The British nuclear “deterrent” is based around the Trident missile which is nearing the end of its useful life. The government has promised an open debate on the replacement but the cabinet is swiftly moving into an entrenched position that will call for a submarine based replacement costing in the neighbourhood of twenty five billions pounds or more.
Twenty five billion pounds is a significant amount of money to spend on a weapons system; one that will not function as a deterrent to rogue states or terrorist groups, one that must never be used; one which Britain (along with Russia, France, China and the US) has an obligation to do away with under the non-proliferation treaty.
What better example could Britain make to the world at large as to how to make the world safer than to resign its charter membership in the nuclear club? There will be considerable benefit to the taxpayer as well.
Unfortunately it would appear to be an opportunity that will be spurned.
Twenty five billion pounds is a significant amount of money to spend on a weapons system; one that will not function as a deterrent to rogue states or terrorist groups, one that must never be used; one which Britain (along with Russia, France, China and the US) has an obligation to do away with under the non-proliferation treaty.
What better example could Britain make to the world at large as to how to make the world safer than to resign its charter membership in the nuclear club? There will be considerable benefit to the taxpayer as well.
Unfortunately it would appear to be an opportunity that will be spurned.
No comments:
Post a Comment