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This misplaced loyalty to an outdated and ineffective weapons system is yet further evidence of the politics-as-usual approach of the traditional Westminster parties.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And yet, the United Kingdom retains Trident, despite it being outdated and ineffective.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”
sarntcrip
AND NUTERS OF US
MoonBeam
Ukraine was promised protection if it gave up its nukes. Had they remained Russia likely would not have invaded. Switzerland does not need nukes because of its economy – many foreign states bank with Switzerland. Only a few years ago the Swiss banks absorbed what was left of the assets of the Nazi’s and Hitler. Some one attacks Switzerland you dont know how many countries will get upset over it so its really not worth the risk is it? Why have nukes when people will deal with your enemies for you.
MoonBeam
Thats why Trident is a submarine which has coverage over half the planet. They are not on the mainland so even if half the country has been annihilated the ultimate purpose of Trident – which is mutually assured destruction – is fulfilled.
Greg Kaye
At a fundamental level Womack betrays core principles of a genuine green policy and basic common sense in following the idiocy of Shahrar Ali on immigration. Due to this now insane immigration policies and the catastrophic effects that they will have on any conception of the sustainability of the United Kingdom (also within the context of their abject failure to even consider the fundamental problem human overpopulation) the party that they mislead is fundamentally THE LEAST GREEN PARTY of any major political group in England and Wales. UKIP and, yes, both the tories AND labour are certainly FAR GREENER.
The unavoidably sad fact is that countries with high population densities (such as many in Europe and exemplified by the UK) already have need to import vast amounts of food simply so as to feed their own burgeoning and inflating populations. Much of this food is already imported from a wide range of countries including those from which people are leaving. Many of these countries, especially in locations from Africa to Afghanistan, have exceedingly high birthrates. This is very clearly illustrated on the map of countries by fertility rate presented at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate .
In comparison, the relatively slow natural population growth of European countries remains much more closely in line with the rate of improvement in food production. Never-the-less, the population of the UK is already way in excess of the environmental factor of “overshoot”. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) and https://populationmatters.org/documents/overshoot_index_2011.pdf
The UK is already far from being anywhere near a sustainable situation. This in even in a situation in which we use a relatively very small proportion of our agricultural area for the production of fuel. Our sustainability situation will be critical in any conceivable situation in which we may imagine the UK as being beyond its dependency on non-renewable resources. In short, we already have way to many people. Until we are in a situation in which we stop importing food, It makes no sense to import yet more people.
In comparison rates of population growth in many of the countries that people are leaving are way in excess of rates of improvements in food production techniques.
It also makes absolutely no environmental sense to take people from countries where per capita resource use is low and allow the import of such people into countries where per capita resource use is high. It makes no sense to import both people and food into the same densely populated areas. People should have support and opportunity in their own countries of origin. Destabilizing and prejudiced regimes that prompt attempts at migration should be opposed. Population concern organisations (such as at http://www.populationmatters.org/) should be urgently referenced and supported.
If anything potential migrants should be informed of the relevant facts regarding the global economic and environmental situation because, every migrant that makes it into countries like the UK, just adds to the problem of the global situation. Problems need to be solved at source. High stands of general education needs to be encouraged with particular attention given to the education and equal empowerment of women across the world, both because these issues are of fundamental importance for human rights as well as because the education and empowerment of woman has been proven to check the spiraling growth of population. Groups that oppose these principles and who act so as to displace populations, themselves, need to be opposed.
For the related David Attenborough documentary search on: How Many People Can Live On Planet Earth
Quote: ‘Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist.’ Kenneth Boulding
Whether we like it or not there are limits
I am a passionate green but I can’t stand back and see this wholesale ecological idiocy of this anti-green party. These anti-greens need to either return to practically environmental agendas or leave the party to those that will.
Why the hell does this woman think she has a place in a group called the “Green Party”?
Andy Grout
Well said Greg!! .. Population growth across the globe is extremely worrying and adds to the burden on finite resources. The Greens in the UK are not primarily interested in sustainable economics, they are more like Labour´s socialist little sister – a collection of local activists, unemployed idealists, disillusioned ex-Labour supporters, bitter feminists, and some mumbling environmentalists also – but the point is, they are grappling too many social issues which miss the target and the purpose of a Green Party. Simply opposing fracking is not enough! It´s a scratch on the surface of a huge huge problem. … They need to build a credible party, with passionate politicians and capable leaders who develop policies which respond directly to global warming, mis-allocation of resources, pollution, economic scarcity, population increase etc etc. Their first priority should be to define these key sustainability policies and sell them! Then of course they must have positions on the NHS, trident, tax credits for families. Of course! ,,, But first concentrate on “Green” the brand and raising awareness of these environmental issues! Force the other parties to like your ideas and even adopt them, force public opinion to change and be more sensitive to the Green environmental arguments (before social arguments!). … I don´t want to hear a Green Party leader, going on about how she will revolutionise the NHS when she has not experience or credibility on such topics. But I will listen to her talk about how plastic is polluting our oceans; or how Cecil the lion and thousands of other species are on the verge of extinction and what we can really do about it; or how local production will help both the economy and the environment. … And you´re right Greg, accepting half a million refugees into an already overcrowded little island which cannot even provide food for itself without mass importation it not a position for an advocate of a sustainable economy! Perhaps it´s a moral thing to do (that´s a different issue), but shouldn´t a Green Party leader give the sustainable economics argument on current affairs and global issues? Get it heard?! For me that´s her primary responsibility, not jumping on the let the immigration continue band-wagon without a conscientious thought for the environmental, economic or social consequences from a Green perspective.