This webpage contains a map of arguments concerning nuclear (dis)armament and sustainable peace. Useful resources, from which the arguments in this map were made, include:
- The Wikipedia article Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom is a good source of background information.
- The UK government’s white paper on the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent hosted by the Ministry of Defence.
- BASIC is an independent research organization that analyzes government policies and promotes public awareness of defense, disarmament, military strategy and nuclear policies in order to foster informed debate.
- COME CLEAN! a WMD Awareness Programme that is dedicated to providing trustworthy and up to date information on Weapons of Mass Destruction world wide.
- Medact is a global health charity tackling issues at the centre of international policy debates. They have a good up to date page concerning nuclear issues
- The Nuclear Peace Blog was used to track the debate on the renewal of Britains Trident programme and has short articles about many of the positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_frappe
1. Initial cost of Trident replacement- £25billion (not per year as you state!). Estimated cost over lifetime of the replacement £76 billion. Current system costs £2bn per year in maintenance costs. This money could be better spent in many ways. Some suggestions are tackling climate change, 120,000 newly qualified nurses for next 10 years, 60,000 newly qualified teachers for next 20 years, meeting UN millenium goals foreign aid target of 0.7% of GNP for next 6 years.
2. Trident is useless in countering terrorism, widely accepted to be the UK's main security threat. Possession of uclear weapons by a state does not deter terrorists, nor could a state launch a nuclear attack on a terrorist group.
3. Trident is a relic of the cold war and serves no useful purpose. The governments Strategic Defence Review and the DSC inquiry have both concluded that there is no military threat to the UK or Western Europe, nor do they foresee the re-emergence of such a threat.
4. Rather than providing insurance against an unspecified future threat, replacing Trident will increase the likelihood of nuclear proliferation by other states and contribute to a new nuclear arms race.
5. The Government has indicated on more than one occasion that Trident might be used in a first strike capacity as a pre-emptive attack against a proportionate threat, and that this could be against a non-nuclear state.
6. Trident ties us into American foreign policy, and it is unlikely that we would or could use it without US agreement or assistance. Trident submarines are assigned to NATO.
7. Replacing Trident would break our commitments under the NPT.
8. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the use or threat of use of nuclear wepons is effectively illegal under international law applicable in armed conflict, as well as humanitarian law. Due to their enormous destructive power they cannot discriminate between civilian populations and military targets.
9. Employment connected to Trident could be converted to verification, decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear facilities and secure disposal of nuclear materials. Technical skills could also be used to combat climate change- a £76 billion investment in any sector would create economic growth and jobs.
10. Possession, threats or use of nuclear weapons are immoral. There is no way to limit enormous civilian casualties that occur from detonation of a nuclear weapons, as well as the long lasting environmental and health effects.
Have a look at www.cnduk.org and www.bigtridentdebate.org.uk for more information surrounding the debate on Trident, many articles and links to other organisations. Thanks