leyton.org

I followed the build up to the Trident vote with interest. It’s a big issue up here in Scotland, with the main base from which the submarines sail here, and the forthcoming Scottish Parliament election here makes it a key election issue.

Also because, curiously, it’s a subject I’ve not really given enough thought to before.

So I thought I’d air my thoughts here and, perhaps, start to try and work out where I stand, because I think I’m in an awkward ‘fence sitting’ position which just annoys everybody.

The asides…

But first a number of unrelated asides, brought about because I know this is a divisive subject which I’m sure will come up over a beer at some point in the future.

Before delving in to intractable politics, it’s worth saying to folk who might be considering sending me an e-mail, that one of the odder aspects of maintaining a weblog is the strange cathartic process ’serialising’ a particular viewpoint has. By which I mean to try and lay out the logical steps between facts A, B and C, and your conclusion, Z. It’s surprising when - perhaps even here - you don’t quite come to the conclusion you perhaps felt at first, when you’ve exampled the facts and then committed them to, er, the screen. It’s that last step of committing your arguments, for others to look at and examine. Your innermost thoughts exposed for all to critique, often without feedback.

Which leads me on to the very strange effect, when airing your views (warts and all) to people, often that means family and friends whom I’m going to meet up with in the not too distant future. It can result in strange, sometimes awkward, encounters where your opinions are well known to them, but not reciprocally. Almost like they’ve been listening to every word you’ve said and then tapped you on the shoulder, catching you completely by surprised, and not a little embarrassed.

And one last thing, before I finally ‘get to it’. This one’s relevant too! I should add that I’ve sat on this post - much as I probably still sit on the fence - for a couple of weeks now (BBC link above is from the 15th March). I wanted to see if I had come to a conclusion by ’sleeping on it’, but I’m still not sure I have. I’ve added a bit at the end which I think hints at a conclusion, and I’ve surprised myself there a little, but more than ever I’d be interested in any readers views, links, suggestions on this most important of topics. I very much doubt I’m alone in my angst.

But anyway, I digress… On to the main event…

Arguments to disarm…

All my principles say that nuclear weapons are evil, and that the world would be a better, more prosperous, place without them around. I look at the huge cost required to build and maintain an ‘independent’ deterrent. I look at the evil they represent, that we have weapons that can wipe out entire cities and millions of people, just up the coast from where I’m sitting.

It’s also hugely hypocritical and conceited to say to countries such as Iran and North Korea that they shouldn’t have them, when we ourselves cling on to them. How can anybody take somebody serious on something if they’re not prepared to live by their own edicts. Who are we, the UK, to decide who is ‘grown up’ enough to have nuclear weapons, and who isn’t?

And what about the threats we face today? Global warming. Terrorism. These are not problems that are resolved by building heinous weapons designed for large-scale destruction and mutually assured destruction as our only defense.

Yes, I look at the arguments against and think, yes, I agree with it. Let’s put the billions to better use. Save lives. Educate. Build a better quality of life for everybody. And stand up as an example to countries and say ‘we are a principled nation. We stand for a nuclear weapon free future’.

And yet…

Arguments to re-arm

I was struck by a point in the BBC’s coverage that we’re only about 10-15 years from the end of the cold war where not having nuclear weapons was a threat to our very existence. We’re faced with countries with a very dubious record, rushing after nuclear weapons as the only way to avoid US hostilities. We are a rich country, and we can afford to spend money on a deterrent for ourselves and our allies. We cannot be sure that weapons might not fall into the hands of dangerous men.

The argument that many of these countries do not have the means to deliver the warheads strikes me as weak. A country that can build a nuclear bomb can surely develop delivery mechanisms, conventional or otherwise.

Taking any argument to extremes often highlights flaws and problems. What if everybody disarmed in the world, and left a country like North Korea as the only nuclear armed country? What then? Is that a tenable position to be in? They may no longer feel threatened, but it may also be an opportunity for abuse of power (oft repeated in history), that couldn’t be challenged with technology as it is now. What would countries like Iran be doing if America had this debate and disposed of their weapons? Does the world suddenly get safer, or do those who seek power have a new lever?

Can we really be sure of the future? Nobody can, and a world in 20 or 30 years time, when this supposed new system will be operational, is likely to be as different as 1980 is to us. May day parades in Moscow are an image and threat of the past, but what threats are there in the future? Surely now isn’t the time to be ridding ourselves of a weapon class that has been instrumental in our security for the last 50 years.

The anti-war brigade is also quite quick to criticise the UK as only too keen to do America’s bidding. An extreme it may be, but would America be willing to defend the UK in the years to come? If a situation arose where the US felt unable to help, would it not make sense for us to be able to respond ourselves? (Presuming, of course, the US lets us use their Military GPS system for guidance…)

The fence?

So I sit and review both sides of the argument. I find the argument for disarming extremely compelling. It fits with my general philosophy. We could set a shining example, much as we seem to be striving to do on the climate issue, of how we can learn to live without the bomb.

But I also consider myself a pragmatist, and something of a worrier. Opposition politicians who don’t have much chance of government can take cosy positions which they know, deep down, aren’t likely to get them in much bother, and aren’t necessarily privy to the considered opinion of experienced security personnel. I’m also wary of sweeping statements of confidence about the future: We simply cannot be sure that the future is going to be the bright and cheerful place we thought it might be as the Berlin wall fell and talk went to the peace dividend.

Threats such as global warming and depleted natural resources, with an increasing population leave me worried. We have an increasingly boisterous Russia replete with massive natural reserves and a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. The cold-war really isn’t that far away, and I’m deeply concerned about the medium-term political future of Russia.

Yes, the media hegemony has a lot to answer for, and I’m being somewhat paranoid in my view of the wider geopolitical situation ahead of us. But we really don’t know what the future holds. In 50 years time we could be facing ecological disaster, or a world united in peace and harmony, or more likely something more complex.

There are complex geo-political issues in the present and near-term that a small country like Britain can’t do much about. Standing up and disposing of our own nuclear weapon appeals to my principles, and is befitting of a country of our size perhaps, but it also feels like we’d be cutting ourselves adrift in a complicated and increasingly dangerous and violent sea, just when we could use some steering, a loud voice, and independence of action.

A conclusion?

I don’t know if I really have one. As wooly as it sounds. As mad as it sounds, I feel quite strongly I am still rather undecided - on the fence even - with this issue. I have strong leanings to both camps, but a reluctance to come down on either.

In a world gone mad, principles are a fine and admirable thing, but are they really the best thing? Are we blinking first with growing, perhaps unprincipled, power in other countries? But without taking principled stands, by standing tall, can we honesty seek to portray ourselves as a country who primarily seeks peace and order in the future? What use weapons in a world where terrorism seems the main threat? Can we be sure that terrorism will still be dominant in 20 years time?

Two weeks on…

Reviewing the post a week or two after I wrote it - which is pretty much as I left it - I’m struck that there’s more verbiage on the ‘keep trident’ view. It’s certainly the easy option. Yet the clear principles of scrapping it, and putting the massive amount of money to better use (we could solve the poverty problem in this country at a stroke with the money) appeals.

I suppose it comes down to time-frames and outlooks. The anti-Trident argument is very much focused on the here and now, and aspirational about the future. The pro-Trident argument is negative about the future. But then defense, in the face of an unknown future, often has to be.

So by that argument alone I should be against Trident. I believe (Declared atheist and Humanist I may be, but I can still hold beliefs and opinions, they’re just firmly based on the natural, observable and fact based) we should seize the one life we have, and make the most of it, for ourselves and as far as we can, every other person in the world. An expensive and hugely destructive weapon is not that. There is so much that is bad in the world that comes from strong opinions about what the future holds, that irrational belief about what the future holds undermines our very ability to care for the here and now.

But can I take that step and come down off the (very uncomfortable) fence, and say I’m against Trident? I’m not entirely sure I can quite shift my remaining nagging feelings.

I would be very interested in hearing what peoples thoughts are on how they reconcile the two sides of the argument.