Replacing Trident? The UK's role in nuclear proliferation

July 24, 2006 1:52 AM

Replacing Trident? Clare Short MP, former International Development Secretary for the UK Labour government, debates replacing trident and the UK's role in nuclear proliferation (and the world in general) with Michael Codner, Director of Military Science at the Royal United Services Institute. Scroll to the bottom for the mp3s.
posted by nthdegx (7 comments total)

I should think that replacing Trident with Michael Codner would result in a less-than-effective deterrent scheme.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:11 AM on July 24, 2006

No, you should think that replacing Trident with Clare Short would result in a less-than-effective deterrent scheme.
posted by A189Nut at 2:20 AM on July 24, 2006

"What the world needs now, is love nukes sweet love nukes..."

Just what the world needs:

Pakistan Expanding Nuclear Program

Pakistan has begun building what independent analysts say is a powerful new reactor for producing plutonium, a move that, if verified, would signal a major expansion of the country's nuclear weapons capabilities and a potential new escalation in the region's arms race..

What are the consequences for the India/US deal on nuclear technology?

With apologies to Dionne Warwick and Burt Bacharach

posted by Unregistered User at 2:28 AM on July 24, 2006

The last Q-A mp3 is well worth a listen. Surprisingly, for a greenpeace-chaired debate, Clare's POV gets a pretty rough questioning from the audience.
posted by nthdegx at 2:38 AM on July 24, 2006

But ... but ... how could 4 out of 5 irredentists be so wrong?!
posted by rob511 at 5:00 AM on July 24, 2006

Gwynne Dyer has had a few things to say on this topic: British Nuclear Follies and British Nukes: Taking the Long View.

In the first, he makes a point about American influence which is also in the Q&A session mp3:

Britain is not a truly independent nuclear power like the US, Russia, France, China, Israel, India and Pakistan. It manufactures its own
nuclear warheads, but ever since the Nassau agreement of 1962 it has depended on the United States for its missiles -- and those missiles come with strings attached. Indeed, the Tridents that Britain operates now would be unusable in eighteen months without constant American technical support, and it is unimaginable that Britain would ever fire them without American consent.

Hyperlink added by me, of course.
posted by Chuckles at 8:59 AM on July 24, 2006

Here's a thought: Swords into plowshares! Why not take all the money and energy and resources used to fund weaponry and warmaking and turn it back on itself to be used for schools, health care, food production and expanding outwards to help those nations that most need that help, such as those warring third world nations that could use a helping hand instead of someone selling them weaponry to fight wars for resources. But then again, that's just a fantasy. . . Caring isn't as profitable as killing.
posted by mk1gti at 11:15 AM on July 24, 2006