EVEN higher potential Trident replacement costs (“Tories under fire as Trident renewal rockets to £167bn”, The Herald, October 26) will be viewed by unilateralists as further evidence of the need to stop what they view as a waste of public money. The SNP Government will also jump on the chance to use even higher numbers in their regular attempts to conflate nationalism and the anti-nuclear weapon movement. In practice, whatever the correct figure, no one disagrees that an immense amount of money is required to maintain a nuclear deterrent.
Those of us unconvinced by the unilateral approach are not quite as unfeeling about the alternate uses the money could be put to, such as alleviating poverty, or as gung-ho about the potential use of nuclear weapons, as is often implied by the anti-Trident lobby. I suspect a majority of the public favour a multilateral position, reducing and ultimately removing nuclear weapons, as other countries do the same. We would all, no doubt, prefer to not need to spend billions a year on the nuclear deterrent, or indeed nearly £40 billion per annum on defence in total, but in an often unpredictable and violent world we cannot leave ourselves defenceless.
Arguably, without the nuclear deterrent we would need to spend more on conventional forces both to retain a credible defence and a capability to act when needed in other parts of the world. Of course we could completely turn our eyes away from what happens elsewhere in the world and focus purely on home defence, but two previous world wars have surely shown us how short sighted that would be.
Keith Howell,
White Moss,
West Linton,
Peeblesshire.
REGARDING the soaring cost of the renewal of Trident: surely all that is needed is for David Cameron to speak nicely to the Chinese premier and this project could be added to the other Chinese investments in our nuclear future? Security concerns for Chinese supply of nuclear capability are clearly not an issue for the Government, and unlike Hinkley Point power station, we don’t expect to ever find out if a Chinese Trident would work.
John West
Woodlands,
Birchwood Road,
Uplawmoor.
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