Nuclear weapons test/photo: http://all-free-download.com/free-photos/
Trident or no Trident?
Do we need to buy new nuclear weaponry to ensure the UK is defended? Are our existing weapons enough of a deterrent? Could the money be better spent in other ways? If we’re in debt, as a country, is buying more nuclear bombs a priority? How much will our alliance with the USA influence our government’s decision? And whatever your answers, will your voice be heard when time comes for the decision to be made? HOT’s Zelly Restorick reports.
2016 is the year of the vote – for or against Trident. The cost? Different sources offer different calculations. In 2015, Conservative chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Crispin Blunt and Reuters stated that the long-term cost of the UK nuclear programme would be £167 billion: “The overall cost of replacing and maintaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent will reach 167 billion pounds, much more than expected, according to an MP’s and Reuters’ calculations based on official figures”. The government’s last estimate of the lifetime cost was £100 billion.
The Guardian reported recently that there’s been a price increase of £6 billion: “The strategy document disclosed the cost of the proposed four nuclear submarines at £31bn, up from a projected cost of £25bn five years ago and £20bn in 2006.”
Whatever the correct figure – of replacement and maintenance – is this a wise way to spend the money? If you pay taxes, you’re contributing. Is this how you want your money to be spent, at this time?
Hiroshima skyline/photo: CND
Hastings Against War will be focusing their next meeting on the topic of Trident and you’re welcome to go along and discuss the issue with them. They come from the perspective of ‘Stop Trident’ and are in alliance with CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), an organisation which has been campaigning against nuclear weapons since its launch in February 1958, post bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
CND have produced a couple of information booklets about Trident: Trident Q&A and Trident Mythbuster. Obviously, you know which perspective they’re coming from, but it might be interesting to check out – and at least get a discussion rolling. And here’s a BBC article about the pros and cons, dating from September 2015.
If you’re interested in playing a more active role alongside CND, check out their website: Days of Action leading to national demonstration 27 February 2016.
Please paste your comments below. It’s always good to hear what you think and feel. If you have any suggestions for further info which might help people make up their minds, please include it in the link.
Hastings Against War next meets on Tuesday 5 January 2016 at 7.30pm at The Friends (Quaker) Meeting House, South Terrace, Hastings TN34 1SA. Ground floor space – easy access for all.
If you’re enjoying HOT and would like us to continue providing fair and balanced reporting on local matters please consider making a donation. Click here to open our PayPal donation link. Thank you for your continued support!
2 Comments
Also in: Politics
« Public consultation on 2016-17 budgetLabour pains »
We need schools, we need hospitals, we need social services, all of which are being slashed in the name of ‘austerity’. To even consider spending in excess of £150 billion on replacing Trident is the height of insanity. The argument that is needed in terms of ‘deterrent’ is equally insane; the existence of nuclear weapons did not prevent 9/11; did not prevent the bombing in London; and did not, recently, prevent the bombs in Paris. There is no justification whatsoever for such a ludicrous expenditure on a weapon system that must never be used. And if the government argues for Trident, they are explicitly saying they are prepared to enter a nuclear war.
Comment by Ann Kramer — Thursday, Dec 31, 2015 @ 00:59
It seems to me that in all the years we have had Trident it has done nothing for us but soak up huge amounts ofpublic money. I cannot think of a single occasion when Britain’s possession of Trident made any difference to anything. It did not stop Argentina invading the Falklands, it did not prevent the 7th July terrorist attacks, and it has had no role in any of Britiain’s various recent wars. In what kind of scenario could it ever conceivably be of any use whatsoever?
Comment by Peter Bolwell — Wednesday, Dec 30, 2015 @ 22:47