Trident, Britain's nuclear deterrent: an incentive for nuclear proliferation

In response to a Guardian article, "We're not simpletons. Trident will breach the nuclear treaty", by Kate Hudson

Link to article and thread at The Guardian.

The attitude that the British government must retain (and modernize!) its own nuclear weapons, while insisting that other governments refrain from doing the same is not tenable, but blatantly hypocritical (irrespective of its legality) and can only lead to more and more countries going nuclear.

This is why it is so important that Britain, instead of renewing or replacing Trident as a purely national deterrent, seeks, with its allies, to place its nuclear weapons under shared democratic control.

It is not just "rogue" governments that are a problem, but ALL national governments that seek to retain or acquire their own nuclear arsenals. There is a strong and fatal logic to it, of course (as all the arguments for retaining Britain's nuclear weapons make clear), but it is the logic of the jungle (rooted in man's animal nature) that really will prove FATAL unless we manage to replace it with a wiser, more enlightened (less nationalistic) logic.

It won't be easy, but we MUST TRY to find a way of placing national nuclear arsenals under international control. I'm not thinking of the United Nations, because most of its members are not democratic. I'm only thinking of democratic counties, such as those of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and ideally, of course, America, although I don't expect them to show that degree of enlightenment just yet. The more power you have, the more difficult it is to give it up.

I'm not arguing for unilateral disarmament. Far from it. We NEED a nuclear deterrent. But it has to be taken out of the hands of national governments, which behave far too much like immature individuals ("If that guy's got a gun, I need a gun; we ALL need guns! All the good guys, like us, but not the bad guys, like them").

This is the ONLY way to contain nuclear proliferation and avoid the nuclear catastrophe(s) we are currently heading towards.

My response to Sir Malcolm Rifkind's "A case for nuclear defence": http://www.spaceship-earth.org/Letters/Editor/Rationality_and_nuclear_deterrence.html

My homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org

To: Comment at the Guardian Re: Britain's nuclear deterrent: an incentive for nuclear proliferation Date: Wednesday 29 November 06

In response to a Guardian article, "We're not simpletons. Trident will breach the nuclear treaty", by Kate Hudson Link to article and thread at The Guardian. The attitude that the British government must retain (and modernize!) its own nuclear weapons, while insisting that other governments refrain from doing the same is not tenable, but blatantly hypocritical (irrespective of its legality) and can only lead to more and more countries going nuclear. This is why it is so important that Britain, instead of renewing or replacing Trident as a purely national deterrent, seeks, with its allies, to place its nuclear weapons under shared democratic control. It is not just "rogue" governments that are a problem, but ALL national governments that seek to retain or acquire their own nuclear arsenals. There is a strong and fatal logic to it, of course (as all the arguments for retaining Britain's nuclear weapons make clear), but it is the logic of the jungle (rooted in man's animal nature) that really will prove FATAL unless we manage to replace it with a wiser, more enlightened (less nationalistic) logic. It won't be easy, but we MUST TRY to find a way of placing national nuclear arsenals under international control. I'm not thinking of the United Nations, because most of its members are not democratic. I'm only thinking of democratic counties, such as those of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and ideally, of course, America, although I don't expect them to show that degree of enlightenment just yet. The more power you have, the more difficult it is to give it up. I'm not arguing for unilateral disarmament. Far from it. We NEED a nuclear deterrent. But it has to be taken out of the hands of national governments, which behave far too much like immature individuals ("If that guy's got a gun, I need a gun; we ALL need guns! All the good guys, like us, but not the bad guys, like them"). This is the ONLY way to contain nuclear proliferation and avoid the nuclear catastrophe(s) we are currently heading towards. My response to Sir Malcolm Rifkind's "A case for nuclear defence": http://www.spaceship-earth.org/Letters/Editor/Rationality_and_nuclear_deterrence.html My homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org