Relatively recent reckless invasions suggest that ambitious aggressors are eager to strike first to gain the advantage, and although Britain has “second strike” capability, an aggressor from a geographically large country could destroy Britain’s bases first and thereby reduce the retaliation damage to its home territory.
Thus in particular circumstances where strategists might hope Trident would be effective, it might equally be evident that the “deterrent” actually invites the destruction of our country.
President Hassan Rouhani of Iran has been reported as saying that no country should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction. Britain should follow that principle and Westminster parties should pursue international disarmament vigorously with Britain showing the lead.
A N Cowan
Some opposition parties and the unionist media have made a huge issue of the SNP’s policy of not renewing Trident when in fact it not an issue at all.
Trident as a deterrent has been spectacularly unsuccessful at preventing the chaos that has been created partly by western intervention from Libya to Afghanistan. It has played no part in preventing the terrorist attacks which have occurred or been intercepted in the UK, neither did it prevent the use of IEDs which so damaged our soldiers.
Another question never asked is: why has Trident become obsolete? One can only speculate that the greedy American defence contractors are creating its obsolescence so that they can hold the UK and their own government to ransom for more billions.
The future threats to the UK come from terrorist and cyber attacks. Highly trained specialist forces, police and IT experts are where we should be spending large sums to overcome these.
M A Underwood