The Guardian conducted a poll on Trident, 54% said they would prefer to abandon nuclear weapons and 42% back renewal. That's a far higher percentage than you would imagine, deterrents have always had the majority of public support. Though it would need to be much higher than that to disarm.
My own view is within the 54%, yet I recognise that there is a psychological aspect to this, most pro nuclear arguments start with "what if". That is a valid argument as no one can answer "what if", but in 2009 it would take the complete failure of every political leader and the international community at large, for a nuclear weapon to be considered the only option left and for one to be used.
The biggest point and purpose to Trident has and always will be the political status having nuclear weapons present. Nick Clegg is the only politician being sensible about it, a review of our defence at large is needed in 2009 as this isn't the Cold War any more, would money be better spent on other equipment. Given the largest issue we face is terrorism, how will a nuclear weapon stop or deter that. If a terrorist managed to set off a dirty bomb in London, do we respond by dropping a nuke on . . . . . . where do we drop one? Terrorists aren't just sitting around a camp fire in a remote location, do we punish the country of their nationality? What if it's Britain?
Trident isn't the only option and maintaining the status quo for the sake of it or politics, isn't the right thing to do. What would be is making sure we are able and equipped to tackle defence in 2000s not 1980s. If a nuclear deterrent is necessary to do that, then so be it, but at least question and debate it, not as a political decision but defensive one.
My own view is within the 54%, yet I recognise that there is a psychological aspect to this, most pro nuclear arguments start with "what if". That is a valid argument as no one can answer "what if", but in 2009 it would take the complete failure of every political leader and the international community at large, for a nuclear weapon to be considered the only option left and for one to be used.
The biggest point and purpose to Trident has and always will be the political status having nuclear weapons present. Nick Clegg is the only politician being sensible about it, a review of our defence at large is needed in 2009 as this isn't the Cold War any more, would money be better spent on other equipment. Given the largest issue we face is terrorism, how will a nuclear weapon stop or deter that. If a terrorist managed to set off a dirty bomb in London, do we respond by dropping a nuke on . . . . . . where do we drop one? Terrorists aren't just sitting around a camp fire in a remote location, do we punish the country of their nationality? What if it's Britain?
Trident isn't the only option and maintaining the status quo for the sake of it or politics, isn't the right thing to do. What would be is making sure we are able and equipped to tackle defence in 2000s not 1980s. If a nuclear deterrent is necessary to do that, then so be it, but at least question and debate it, not as a political decision but defensive one.
No comments:
Post a Comment