Trident renewal is an expensive and dangerous waste of resources, says Roger
Posted by Roger Godsiff, MP for Birmingham, Hall Green, at 12:59, Monday 26 January:
There was a recent vote in Parliament to commit up to £100 billion on renewing Britain’s Trident Nuclear Missile system.
Roger voted against – and he explains why:
“There are 2 arguments put forward for why the UK has a so-called independent nuclear weapons deterrent. Both are myths. “The first myth is that the system is ‘independent’. The UK has 4 nuclear submarines. Each can carry up to 8 missiles and each missile can carry up to 5 nuclear warheads. The UK does not own the missiles. It leases them from America where they are made, maintained and tested. Our 4 submarines have to go to the American naval base in Georgia to have the missiles fitted. Therefore our nuclear deterrent is totally dependent on America.
“The second myth is that the UK would lose its seat on the United Nations Security Council if it did not have nuclear weapons.This really is nonsense. When the United Nations was set up in 1945 the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, who have a veto, were the victors of the Second World War. Of the 5 countries only America had nuclear weapons. To suggest that a country has to have nuclear weapons in order to be a member of the Security Council is totally untrue.
“This country, like other developed countries, does face threats to its security – from rogue states, international terrorist groups and from groups within our society who want to destroy it. These threats internationally are best met by our membership of NATO. America, with its nuclear arsenal, was a founding member, and it has been the most successful mutual defence pact in history keeping the peace of Europe for over 50 years. The cornerstone of the NATO pact is that an attack on any member is an attack on all.
“Furthermore the only way of dealing with threats from domestic terrorist groups is to be continually vigilant and to make sure our police and internal security organisations are properly funded to disrupt their activities. This happened some years ago in White Street, Sparkbrook, where a terrorist cell planning to set off bombs in central Birmingham was monitored and the premises raided before any atrocity was carried out. The individuals involved were all convicted and received long prison sentences.
“Committing £100 billion to renew our nuclear deterrent is ridiculous at a time of austerity when so many of our services, including conventional defence forces, are being dramatically cut. This is why I voted against renewal.”
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Ian Soady, 14:39, Monday 26 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
Excellent again. The only thing I would add is that the UK workforces currently employed on "defence" work should be transferred to work on innovative, publicly funded and owned, renewable energy projects such as wave, tide and barrage based energy so that there is no loss of the highly skilled people that could otherwise result.
Global warning is a far more realistic and urgent threat than any hypothetical nuclear attack.
Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 15:25, Monday 26 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
It does not matter that Roger had voted against, the question is how did the other MPs had voted?
Where is the money to stock pile arms which gets into the hands of terrorist. The money saved could be used to alleviate poverty in this country, which is the richest but with billions of debts. What a shame that some people have to rely on food bank and on charities for living.
Posted by Paul Simmonds, 15:56, Monday 26 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
Excellent! I just wish a majority in the House felt the same. Unfortunately, so far, whenever a Labour government has got in it hassn't get rid of these pointless, wasteful weapons.
Posted by Salma Bibi, 17:04, Monday 26 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
Well done roger & thanks for playing your part - hopefully other mps will do the same
Posted by Colin, 13:19, Wednesday 28 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
So Mr. Godsiff is happy to rely on the USA & NATO, for our protection. Sadly US interests & policies don't always coincide with our own & there is certainly no guarantee that a third party would risk a retaliatory strike, in order to help the UK. Apart from terrorists, the world is full of rogue states & mad dictators. What does Mr. Godsiff imagine the world would look like if the Japanese, or Germans, had been the first to develop nuclear weapons, during the 2nd. World War? So 'many of our services are being dramatically cut' because of Labour's ruinous mismanagement of our economy. Any £100 billion saving would simply disappear down the usual plughole of Labour waste.
Posted by Colin, 13:24, Wednesday 28 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
@M. Hemraj - How can a country be, simultaneously, 'the richest, but with billions of debt'? The truth is that our country is bankrupt & our debts probably not repayable. The nonsense & farce of the food-banks is illustrated by recent programmes showing benefit recipients deemed to be too fat to work.
Posted by Paul Simmonds, 09:49, Thursday 29 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
It makes me laugh when people talk about the ruinous mismanagement of the Labour government. The truth is that a conservative government would have been even more sycophantic in their approach to banks and big business than Blair and co with much the same outcome. Would a Conservative government have put more controls on banks or business? No chance. With regard to defence, of course we need to defend ourselves but the issue is how to do it. Putting many of our eggs into the pointless Trident basket is certainly not the most effective or rational.
Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 11:52, Thursday 29 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
This is a discussion forum and everyone has a right to express his/her opinion without being attacked or being intimidated.
Posted by Colin, 13:13, Thursday 29 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
@Paul Simmonds, have you forgotten Liam Byrne's parting shot at the Treasury, 'Sorry, there's no money left'? @M. Hemraj, enough with the victim role. As you say, this is a discussion forum. You were asked (rhetorically) perfectly reasonable questions. No attack, no intimidation. If you don't wish to engage in discussion, then maybe a forum isn't for you?
Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 19:12, Thursday 29 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
Who should decide what is and is not reasonable question(s) and who should or should not participate in a forum? Surely it is not Colin.