Trident is the UKs nuclear fleet, comprised of four submarines, equipped with ballistic missiles the have a range of 7,500 miles. The current missiles have the equivalent “killing power” of eight Hiroshima’s. The current generation of submarines will need replacing during the 2020s procuring a cost of £23.4bn; this figure will rise to around £100bn by the time they are decommissioned after forty years. Do they serve any purpose?
Trident was designed to counter the nuclear threat posed by soviets during the cold war. Clearly this is no longer an issue however do they have any value in today’s world? The week claims “Nuclear weapons have guaranteed our security for generations. They remain the ultimate deterrent to any aggressor, and the best means of ensuring peace.” It’s easy to agree with the
…show more content…
In times of austerity, when tax credits are being cut, the NHS is being forced to downsize, is this £100bn price tag needed. To put £100bn into perspective, the Borgen Project estimated that it would cost just 19bn per year to end world hunger. The UK government would rather manufacture obsolete weapons than endeavour to end word hunger for 5 years and encourage the other 5 nuclear states to do the same. This speaks volumes about the characters we choose to rule us. It was rather refreshing to hear Jeremy Corbyn saying that he stands by lifetime commitment to scrap trident and that he would never use them in any circumstance. Consequently setting Cameron on a bogus rant about undermining national security. However we could rephrase Corbyn’s words to: “I promise not to murder millions of innocent just because of the decisions of the elite few who rule over them.” Corbyn doesn’t sound quite as deluded, as Cameron would have us believe, It is rather refreshing for him to voice his actual opinions rather that just say what it is popular to believe, many choose not to be so