Why in the world do we need Trident?
Saturday 17 May 2014
Saturday 20 July 2013
24 hours a day, 365
days a year, at least one British nuclear submarine lies concealed below the
polar ice cap, armed with nuclear warheads. The arsenal of the Trident fleet is
equivalent to 1,000 Hiroshima
bombs. Ask any senior politician in
either the Labour or Tory Parties the simple question "At whom are the
nuclear missiles on trident submarines pointing?" After the obvious discomfort of being
asked the question, you will get a sort of reply on the lines that they can't
answer the question, for reasons of national security. Who does know? Having spent a day with a Commander of a
nuclear submarine, it emerged that he didn't know (whilst assuming of course
that the targets lay within the Soviet Union ). With the end of the Cold War and the
dissolution of the old Soviet empire, where may we ask do they now target? For the first clue, we need to look back at
the original policy of the so-called "nuclear deterrence".
Each of the adversaries had each others cities
set as the targets, with each side saying "you hit our cities and we'll
obliterate yours". Extreme
accuracy was not sought, as whether a missile landed on the east side of Moscow or London
the cities would be destroyed. However,
this deterrence theory was gradually replaced by a new doctrine of being able
to destroy the enemies missiles, whilst leaving their own intact, which left
the door open for the simple assumption that whoever fired first would
win. It was in this new climate that
Trident was created (claimed to be able to hit the target within 90
metres). The submarines were built at
the Vickers Yard in Barrow-in Furness, the nuclear reactors tested at HMS
Vulcan, next door to the Dounreay Fast Breeder Reactor, but the nuclear
missiles themselves were manufactured by Lockhead in the USA, each missile
having its multi-targets built into it during its construction. This destroys the myth of the
"independent nuclear deterrent" as there is no way that these weapons
could ever be used without the full co-operation of the USA.
It is extremely
doubtful whether in the hectic Cold War years when the policy was to keep one
step ahead of the enemy, it was ever remotely considered that one day these
targets would become obsolete. Even
though the Cold War ended in 1991, at this moment in time one or more Trident
submarines are waiting silently beneath the polar ice-cap for the signal
"rise and fire", their targets being the empty and rusting former
Soviet silos! Ukraine , which
once contained a number of these targets is now a separate nation, one of its
first acts on its way to independence was to declare itself "a nuclear
weapons free zone". Maintaining
Trident at sea costs the British taxpayer £2.5 billion a year, for a weapon
which can only be described in one word "Insanity".
Now for a second
question for our senior politicians.
"What happened to all our other nuclear weapons at the end of the
Cold War?" (Weapons said to be
capable of killing everyone in Europe ten
times over). After some hesitation they
will venture the answer "of course they have all been destroyed". The truth is that these weapons were
carefully dismantled and are being kept in a secret location as the crow flies
a mere 60 miles from Glasgow
(not at Faslane). The task was performed
with military precision and completed one day ahead of schedule, on 30 March
1992. So, if these weapons still exist,
how do we need a new generation of weapons of mass destruction, viz Trident II,
considering that any nuclear threat to his country disappeared 20 years
ago? There are various reasons put
forward by Labour & Tory politicians why we must have Trident II, none of
which survive scrutiny. One such typical
answer "We need these weapons to ensure a seat at the top
table".
The truth is that the
members of the Security Council were appointed before anyone had nuclear
weapons, not even the USA. Another political response "What if Iran or North Korea obtain a nuclear
weapon?" If for some strange
reason we were the chosen target how could they ever propel such a missile as
far as the UK ? Neither of these countries could be remotely
considered a threat to the UK. They have real enemies closer at hand.
Firstly Iran .
Israel ,
a nuclear armed state and armed to the teeth with modern American weapons is
ready to respond to any possible attack, and we can never rule out a
pre-emptive strike at any time by Israel . The USA has also at this moment in time
150 nuclear bombers standing ready to be loaded for take off in 20 minutes in 5
European countries; 3 bases in Germany,
2 bases in Italy, and one each in Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK. As for North
Korea every action by this backward Communist nation is
monitored by the USA, both by satellite and a well armed fleet all around its
coasts, whilst South Korea
is armed with the most sophisticated American weapons.
Trident is an obsolete relic of the Cold War era and has no place in the world today. The political illusion of having security by possessing powerful weapons, dates back to our colonial past. Sadly this "Rule Britannia" mentality still lingers on today. When willWestminster
accept the fact that instead of being a world power, we are a small
semi-bankrupt island off the coast of Europe ?
See also: More blogs by John Jappy
Trident is an obsolete relic of the Cold War era and has no place in the world today. The political illusion of having security by possessing powerful weapons, dates back to our colonial past. Sadly this "Rule Britannia" mentality still lingers on today. When will
See also: More blogs by John Jappy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)