for ineffective Trident is detrimental to the Armed Forces that we actually need to keep our country safe

 

Yesterday’s disagreement between Labour and the Conservatives over nuclear weapons isn’t really a disagreement at all. Both parties have pledged to maintain Trident when it comes up for renewal, at a cost of £100bn to the taxpayer.

This misplaced loyalty to an outdated and ineffective weapons system is yet further evidence of the politics-as-usual approach of the traditional Westminster parties.

Times have changed since countries first developed nuclear weapons. The struggle for power in today’s world is not a two-horse-race between superpowers, nor are the greatest threats to state security solely acts of aggression undertaken by other countries, as was the case during the Cold War years.

The government’s own National Security Strategy (2010) identified terrorism, cyber-warfare and natural disasters as greater threats to national security than nuclear warfare. The nature of global security, and what is needed to maintain it, has changed beyond recognition since the days of nuclear stalemates between the USA and USSR.

And yet, the United Kingdom retains Trident, despite it being outdated and ineffective. Amidst the many and justified arguments in favour of dismantling Trident, the most powerful case against it is a military one: it simply fails to perform its function. Not only does Trident not enhance our security; it fundamentally undermines it.

The existence of Trident encourages nuclear proliferation and global instability. If we argue that Trident is essential for our security, it’s only logical for other countries to come to the same conclusion, as demonstrated by North Korea’s recent nuclear test and Iran’s refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium. And as nuclear weapons proliferate, so too does the likelihood that terrorists will obtain them.

Moreover, Trident is extraordinarily expensive, costing £100bn over its lifetime. Given this government has announced 20,000 troops will be cut by 2020, it seems apparent that vast expenditure on Trident detracts funding from other sources. A letter signed by four ex-generals, including one former head of the Armed Forces, emphasised this notion of Trident as essentially a misdirection of revenue:

“Rather than perpetuating Trident, the case is much stronger for funding our Armed Forces with what they need to meet the commitments actually laid upon them”.

Given the rapid evolution of threats to state security, investing increasingly scarce resources in an outdated model of defence prevents the effective adaptation of a smaller Armed Forces to best meet the security needs of the present day.

Nuclear weapons do not ensure the security of any nation. They are an inadequate and unsuitable response to the myriad threats posed to state security in the contemporary world. Yet Labour refuses to stand up in opposition to Trident, despite 75 per cent of Labour parliamentary candidates opposing Trident renewal.

Now, more than ever, we need peaceful solutions to conflict. We need to move away from the aggressive, militaristic and ultimately ineffective form of security that Trident offers. All Green MPs elected on 7 May will oppose the renewal of Trident at every opportunity. In the next parliament, we will work with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and any other MPs who wish to join us to oppose Trident and confine nuclear weapons to the dustbin of history, where they belong.

Amelia Womack is deputy leader of the Green Party. Follow her on Twitter

39 Responses to “Comment: The most powerful case against Trident is the military one”

  1. Edwintheslugcrusher

    Nope. Don’t be silly! It was a typo and should have read “here” rather than “her”. Is that okay with you, chum?
    And there you go again assuming Trident adds to UK security.
    Its obsolete. Just like muskets are obsolete. Its outlived whatever usefulness it ever had.
    The biggest threat to UK security is not going to come from the skies in the form of nuclear weapons. That would be silly. Nobody wins anything from such an exchange. The biggest threat to our security comes from the cyber world. We would be better spending our money on preventing cyber attacks and healing our population with a decent National Health Service and redistributing the money saved back to the people from whom it originally comes.

  2. Guest

    There I go again, assuming that not kowtowing to Russia is a good thing. Not being a Putinite, you say, is obselete. And do prove you didn’t mean “him”, your Fatherland..

    Yes, your Mr. Putin *can’t* gain from invading us, that’s the point, as you try and talk about a completely separate economic argument to distract things – and what’s this? Yup, more calls for lower tax on the rich.

    That’s you sussed.

    (And “cyber attacks” – oh, more copyright enforcement for rich American companies and crackdowns on the internet. Right)

  3. Edwintheslugcrusher

    You now appear to be putting words in my mouth.

    “Not being a Putinite, you say, is obselete. And do prove you didn’t mean “him”, your Fatherland..”

    Nobody will ever “prove” anything on here, chum. Its a discussion forum. I suggest you look up the definition of “discussion” before replying. You might begin to make some sense. I would also advise you read and try to understand what’s been posted. You might be able to keep up to speed!

  4. Guest

    Ah, so you refuse to even try. My my!

    And I see, I’m not buying your Putinite agenda, as you accuse me of replying to your post without slavishly buying your propaganda, Go home to Moscow.

  5. Robbie

    I have just advised all my neighbours to leave all their doors unlocked because we haven’t had a burglary in our road for over 20 years! Oh despite what the weathe forecast is it won’t be cold tonight!

Comments are closed.