I am sorry the Labour Party Conference rejected the call for a debate about Trident. It was probably too soon to bring up such a controversial subject, but it begs the question: when will we have an intelligent, rational and dispassionate argument about nuclear defence?
Politics in Britain is locked into a morbid fear that abandoning Trident means automatic electoral defeat. This may have been true in the past, not least because of the lack of proper debate, but if we continue to constantly look over our shoulders, we will never move on.
Trident is a vexed question not least because of our relationship with the US and our imperial past. We cannot let go of history, a sentimental attachment to a foreign power with whom we share a common language, but not necessarily common aims, and delusions about our place in the modern, post-imperial world. We have not yet learned to adjust to our new role in the 21st century.
The pre-eminent question is: what is Trident for? Is it defence or is it prestige? If defence, then we have to ask ourselves in what circumstances we would use this weapon. Only a madman would use this weapon against us offensively, in which case why should he or she be worried about the consequences? To use Trident in these circumstances would be in retaliation, not defence, an act of vengeance not protection.
If it is prestige, it is worth remembering that Trident is essentially American technology, locking us further into dependence on a foreign power. Trident feeds the illusion, too, that we are still a great world power. Great we still are, culturally, even politically, but we should stop thinking that Britain rules the waves, land or skies.
It is not weapons that make us great but our values; not least, at a time when we are being told quite rightly that we must live within our means, how do we justify the exorbitant expense of maintaining our nuclear capability, at the expense of vital public expenditure and investment?
Trident is the elephant in the room.
Trevor Rigg,
16 Greenbank Gardens,
Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel