Trident - rehashed - 12 comments

It's a shame we're not hearing much from the supporters of Trident renewal, so the very least I can do is point you to this blog's coverage of the issue back in December, which attracted the merest murmur of interest back then, but seems pretty robust to me.

Just a quick point for supporters of an "independent nuclear deterrent/independent foreign policy": really? Is that a genuinely, commonly held view among opponents of renewal? That Britain ought to have, in an ideal world, the capacity to pursue its own foreign policy - perhaps even launching weapons - without recourse to NATO, the UN, or our American friends? That doesn't sound the right kind of approach at all for an internationalist - it certainly doesn't appeal to me - but perhaps this is just an argument of convenience.

I'm not saying that invalidates the case of the opponents to any great degree, but if it's a lousy argument, let's kill it, even if the Little Englanders have to leave the coalition.

Update: Once again, I've been vague - I've emboldened the bit I've inserted at the start.

Update II (14/03): Couple of very good posts on the subject. This from Rob Newman:

Nuclear weapons are vile things. They are weapons of mass destruction in the most literal sense. But the notion that if we have Trident it lies unused is false. If you have a nuclear deterrent, you are always using it. The very fact that it exists and is in your hands makes your enemies reconsider the notion that they can hold you to ransom. That may be, literally, MAD logic; but it is logic nevertheless, with historic precedent.

... and this from Chris Dillow on how a demand-revealing referendum could, more honestly, reveal (or, have revealed) public opinion towards renewal, by making people put their money where their mouth is. Some people need money to live, I hear you cry. But what if the government gave all citizens a fund of money to use under these circumstances, as part of - or in addition to - a Citizen's Income?