n cost of renewing the Trident nuclear weapons system has further increased to a possible £100million bill. We were already facing the colossal fee of around £25million to replace Trident and a further £50million or so to maintain this replacement, but as if such a fee was not bad enough it seems that latest estimates have increased the price further.A greater waste of money I find it hard to think of than by spending this money on nuclear weapons. We are constantly being told that the greatest threat facing us today is terrorism. If that is the case then why invest all this money in nuclear weapons that can never be used to stave off this threat. After all, you can't launch nuclear missiles at terrorists can you?
Furthermore, in a climate whereby we are being told that Iran is actively seeking to build the bomb (although there was an interesting article by John Pilger recently that argued this is not the case, see http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-pilger100207.htm) does it make sense to invest in proliferation of weapons when we want others not to? Doesn't it seem hypocritical to argue on the one hand that one nation should not possess weapons of mass destruction whilst simultaneously constructing our own? Doesn't the British government then lose the legitimacy to argue for other nations not to engage in weapons programmes.
Doubtless there will be those who claim we need the nuclear deterrent. Is this really the case though? Who do we actually think wants to destroy Scotland? Who is the bad bogeyman out to get our collective hides?
Let us follow the example of South Africa, a former nuclear power that rejected these abhorrent weapons and decommissioned all its missiles years ago. Then we will have billions of pounds to invest in schools, hospitals, international aid, policing our streets and all the other real necessities here in Scotland.
See Sunday Herald article at: http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1185412.0.replacing_trident_system_to_cost_100bn.php
No comments:
Post a Comment