Let’s have a referendum on renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system
|
Version 0 of 1. Marina Hyde (PM’s fine art of answering questions no one has asked, 10 April) is right that “no one in their right mind wants anyone’s finger on any nuclear button”. So on Monday 13 April it seems I will be in the company of a majority as I support Scottish CND’s campaign Bairns not Bombs as peacemakers blockade the nuclear submarine base at Faslane. I’m happy to have a “child-like view of the world” and to join “a student protest group”, in Michael Fallon’s words (Tories play the Trident card, 9 April) if it helps to change the culture in this country. It is a culture which in the last decade has become obsessed with throwing our weight about on the world stage while attacking the very fabric of our country – namely the safety net for the old and ill. Let us acknowledge that this culture needs to change: let us value people over profit; give the NHS the money it needs to do the job; uphold international law, which says targeting or threatening to target civilians (as is inevitable in a nuclear war) is unlawful; and resist the politicians who would frighten us into believing that if we do not have nuclear weapons we are undefended or uninfluential. Both premises are fallacious: we should not have weapons which cannot be used for our defence and we cannot influence other countries not to have nuclear weapons when we ourselves have them. The Trident debate has long been ignored by both politicians and the media. Let us join the peacemakers at Faslane on Monday in making it an electoral issue.Ailsa JohnsonPendeen, Cornwall • If David Cameron is so persuaded by the democratic inclusiveness of having a referendum on being part of the European Union, perhaps he would commit now to a referendum on the renewal of Trident, and allow the people to decide whether our security is enhanced or diminished by renewing an absurd weapon system, or whether the money saved might be better spent on health, education, police, the arts, welfare, the coastguard service – and improving the morale of our conventional armed forces.Brian WoollandRomsey, Hampshire How seriously do we take Nicola Sturgeon’s assertion that renewal of Trident is a red line for the SNP? • I assume Tory strategy was to force Labour into a kneejerk confirmation of their total commitment to Trident, thus making it less likely that many nuclear abolitionists like me will vote for them.Peter RobbinsLondon • Supporters of Trident often describe it as “Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent”, but the Guardian should know better than to use this term uncritically in a news report (The day the polls turned, 10 April). Trident is not independent. It is dependent on US technical support. Indeed, while the submarines and warheads are built in Britain, the missiles themselves are loaned from the US. It will not “deter” most major threats to our security, such as suicide bombers on the underground or runaway climate change. Of course, its supporters can make an argument that it is a deterrent, but that is very different to using the term uncritically in a news story as if it were universally accepted.Symon HillLondon • How seriously do we take Nicola Sturgeon’s assertion that renewal of Trident is a red line for the SNP? She has stated that she would support Labour being in power, while voting with or against it on individual issues. If so, it is perfectly clear what will happen. Labour will get Trident through with an overwhelming majority because the Conservatives will vote with it. The SNP’s vote against will be no more than a gesture. Will Nicola Sturgeon state that if Labour pushes Trident through like this, she would then vote it out on the next vote of confidence? Only if she makes that commitment does her red line mean anything.Roger SchafirLondon • Let’s put this question to all politicians standing for parliament in May: if you were PM, under what circumstances would you see fit to authorise the destruction of the people of Moscow, St Petersburg, Pyongyang, Kiev, Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus or Kabul? If, as I hope, the answer is “none”, then by what mad logic could they approve the construction of three or four submarines whose sole point would be to add one of those cities to the list that now has just Hiroshima and Nagasaki?Alan Burkitt-GrayLondon • Mercifully omitted from your editorial (10 April) is the canard that we keep nuclear weapons in the hope that we never use them. The truth is that we are always using these weapons, in the same way you would use a gun to hold up a bank without firing a shot. This is the debate we need to have, as the world destabilises over territory, ideology and what wealth remains in the ground. The plodding inadequacy of reformism in the face of global capitalism is becoming plainer – yet the Conservatives have little more than sick jokes about “Red” Ed.Stuart BibbyWeston-super-Mare, Somerset |