This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/30/more-reasons-defend-indefensible
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Trident: more reasons not to defend the indefensible | Trident: more reasons not to defend the indefensible |
| (5 months later) | |
| The Guardian is to be congratulated for its forensic critique of government policy on Trident (Editorial, 30 October). In pointing out the compelling strategic, economic and moral arguments against Britain maintaining (let alone replacing) a nuclear weapons system, the absurdity of committing £100bn to Trident replacement is laid bare. | The Guardian is to be congratulated for its forensic critique of government policy on Trident (Editorial, 30 October). In pointing out the compelling strategic, economic and moral arguments against Britain maintaining (let alone replacing) a nuclear weapons system, the absurdity of committing £100bn to Trident replacement is laid bare. |
| But there is one further argument which needs to be made here: scrapping Trident is a vote winner – and this is something Labour and the Lib Dems must understand. | But there is one further argument which needs to be made here: scrapping Trident is a vote winner – and this is something Labour and the Lib Dems must understand. |
| The case must be made in no uncertain terms: would the public rather have essential services or a redundant weapons system? Do the military want usable equipment or an outmoded totem? And does the world need another hypocritical nuclear-armed state paying lip service to disarmament while ploughing billions into its nuclear arsenal? | The case must be made in no uncertain terms: would the public rather have essential services or a redundant weapons system? Do the military want usable equipment or an outmoded totem? And does the world need another hypocritical nuclear-armed state paying lip service to disarmament while ploughing billions into its nuclear arsenal? |
| Domestically and internationally, Britain should be bold in rejecting nuclear weapons. They're indefensible and worthless – and who would want to defend that? Kate Hudson General secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament | Domestically and internationally, Britain should be bold in rejecting nuclear weapons. They're indefensible and worthless – and who would want to defend that? Kate Hudson General secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament |
| • Why do not opponents of Trident take the straightforward, compelling and unanswerable stance that it is not Britain's to use? Trident's guidance system is controlled by the US, and the notion that Washington is going to allow its erstwhile colonial rulers to choose a target for such a devastating WMD is outside the realms of reality. | • Why do not opponents of Trident take the straightforward, compelling and unanswerable stance that it is not Britain's to use? Trident's guidance system is controlled by the US, and the notion that Washington is going to allow its erstwhile colonial rulers to choose a target for such a devastating WMD is outside the realms of reality. |
| The origins of this ludicrous situation go back to Trident's predecessor, Polaris, on which Harold Macmillan and his close ally John F Kennedy made a deal at Nassau in 1962 for Britain to have a figleaf arrangement, masquerading as independent control, in order to assuage backbench Tory outrage over the US's unilateral abandonment of the Skybolt missile that was to be used in RAF bombers. Skybolt was flawed, but it would at least have been an independent system. Trident is the opposite. | The origins of this ludicrous situation go back to Trident's predecessor, Polaris, on which Harold Macmillan and his close ally John F Kennedy made a deal at Nassau in 1962 for Britain to have a figleaf arrangement, masquerading as independent control, in order to assuage backbench Tory outrage over the US's unilateral abandonment of the Skybolt missile that was to be used in RAF bombers. Skybolt was flawed, but it would at least have been an independent system. Trident is the opposite. |
| Your leader, Nick Clegg's criticisms, Polly Toynbee's Comment piece and Martin Rowson's typically brilliant cartoon all missed the chance to nail the pretence that Trident is independent. John Webster London | Your leader, Nick Clegg's criticisms, Polly Toynbee's Comment piece and Martin Rowson's typically brilliant cartoon all missed the chance to nail the pretence that Trident is independent. John Webster London |
| • Trident is neither British nor independent, and it isn't much of a deterrent. And hardly a bargain. Evidence to the Commons defence select committee demonstrated that Trident depends crucially for launch and target acquisition data on US military GPS satnav. You can be sure that if we tried to do something the White House didn't approve, the satnav would be switched off. Peter Johnston Bolton, Lancashire | • Trident is neither British nor independent, and it isn't much of a deterrent. And hardly a bargain. Evidence to the Commons defence select committee demonstrated that Trident depends crucially for launch and target acquisition data on US military GPS satnav. You can be sure that if we tried to do something the White House didn't approve, the satnav would be switched off. Peter Johnston Bolton, Lancashire |
| • In 1986, the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, said: "The accident at Chernobyl showed again what an abyss will open if nuclear war befalls mankind." He later said it was that accident that triggered the end of the cold war. As long as there are nuclear power stations in the world the deterrent value of nuclear weapons is illusory. In a nuclear war the real damage will be caused by uncontrollable emissions of radioactive material from nuclear reactors and their associated storage zones. | • In 1986, the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, said: "The accident at Chernobyl showed again what an abyss will open if nuclear war befalls mankind." He later said it was that accident that triggered the end of the cold war. As long as there are nuclear power stations in the world the deterrent value of nuclear weapons is illusory. In a nuclear war the real damage will be caused by uncontrollable emissions of radioactive material from nuclear reactors and their associated storage zones. |
| Britain has plenty of nuclear power stations. As the prevailing winds in Britain are southwesterly, the likely victims of any attack on us will be to our east: Russia and China, the presumed objects of Trident. They have nuclear power stations, too. If Trident were ever to be used, the entire northern hemisphere would become uninhabitable. Craig Sams Hastings, East Sussex | Britain has plenty of nuclear power stations. As the prevailing winds in Britain are southwesterly, the likely victims of any attack on us will be to our east: Russia and China, the presumed objects of Trident. They have nuclear power stations, too. If Trident were ever to be used, the entire northern hemisphere would become uninhabitable. Craig Sams Hastings, East Sussex |
| • Philip Hammond's go-ahead for Trident replacement (Tories snub Lib Dems over Trident future, 29 October) is just a ploy to scupper Scottish independence. It has nothing to do with being the "ultimate safeguard for Britain's security". The US has 14 Trident submarines and none of that killing power prevented the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Billions of pounds of public money are to be spent on a dangerous, destabilising weapon that will only increase the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons. Rae Street Littleborough, Lancashire | • Philip Hammond's go-ahead for Trident replacement (Tories snub Lib Dems over Trident future, 29 October) is just a ploy to scupper Scottish independence. It has nothing to do with being the "ultimate safeguard for Britain's security". The US has 14 Trident submarines and none of that killing power prevented the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Billions of pounds of public money are to be spent on a dangerous, destabilising weapon that will only increase the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons. Rae Street Littleborough, Lancashire |
| • The government claims a replacement for Trident is necessary for the creation of high-quality jobs and vital skills. This is profoundly depressing. To believe we have to invest in weapons of destruction is to totally ignore more peaceful and constructive investments, such as securing our energy needs through renewable energy or providing zero-carbon housing, hospitals and schools. We can develop high-quality jobs through ensuring a living wage, decent working hours, protection against unfair dismissal and so many other initiatives that this government considers unnecessary. Jean Lambert MEP Green, London | • The government claims a replacement for Trident is necessary for the creation of high-quality jobs and vital skills. This is profoundly depressing. To believe we have to invest in weapons of destruction is to totally ignore more peaceful and constructive investments, such as securing our energy needs through renewable energy or providing zero-carbon housing, hospitals and schools. We can develop high-quality jobs through ensuring a living wage, decent working hours, protection against unfair dismissal and so many other initiatives that this government considers unnecessary. Jean Lambert MEP Green, London |
| • Polly Toynbee and others should be urging Ed Miliband to make a referendum on the future of Trident a matter of Labour policy. This is an issue that concerns the kind of country (and world) we want our grandchildren to inherit; the spending priorities we want our politicians to attend to; and whether the kind of defence we want for our community needs to be quite so apocalyptic. | • Polly Toynbee and others should be urging Ed Miliband to make a referendum on the future of Trident a matter of Labour policy. This is an issue that concerns the kind of country (and world) we want our grandchildren to inherit; the spending priorities we want our politicians to attend to; and whether the kind of defence we want for our community needs to be quite so apocalyptic. |
| The debate and discussion around such an issue would be a collective airing of both the rational and irrational, and could return democracy back to where it belongs – our peoples. It might also be a fitting tribute to the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis from which, thank God, we all came through. John Hills Canterbury, Kent | The debate and discussion around such an issue would be a collective airing of both the rational and irrational, and could return democracy back to where it belongs – our peoples. It might also be a fitting tribute to the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis from which, thank God, we all came through. John Hills Canterbury, Kent |
| • When is the Labour party going to stop being frightened of its own shadow on this issue? I fear that they, like the Tories, are seduced by big toys. We deserve better. Alan Healey Milson, Shropshire | • When is the Labour party going to stop being frightened of its own shadow on this issue? I fear that they, like the Tories, are seduced by big toys. We deserve better. Alan Healey Milson, Shropshire |
| guardian.co.uk today is our daily snapshot of the top news stories, sent to your inbox at 8am |