Thanks for all your contributions to another interesting discussion. No poll component this week, but judging by both the comments and the responses to our form, a clear majority of contributors to the debate were against Trident renewal.
We’ll be closing comments shortly, and we’ll be back next week for another debate.
Updated
'Trident has never been about security'
It’s true that we face many insecurities and conflicts in the world. The government’s national security strategy has identified terrorism, climate change, pandemics and cyber warfare as the tier-one threats we face today.
Trident emerged in the context of the Cold War. It is now out of date technology that does not respond to contemporary threats. There is a growing body of evidence that shows Trident submarines will soon be susceptible to the fast developing underwater drones technology and cyber-attacks.
The truth is Trident has never been about security. Tony Blair admitted in his autobiography that the only convincing argument for retaining the nuclear weapons system is the role it plays as a status symbol. If it’s really about status, wouldn’t it be better to invest £205 billion elsewhere in the economy? There are far better ways to improve Britain’s standing in the world. An industrial development programme could see us lead in hi-tech industry and create tens of thousands of jobs.
It’s disappointing that we didn’t see a comprehensive debate in Parliament yesterday. Ministers refused to admit the full cost of replacing Trident. The Prime Minister seemed ill-prepared to answer more serious questions that poked through the usual rhetoric. And sadly some MPs think defending Trident is the only way to be taken seriously by constituents, even if they agree with CND on the merits, or lack thereof, of Trident.
Scrapping Trident could lead to a complete rethink of Britain’s role in the world today. After a series of failed wars in the Middle East that have grown the threat of terrorism – that rethink has never been more necessary. That job will now fall to a future government, which is why CND will continue to campaign hard to change policies in political parties, trades unions, and civil society organisations.
'I'd love to see a nuclear free world, but that would take a global campaign'
'We will lose a lot of influence internationally'
A pro-Trident comment via our form, from Jason, 30, a Labour supporter in Peterborough.
Though he does add, “I think the cost is staggering. I am not particularly happy with it.”
Nuclear weapons for a long time preserved the peace between large nations. China and Russia have their own ambitions and these are largely kept in check by the nuclear balance.
A number of people argue about the number of independent non-nuclear nations who haven’t been invaded or nuked. A big reason for this is that large nations like Britain keep everyone in check. You cannot risk direct conflict with a nuclear nation and invading a nearby sovereign nation is likely to provoke that.
Another argument against it is that threats are now from small cells or terrorists. Yes this is the more likely threat. This is why we have an army and intelligence services. A period of relative stability does not mean that the threat from large nations has subsided.
If we give up our nukes it will not lead to other nations disarming. Instead we will lose a lot of influence internationally. We will be unable to hold large countries to account or pressure them to stay within their borders.
Perhaps the scariest thing is we will be depending on America (who may elect Trump as president) or France (who may elect Le Pen) for our deterrent.
It is important for Britain to continue to project influence across the world, and for us to stay strong even if other countries choose not to.
Practically, investing in Trident makes no sense – it's old technology
Some readers have commented on the fact that Trident technology is outmoded and that investing in it doesn’t make sense for that reason.
Cards on the table - I am convinced that renewing Trident is wrong. We need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and the current strategy has failed.
But I do believe there is another, more pragmatic reason why this is folly, and that is the advance of technology. In a decade's time (never mind in 40 or 50 years), hiding a large submarine in the ocean may well become impossible. Satellite, surveillance, and drone technology will make these things an utter liability, unable to operate undetected.
Even today, it is easy enough to imagine that a hostile country could build or adapt 1,000 robot subs at a fraction of the cost, and send them out on a perpetual mission, tasked with finding a large submarine and exploding on contact.
Trident is firmly 20th century technology. It is outdated and vulnerable. We must not make the horrible mistake of throwing money at a redundant technology.
How many countries have nuclear weapons?
It’s an interesting question, tackled in this Metro article.
The International Campaign to abolish nuclear weapons places the distribution of warheads as follows:
- United States: 6,970
- Russia: 7,300
- United Kingdom: 215
- France: 300
- China: 260
- India: 100-200
- Pakistan: 110-130
- Israel: 80
- North Korea: <10
A cold war mentality?
This respondent, who is unhappy at how Theresa May responded to Caroline Lucas in yesterday’s debate (she said Lucas, along with certain members of the Labour party, were “the first to defend the country’s enemies”), thinks an outdated mentality is behind the desire to maintain Trident.
My reasoning is that the UK’s possession of nuclear WMD is in reality premised on an old-fashioned Cold War-style bloc mentality that we must strive to overcome. If this structural premise were NOT the case Caroline Lucas would obviously be absolutely right: nuclear weapons proponents would logically have to desire that all stable countries acquire nuclear WMD, since if they make us so much safer, they must make other countries, and thus the world, safer too.
‘Multilateralism’ is (at least as it’s usually understood and practised) morally and intellectually bankrupt. It scarcely ever acknowledges the structural reality I’ve mentioned, or the obvious fact that possession of WMD in and of itself ratchets up tensions, helping to create the very ‘them and us’ sensibility that leads blocs and states to see each other as enemies.
Updated
Where could trident money be better spent?
A lot of people are talking about this below the line ...
The biggest threat we face is climate change. Instead of spending upwards of £200bn on dangerous willy waving we should invest in green technology and develop projects to protect our citizens from the coming storm as well as reducing our national carbon footprint. We should site development and production in the north, training those who were working on Trident who wish to be retrained (and guaranteeing them a job) and giving a handsome redundancy payout to the rest. There would be more than enough money to do this and it should in fact have been done decades ago; Thatcher should have done this with north sea oil revenues, rather than squandering those on tax cuts for the rich and home-ownership bribes for council house tenants. Then we could have had an economy like Norways, large sovereign wealth fund, no need for nukes and a comparatively egalitarian and well-serviced society.
It pleases me no end to know that we have this for the next forty years and that in the next five we will have no NHS and in the next ten, no state pension....meanwhile our new Prime Minister demonstrating fine intellectual prowess has ensured her own financial future. "Irresponsible if you disagree" is the reasoning of a despot.
Wondering how your MP voted on Trident?
You can find out via the link below.
Those in favour
Lest this debate begin to seem rather one-sided, we’ve also been hearing from readers in favour of Trident renewal.
Tom, 34, from Surrey, and who declares himself a Lib Dem supporter:
Having a nuclear deterrent but stating you’re not prepared to use it actually increases the risk of mass deaths. It’s totally irresponsible.
A deterrent functions by aligning the interests of hostile nations - mutual survival - by ensuring neither can act without essentially destroying themselves.
By ruling out the use of a nuclear deterrent in the face of an attack you give an aggressor the impression they can attack without penalty - their interests are no longer aligned and you have increased the risk of large scale deaths.
And Harry Dibbs, an 18 year old Labour supporter from York:
A nuclear deterrent gives us a bigger say in the world, it shows that Britain is a voice that should be listened to and not ignored. I feel that abandoning our nuclear capability would be tantamount to abandoning our responsibility to our allies and to democracy and freedom in the world. It would be like saying ‘it’s not in our backyard so it’s not our problem.’ I think we have a duty to intervene in the world and to work for every life regardless of borders, and nuclear weapons fundamentally help us do that.
Updated
A selection of our readers' views in the comments
No, but spending a minimum of 205 billion on it whilst the NHS and every other public service falls apart is highly irresponsible!
Who on earth do they need to nuke? The vast majority of countries don't have a nuclear deterrent and they are not invaded or bombed or whatever else is supposed to occur when you don't have nukes.
This highlights the notion that the rulers of the world are essentially the owners of the arms corporations, who often own the banks too.
Dr Strangelove was shot in black-and-white, an archaic technology just like nuclear weapons. Sadly, the political thinking as expressed in that film is as insane as it ever was.
The 'ultimate deterrent' is, of course, a doomsday device, but as the president says: "This is madness! Who would ever build such a thing?"
Answer: We would. Trident, if used, can only ever usher in doomsday.
Different views on Trident
Here are some interesting views from our form:
Anonymous
We are in a different world right now, though we have military coups, terrorist organisations, and many other criminals still to tackle, a huge scale war between countries is less likely than before. Countries are joined through treaties based on mutual respect and cooperative relationships; world leaders share the common vision of making our world a better place.
If one country decided to declare war on the other, and used nuclear weapons, it would destroy the entire region, and destroy the lives of millions. Just talking about using nuclear weapons in a war is inhumane and irresponsible. If any country decided to use a nuclear weapon today they would be condemned and punished.
Jack Gaydon, 23, Essex
The whole concept of a nuclear deterrent is utterly archaic and illogical in a post-Cold War climate. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is not something any decent society should hold up as an argument for supposed defensive measures – the clue’s in the acronym. Either we launch our missiles first, which makes us utterly insane, or we are already being launched upon, which means we’re goners as the supposed defence mechanism doesn’t actually provide any real defence.
Updated
We’ve been hearing from Scottish readers whose views tally with those expressed by Mhairi Black in Sarah’s Twitter block below. With Scottish people (and the country’s largest party, the SNP) against Trident, and with independence back on the agenda after the Brexit vote, where would Britain’s nuclear submarines be based if Scotland were to leave?
A Green party voter in Edinburgh:
Scotland did not vote for Trident - it gets Trident. I accept the democratic mandate for the conservatives to pursue their aims, after all they are in government and have been clear in their wish to renew. What I struggle to accept is that Scotland will be hosting, for my lifetime, a new generation of nuclear weapons, having given a similar mandate to the SNP to reject them. The blast radius from Faslane would wipe out Britains second largest urban area. Would Britain have nuclear weapons were they on the doorstep of London? A hypothetical question which may require a very real answer if Scotland decides to pursue independence from this lunacy.
John Taylor in Aberdeenshire:
The threat of a nuclear war is a form of state terrorism aimed at the innocent - there is no justification whatsoever in ever cooking the planet with these things.
Thousands use food banks or are homeless and we throw away £205 billion - insane.
The people most opposed to these horrors and most likely to be vapourised by an “incident” live in Scotland. If the UK is insistent on owning these monstrosities then it should show (im)moral consistency and park them in the Thames.
Gail, an SNP supporter:
- Cost £175bn - £205bn
- Though UK government unable or unwilling to provide figures. Where the figure was discussed there was the admission it didn’t take into account fluctuations in the pound
- Based in Scotland with majority of Scottish people opposing
- The argument for jobs and the economy doesn’t stack up
- 58 / 59 Scottish MPs voting against renewal
- Trident is no defense against the type of terror attacks were are now seeing
Updated
Twitter views on trident renewal
My reasons for voting against Trident renewal.https://t.co/XVHOYcvgNN
— Mhairi Black MP (@MhairiBlack) July 18, 2016
International terrorism, climate change and cyber crime are the UK's biggest threats. Where do we aim trident to combat those? #r4today
— I was a JSA claimant (@imajsaclaimant) July 19, 2016
For youngsters bemused by the #Trident vote, in the 70s and 80s we really did think nuclear war was imminent. We still haven't got over it.
— Paul Bernal (@PaulbernalUK) July 19, 2016
Trident keeps the peace. Look at the way we didn't go into Iraq.
— Michael Rosen (@MichaelRosenYes) July 19, 2016
"It is important a potential aggressor knows we have the capacity to respond." Hilary Benn backs Trident renewal. pic.twitter.com/fUEUkwQtOL
— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) July 19, 2016
When we asked readers for their views ahead of Monday’s vote, we found a majority of respondents were against the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, but passionate arguments on both sides.
Polls on Trident depend very much on how the question is asked, but an ORB / Independent poll in January claimed a clear majority in favour.
Monday’s vote on Trident exposed Labour divisions on defence - as many argued the debate was designed to do. The vote was denounced as a “contemptible trick” by Clive Lewis, the shadow defence secretary, and Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, in a Guardian opinion piece. Neither took part in the vote.
With Labour embroiled in a new leadership election, we’ve been hearing from Labour members and voters who are split on the issue.
Joe Waters, from Cornwall, is critical of the stance of leadership candidate Owen Smith, who voted in favour.
Owen Smith claims we need Trident because the world has never been a more insecure place. Yet this situation has evolved while we and others have had nuclear weapons. They patently haven’t served to make our world safer so we should get rid of them now. We tell our children to beware the bogeyman yet while we hold the capacity to kill millions of innocent people by pressing a button: we are the bogeyman.
And an anonymous, longstanding Labour member, adds:
During the Labour leadership elections in 2015, I recall a quite breathtaking, magical sense of wonder that Trident was up for open discussion, after years of feeling that it was somehow a ‘forbidden’ topic. My feelings in this matter are pretty closely aligned to those of Jeremy Corbyn and I’d be horrified if he were not going to oppose the renewal of Trident. Perhaps naively, I fail to see how this should highlight divisions in the Labour Party, when the subject is so clearly a matter for individual conscience – to an almost religious extent.
So I also applaud Emily Thornberry and Clive Lewis advocating an abstention on the vote, since that course of action will at least limit the total number of MPs supporting the debate. I feel very differently about this abstention from the way I feel towards Labour MPs who abstained from voting on the Welfare Bill last year, rather than voting against it – there’s no ‘religious’ aspect there, from a socialist perspective.
My only scorn is for Tom Watson’s argument that the renewal of Trident is vital in employment terms alone. Another below-the-line commentator described the conflation of global weapons of mass destruction and livelihood provision for people who could surely be retrained in the manufacture of other goods as “degenerate”, and I agree with this.
Updated
Some reading before the debate kicks off in 7 minutes:
Trident makes us less safe, not more
Yesterday’s vote was deeply disappointing. The Government was expected to win but I would have hoped to see far more Labour MPs join those of us voting against spending billions of pounds on this cold war relic.
During the debate I challenged the logic of the prime minister’s argument, which is that if we claim nuclear weapons are essential to our country’s national security, every other country must surely be free to claim the same – thus driving massive proliferation. Theresa May displayed her inability to answer the question by accusing me of “being the first to defend the country’s enemies”. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and if she’d bothered to listen to the arguments being put forward by myself, the SNP and some Labour MPs she would have heard that it’s because we care so much for the security of our own country that we oppose renewing these weapons of mass destruction, because their presence here makes us less safe, not more. To suggest we defend the UK’s enemies by wanting to rid these islands of Trident is an outrageous slur.
The fight against Trident does not end here. We know that the costs will keep spiralling, and that safety concerns won’t go away – so we’ll continue to make the case for a nuclear weapon free Britain which leads the way on the world stage, rather than uses Trident as a bargaining chip for a seat at the top table.
Welcome to the debate
MPs have decided that the Trident nuclear deterrent should be renewed (472 to 117 votes in favour).
It comes after a debate in the House of Commons over whether or not the UK should abandon its nuclear weapons.
On one side, Theresa May, Britain’s new Tory prime minister, argued that scrapping trident would have been “an act of gross irresponsibility”.
Speaking ahead of the vote, she said: “We cannot abandon our ultimate safeguard out of misplaced idealism ... That would be a reckless gamble: a gamble that would enfeeble our allies and embolden our enemies. A gamble with the safety and security of families in Britain that we must never be prepared to take.”
On the other side, Labour’s current leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said that he would vote against continuous at-sea deterrent, “because it rules out any compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.”
He added: “I’ve been involved in peace transformation all of my life, and I think we’ve got an opportunity to show leadership in the world.”
The SNP took a similar stand and all 54 of the party’s MPs voted against keeping Trident.
So what’s your view? Do you agree with May that scrapping trident would have been “irresponsible”?
Some have argued that there has never been of a more need for defence. Owen Smith, who until recently was shadow work and pensions secretary, said Trident was necessary because the world was now “more volatile, more insecure”. While Green MP Caroline Lucas said that a new generation of nukes will not only fail to make Britain more secure, but also increase the dangers we are facing.
Get involved in our debate on this topic below the line. We will open the comments at 12pm, and discuss until 2pm. If you can’t wait til then, you can post your views in our anonymous form below.
Look forward to getting started.
"I knew this morning that I was going to make a speech that would offend and even hurt many of my friends. I know that you are deeply convinced that the action you suggest is the most effective way of influencing international affairs. I am deeply convinced that you are wrong. It is therefore not a question of who is in favour of the hydrogen bomb, but a question of what is the most effective way of getting the damn thing destroyed. It is the most difficult of all problems facing mankind. But if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications and do not run away from it you will send a Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber … You call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm."
Nye Bevan
speech at Labour Party Conference, Brighton, 3 October 1957
I'm with Nye on this one, ideally I'd love to live in a nuclear free world but that isn't just down to me or this country, that would take a global campaign.
Giving up our weapons wouldn't mean a head seat at the table because we've led by example it would mean no seat at the table because we'd have not right even be there.
If people want a nuclear free country they first have to campaign for a nuclear free world, start by getting people from other nuclear powers to lobby their governments and then lobby NATO, only then will it be achievable.