Advertisement

loader

Talk

Advanced search

Dumping Trident

(6 Posts)
CatherineVP Sun 28-Feb-16 14:46:15

I went to the Stop Trident march yesterday with some friends and a Mums Against Trident banner. The speeches there (Nicola Sturgeon, Kate Hudson, Leanne Wood, Veterans for Peace, Giles Fraser, Jeremy Corbyn and others) made the reasons for scrapping Trident powerfully clear from every angle: humanitarian, moral, ecological, economic and yes, even from a military perspective: Trident doesn't work and should be scrapped. Am I allowed to post such a political statement here? I hope so!
If you're already campaigning, or would like to collaborate and be part of that in some way please do get in touch. If you think Trident is rubbish but you don't know what to do about it... I can help pass on some tips for active (and quick and simple) ways to lobby your MP to vote against Trident renewal.

Chapsie Sun 28-Feb-16 14:48:11

Could you outline your reasons for being anti?

CatherineVP Sun 28-Feb-16 15:02:27

Immoral: use of Trident would kill millions of civilians in the most horrifying way. Trident is a weapon of mass destruction. We would consider it illegal for other countries to build or harbour such a weapon.
Ecological: Use of Trident would lead to nuclear environmental damage, cancers, destroyed human health and an unprecedented environmental disaster that would spread around the world: we only have one planet.
Economic: 100 billion plus to be spent on this is sorely needed elsewhere, NHS, schools, poverty and starvation, refugee crisis
Military Defence: Trident gives a (false) message that our security is dependent on nukes which gives the countries who we want NOT to build nukes, a strong influence to want to build them. Also, in any case, the oceans will soon be full of drones so nuclear submarines will be easily detected. Plus, Donald Trump if he were to become president would have a say in when and where our nuclear weapons could be deployed. American power of veto etc is already written in to our defence system.
Common sense: making more enemies or holding other counties to ransom in a deadlock of fear and diabolical vengeance by the potential threat of nuclear destruction is not the way to move towards peace.
Basic humility: Trident is a relic of the cold war era that allows Britain to pretend we sit with the big boys with our big guns - this is a ridiculous and dangerous bit of ego posturing for a small country - we need to climb down from such a waste of time and such out-dated egotism: we are no longer an empire.
Many countries DO NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. We do not need them and we cannot afford them. They serve no useful purpose.
I honestly think that the deterrent idea is a myth. Keeping nukes keeps us America's military and economic lapdog. (That last bit is my personal opinion: the rest of this is simple fact.)

cdtaylornats Tue 01-Mar-16 21:04:47

America does not have a power of veto or any say in the deployment of British nuclear weapons, or French ones for that matter.

Don't you think the Ukraine wishes it had nuclear weapons?

If you can tell me which threats we will face in 30 years you might convince me.

On your first two points if it came to using them the world would be screwed anyway.

We haven't had a war between major powers since nuclear weapons were invented - so it does seem to keep the peace.

RortyCrankle Wed 02-Mar-16 13:09:19

Trident will remain until it is deemed not to be required and no march or campaign will have the slightest effect on that decision but go right ahead if it makes you feel better. As for Trump, he will have no power over UK weapons, nuclear or otherwise.

BlahBlahfuckingBlah Wed 02-Mar-16 13:50:25

But trident does work! It's a deterrent and seeing as there has been no nuclear wars it's working

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now