Pete Hindle

There’s no need for Trident, the UK’s nuclear weapon delivery system. It’s an expensive waste of time – but not because of the idiotic stupidity of mass destruction.

If North Korea can make nuclear weapons out of sticky-backed plastic, empty washing up bottles, a spare pack of SCUDs, and a giant rabbit, then isn’t it time we started thinking in an efficient manner about our nuclear armament policy? And, as our government is fond of demonstrating, efficiency means paying attention to the bottom line.

Funding for Trident is staggeringly expensive. The figures are available in some forms on the internet – although obviously, not the precise figures owing to national security. Trident also requires a constantly manned submarine presence, being the delivery system for placement of these weapons within effective striking range. So, to recap: that’s one hellishly expensive missile system that requires a hellishly expensive transport system.

It’s also worth noting the size of the UK’s missile system (and it’s requisite submarines). The UK’s submarines are dwarfed by Russian, Chinese and American submarines – we simply don’t have the money or resources to put into building monsters like the Russian Typhoon class, displacing over 10,000 tonnes more than our largest nuclear-capable submarine. I’m not entirely sure what they keep on submarines, but whether it’s petrol, food, or air, I’m pretty sure the Russians have us beat there. Which means they’ll be able to stay under for longer, fire missiles of mass destruction for longer, and win whatever horrific conflagration that these weapon systems are built for.

Speaking of which, the UK’s puny selection of 130 missiles are listed as being a “first strike, counterforce, or second strike weapon”. Please pay attention at this point: if nuclear war does happen, this gives us the opportunity to be the first to kill the entire civilian population of a designated target, or we can do it in revenge for somebody killing ours, or we can do it simultaneously.

Nuclear warfare might not be mentally scarring the kids via shocking documentaries such as Threads, but the reality of the situation hasn’t changed; it’s still going to be a life-taker if put in effect. No government ever uses weapons of mass destruction in a manner that’s lawful; when the a-bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, the Japanese government was already on the verge of surrender. Since then, the only times that this sort of fearsome weapon has been used is most often in one of the less civilised areas of the world, by one of the more insane dictators (such as Saddam Hussein’s use of gas on his own population).

So, it’s worth avoiding if at all possible really. I mean, we can’t trust our governments to use them rationally, we can’t afford to keep the damn things, and we can’t survive if anybody uses them. So we’d be much better off having a distinctly more low-key approach to blowing the shit out of our civilisation. I think we need to follow North Korea’s approach, and build them when we need them.

What I suggest is some sort of home-guard of nuclear power. The minute some nuke-happy nation starts flinging ICBM’s around we’re all doomed anyway, so why not apply the Maker mentality to the end of the world? This isn’t as crazy as it sounds, but it’s still pretty crazy.