The cost of Trident missiles is now estimated at £20bn, which is around 4% of the defence budget, which highlights the large scale of military spending. The Prime Minister has put some concessions upon the bid including the possibility of cutting the number of submarines and nuclear warheads. The number of warheads is set to be cut, at present down to 160 from the original of 200 warheads; some claims that this could fall to 100 to appease Labour sceptics.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4438392.stm
The above web-link gives a few details of how Trident would work.
The destructive power of one missile is an eight times that of the explosion at Hiroshima, which killed an estimated 80,000 people directly, while around 60,000 people died in the subsequent weeks as a result of radiation poisoning.
The Labour Party is at least on paper supporting the new Trident nuclear missile system, the Conservatives appear in favour of the renewal while the Liberal Democrats are trying to delay the process, but are not openly opposing Trident. Given the Liberal Democrats opposition to the Iraq war and the Labour Party’s previous support for the CND, it’s surprising the lack of opposition to Trident.
The case for Trident is that we cannot possibly know the political climate in twenty years time, we is certainly true, when Trident was first introduced no one would have predicted the situation we find ourselves in.
The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty states that all states must aim for the cessation of the nuclear arms race, rearming seems to run counter to this treaty therefore we are in breach of the treaty as few people would argue that renewing our nuclear arsenal will slow let alone stop the wide possession of nuclear weapons.
When we hear of the British armed forces dependent on low levels of inadequate equipment (including equipment such as body armour where people have died as a result, or that soldiers accept that they sometimes have to buy their own equipment), yet there is going to be a large sum of money spent upon a weapon which we will not use, doesn’t seem like money well spent.
There are plenty of other areas that could use £20bn worth of funding; the NHS is going through a critical stage at present, with serious amounts of funding required but also more efficiency required. The UK has enormous wealth inequalities, perhaps these could be slightly reduced, or making further effort to make the world a better place, with 1 in 5 living on less than $1 a day, we could actually help achieve something.
The justification of nuclear weapons is fairly difficult, plenty of other countries that we are allied to have vast levels of nuclear weapons, which gives the UK some protection. The idea of nuclear weapons is a deterrent, the principle being that no country is willing to use a nuclear device in the fear of a similar retaliation, however considering that the UK is a serious member of the international community and a permanent member of the Security Council, the UK can rely upon support from other countries.
The use of nuclear weapons cannot be justified, the level of destruction cannot in anyway be tolerated, the main idea of a nuclear weapon is to show the military might of the country in the total destruction of the other country, part of the power is the total destruction which is made even more powerful by the huge slaughter of innocent civilians. The killing of any innocent civilians is a tragedy, and while describing such common accidents as ‘collateral damage’ is even more of a tragedy, nuclear weapons are arms designed to kill civilians and can never be tolerated.
The argument is correct that we cannot predict the future, the future is unlikely to be peaceful, we are only in 2006, yet we have witnessed war, famine and poverty, the 21st Century is nowhere near perfect. The future and its condition depends upon us, will nuclear armaments make the World a better place?
