We “need” Trident because a cross-party “three-year study into the value of renewing Britain’s Trident nuclear missile programme in 2016 has come out in favour of retaining it, saying the weapons could yet prove their worth in preventing national blackmail or another security threat.”
Thus this morning’s Guardian.
Did these fuckwit MPs learn nothing from the Cold War?
There’s a reason why it was so called, and remained cold for so long – MAD.
For those of you too young to remember, that’s an acronym, and it stands for what would happen in the event of a nuclear engagement – Mutually Assured Destruction. Or, to put it in a way that even today’s intellectual pygmies in Westminster might possibly understand – EVERYBODY LOSES.
The biggest threat today is from Islamist terrorism, and people who are prepared to blow themselves up to take a few unbelievers with them are not going to be deterred by the threat of nukes. Deploying nukes against terrorists – any terrorists – is tantamount to burning down the house to get rid of rats.
A successful suicide bomber is, by definition, a dead suicide bomber – you can’t threaten the dead, not even with nukes.
So who else is likely to need deterring? Well, given the way our military is being whittled down to a mainly reservist rump, we’d appear to be at risk from pretty much anyone in the coming years – but that doesn’t mean we need nukes – we need conventional forces.
But let us, for a moment, look at a potential European threat – the loss of much of our gas supply, which comes from Russia. Cameron, moron that he is, rattles the nuke sabre, Putin, desperate to prove to a doubting world that he really is ’ard, calls his bluff.
Now look at the relative sizes of Russia and, well, us. A handful of strategically-placed nukes could reduce this septic isle to a glowing cinder, while the same number dumped on Russian territory would mainly inconvenience them – if ever a country was designed, by nature, to absorb a nuclear strike, it’s Russia – the place is vast. Not as vast as it was as the USSR but, even then, the fear of MAD ruled there too. If the USSR feared a nuclear engagement, then you can be sure it was worth fearing.
So just what do these parliamentary madmen think we are going to do with Trident? The only nuclear power in a position to threaten us – just Russia as we’re currently out of reach of the likes of Pakistan and the lunatics running North Korea – could squash us like a bug (which might bring the US into the conflict, but that would, by then, be of no help to us), and deploying nukes against conventional forces – which I’d guess is the intention given the depletion of our own forces – would be insanity. Even if we survived we’d be a pariah country.
And if you think climate change brought about by industry is cause for worry – and it is – that pales into insignificance alongside what a nuclear war would do to the planet. We wouldn’t have to worry about overheating, at least – the Nuclear Winter would see to that as we stared extinction in its bleary eye.
And consider this – every week, at Prime Minister’s Questions, Cameron is very, very, easily provoked to incandescent fury – is that really the sort of personality you want to entrust with the nuclear launch codes? Personally, I wouldn’t trust the bugger with fireworks and a box of matches.