Mankind's Deterrents

26/01/2017

Blog 7 

Mankind’s Deterrents

The giving of blind faith is measured – using security of the Realm and bravado engender little confidence in present government. Good will can be fickle. The issue of the failed Trident missile in June last year around the same time as the Referendum and it’s concealment strike badly at this.

Theresa May reiterates her commitment to involve “the whole” the UK but with little explanation, a potential trade deal with US has not been explained as well as detail about Brexit: these three make heavy demand on public confidence plus now more serious -Trident.

Taking, only Trident renewal: the swiftness of the David Cameron’s resignation after the Brexit vote, the appointment of our PM and Government, many were still in shock when the renewal of Trident was discussed in Parliament, rather too promptly. It appears now that as the test on missile launch failed, by withholding this important information it is likely to have had effect on the outcome. Reasons given have not been convincing.

Our Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved from Foreign Secretary and prior Defence. He had previously proclaimed his support for Trident renewal suggesting the standing of Britain on the World stage depended upon it. Both America and Britain have depended upon it since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. A type of Power by the threat of destruction.

It does not apparently factor that by having the most powerful (or at least one of them). “deterrent” within the arsenal of biological and  chemical, it is an encouragement to others, in order to defend themselves, to have the same or some equivalent protection. It also needs to be factored, that the more “deterrents” there are, the more likely there is to be accident or serious incident. This perhaps could leave areas on the Planet unviable for habitation.

In the Climate changing more rapidly than scientists predicted and the type and location of the changes unpredictable i.e. whether due to the Arctic melting ice stressing ocean currents and creating an ice age, or extensive droughts, or flooding, or all: much of the Planet may become unpleasant or uninhabitable. Population increase has led to large conurbations possibly more vulnerable to sea rise.

The deterrent is massive with potential of vast contamination. It is always more costly than present estimate of £40bn and that is just on submarines. Is it as a deterrent more likely to be used when there appears not to be available a more measured and appropriate response?  One warhead has 7-8x the capacity of all the bombs which destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Each Trident II D5 missile can carry five warheads. One submarine can carry eight missiles. Each missile costs £17mn bought from the US. It becomes momentarily visible just what big business this is.

Perhaps a versatility of response which is more flexible would be prudent. Feet on the ground may provide help in crisis as well as defence? Britain and America continue to claim greatness in a World where cyber-attack possibly is now more of a threat. A threat possibly to the use of the West’s weapons themselves? Drop bombs may increase enemy resistance in the longer term: perhaps attention could be given to not creating so many enemies in the first place?

There is an opportunity as the new American President had suggested, working with Russia to deal with the instability in the ME. Apart from Extremism, Climate Change is also a common threat. Holding a Moratorium on a Global strategy for dealing with the legacy of Nuclear waste: tackling together the stresses on the Planet for the Planet and its inhabitants, could be some common issues?