trident3   hiroshima

The UK government is intent on replacing the anachronistic and strategically redundant Trident nuclear ”deterrent” – at a cost of around £167 billion. This at the same time as Cameron and Osborne insist that there is no alternative to slashing £4.4 billion in Tax Credit to the working poor.

The money spent replacing Trident would be enough to fully fund A&E services for 40 years, to employ 150,000 new nurses, to build 1.5 million affordable homes, to build 30,000 new primary schools, or cover tuition fees for 4 million students. It is more than five times the amount spent on Jobseekers Allowance and Housing Benefit combined.

Renewal will tie the UK irreversibly to dependence on the United States for the maintenance of the system for decades to come. Is it not absolutely a matter of life and death that in the future Britain becomes less servile towards the US and its rapacious and insane military agenda ?


Rejecting Trident need not be a rejection of Britain’s need to defend itself. It would be rather a recognition that the approach to defence that was taken 30 years ago is outdated, ruinously expensive, and based on an inaccurate analysis of potential threats in the real world today. Quite apart from any considerations of morality or humanity, where is the sense in spending this enormous sum of money replacing a system that was built for an entirely different international situation?

trident 2


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s