While some would say that we would save money by scrapping Trident, we would not. Instead the money would be spent elsewhere on the armed forces as most parties have made commitments to spend 2% of GDP on the military. However, it would mean that the other services would not face the cuts that the armed forces have faced since the election in 2010.
Also, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in return for promises to respect its territorial integrity, promises broken by Russia who had made such promises. I doubt that things would be as bad as they are now there if they had kept the nuclear weapons that they destroyed.
In addition to this, Russia has been resurgent in projecting its military power. While some argue that this is only a recent issue and is a reaction to the west doing the same near Russian airspace, Russia has been doing this for a while.
Western Europe has been sheltered under the nuclear umbrella of the USA, but this might not be always the case, and all it takes is a politician to be elected in the USA who wants to take a more isolationist role and then we in the west are left high and dry. And we have seen how threats and promises by the USA have not been kept in the recent and less recent past.
Iran is both a reason to disarm and retain weapons. It is argued by many that Iran is seeking the ability to use nuclear weapons, while North Korea and other nations such as Pakistan have them. We in the UK will find it hard to argue that other nations should not gain nuclear weapons when we are keeping them. But while I doubt Iran and North Korea are going to be a threat to the UK, it is possible that they can be one.
A big issue is where such weapons would be stored. At the moment, this is in Scotland, but in the event that Scotland decides to become independent, then the weapons would have to be moved. And this would involve additional costs.
And of course, there is the destruction that nuclear weapons cause.
So if we keep weapons, we are offered protection from nations with nuclear weapons, and if we get rid of them, we will have a stronger conventional military force and can state that we are leading by example to other nations.
Tough choice.
Also, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in return for promises to respect its territorial integrity, promises broken by Russia who had made such promises. I doubt that things would be as bad as they are now there if they had kept the nuclear weapons that they destroyed.
In addition to this, Russia has been resurgent in projecting its military power. While some argue that this is only a recent issue and is a reaction to the west doing the same near Russian airspace, Russia has been doing this for a while.
Western Europe has been sheltered under the nuclear umbrella of the USA, but this might not be always the case, and all it takes is a politician to be elected in the USA who wants to take a more isolationist role and then we in the west are left high and dry. And we have seen how threats and promises by the USA have not been kept in the recent and less recent past.
Iran is both a reason to disarm and retain weapons. It is argued by many that Iran is seeking the ability to use nuclear weapons, while North Korea and other nations such as Pakistan have them. We in the UK will find it hard to argue that other nations should not gain nuclear weapons when we are keeping them. But while I doubt Iran and North Korea are going to be a threat to the UK, it is possible that they can be one.
A big issue is where such weapons would be stored. At the moment, this is in Scotland, but in the event that Scotland decides to become independent, then the weapons would have to be moved. And this would involve additional costs.
And of course, there is the destruction that nuclear weapons cause.
So if we keep weapons, we are offered protection from nations with nuclear weapons, and if we get rid of them, we will have a stronger conventional military force and can state that we are leading by example to other nations.
Tough choice.
