The UK government will vote this Wednesday on the renewal of the Trident Nuclear programme. Blair wants to spend around $20bn on nuclear weapons which almost no-one in the rest of the country thinks is a good ideas. Johann Hari has done a lovely job in The Independent of explaining why "renewing" Trident puts us at more risk than ever of nuclear holocaust.
My own reasons for not wanting to "renew" (they use that word to make it seem less shocking, they mean BUYING NEW NUKES) the weapons stockpile is a little different. You see I'm not a world leader, I don't and never will have my finger on the nuclear button. So when Tony Blair describes Trident as a "deterrent" I don't get it. What he must mean is "I won't detonate my nukes unless someone nukes the UK". I really hope no evil despot anywhere around the world nukes the UK. If they do though then as I watch the flesh shrivel off my bones and melt into the blackened earth the last thing that will make me feel better is the sure knowledge that somewhere near the offending despot are hundreds of thousands of civilians who probably didn't even have the opportunity to vote against him and their flesh is being melted off their bones too. I was listening to Marcus Brigstock on the Now Show last week and he made this point rather succinctly when he said "When it comes to nuclear war, there's no such thing as one all".
And why is it that the only people with access to nuclear bunkers are the same people with access to the nuclear buttons? I could also point out how much good could be done in this country's health and education systems, as well as in international aid with $20bn.
Well two days to go to the vote and lots of MPs are showing signs of wanting to vote against it. If you haven't already done so please use the website www.writetothem.com to ask your MP to vote against the proposals.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The US and UK need to sit down with Russia and China now, and mutually reduce all of our nuclear stockpiles. If each of those four countries had a few hundred nukes instead of tens of thousands, it would still have a deterrent, but without a massive danger of an accidental launch or a terrorist stealing one. Loose nuclear material around the world could be secured for a few days cost of the Iraq war - that shows you how misguided Bush's priorities are when it comes to defending against real threats. Would anyone not expect Iran and North Korea to want nukes after seeing what happened in Iraq?
The world has had too many close calls for people to take this issue lightly. Not only the Cuban Missile Crisis, but Russia and China almost came to war at one point. Some US commanders wanted to use nuclear weapons in the Korean war, and 1964 presidential candidate Goldwater supposedly wanted to nuke Hanoi. Israel came close to using nuclear weapons in its 1973 war with Egypt and Syria. India and Pakistan in 2002 (I remember people in Heaven's Door wondering about whether an India-Pakistan nuclear war would have any effect on Japan.)
sHey Dan! Truth is a nuke would have untold environmental effect arouns the world. I remember being in Nagasaki and there are still people walking around who are affected by it.
Post a Comment