Under what circumstances would the Prime Minister fire a Trident missile?

Like many people, I groaned when Jeremy Corbyn stated that there are no circumstances under which he'd unilaterally fire a Trident missile. I am a pacifist, but it is always possible that such a situation could arise. The trouble is that the more I think about it, the harder it is to actually envisage one. There are several science fiction scenarios where I suppose a nuclear strike may be appropriate. For instance a Zombie apocalypse engulfing Birmingham may warrant such a strike as a way to protect the rest of the country. Or possibly the discovery of a hostile alien race living off the Outer Hebredies.

But those sort of scenarios aside, what scenarios are there? Trident was devised in the days of the cold war. The idea was that Great Britain needed a nuclear arsenal to deter the USSR from invading or attacking us. Given that the USSR doesn't exist and it would be far easier for Russia simply to turn off the gas to Europe in the middle of winter, it seems a far from realistic proposition. If Vladimir Putin did launch a nuke at London, he'd simply wipe out the assets of many of his rich mates. The truth is that London is awash with Russian money. The idea that Putin would see us as a threat which warrants a nuke is quite frankly bonkers. What other countries have nukes? Well the French do, but can anyone really see a situation where we have a nuclear spat with our next door neighbours? That would be simply bonkers as the fallout of any nuke launched at Paris would soon contaminate London. Or the USA? Even with a nutter like Trump in charge, is there any scenario where we'd want to start a nuclear war with the Yanks? I suppose if you believe the Daily Mail, it is actually quite reassuring that Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to nuke them! Then there are the Chinese. For China to pose a realistic threat to the UK, they'd either have to come through India, Pakistan, Russia and France to reach us. All of who have nukes of their own and one has to assume would be less than thrilled with the prospect of a Chinese invasion. Given that the Chinese really don't seem to have any expansionist ambitions, again this is not exactly realistic. What about India and Pakistan? Can anyone see a scenario where we'd start a war with either of these Commonwealth countries which we get on rather well with most of the time? North Korea? Well yes, the latest lunatic dictator there is a tad unpredictable, but is there really any serious prospect of the UK getting involved in a nuclear spat with them? I could foresee a Donald Trump inspired scenario where bad things happen, but the UK would do very well to stay well away from that particular argument. Israel? Again, given that the Daily Mail and many commentators claim Corbyn has "antisemitic mates" I suppose it is quite reassuring to know he's ruled out nuking the Israelis. I can't see any scenarios where were any sane Prime Minister would nuke them.

So having looked at the list of credible nuclear threats, one has to conclude that Trident isn't much use. What about rogue terrorists in caves in Afghanistan or elsewhere? Is there a scenario where a Trident missile is the only realistic way to prevent them attacking the UK. I have friends in the airforce, who tell me that a far better solution would be to scrap the Trident replacement and invest the money in a fleet of nuclear capable bomber aircraft. These clear could also drop non nuclear bombs and would be far more adaptable to the credible threats we really face. The armed forces budget is hugely under pressure. Scrapping Trident is one way to ensure that the Aircforce, Army and Navy have the resources required to actually deal with real life issues we face.

So although I suspect that Corbyn has made a bad technical blunder in stating that he'd never press the button, nothing in the debate has actually addressed the real issue, which is whether we are spending our defence budget in a sensible manner that addresses the real threats we face. Ever since the cold war ended, there has been no sensible debate as to what the armed forces should be doing. If someone can make a credible case for a Trident replacement, based on evidence and a rational analysis of the situation we face, I'd support that case. As far as I am concerned, that case has not been made.

Anger is an energy, Anger is an energy, Anger is an energy, ANGER IS AN ENERGY !!!!!

ANGER IS AN ENERGY. Don't ever forget that.  
ANGER IS AN ENERGY.

Some folk have asked me how I manage to write so many blog posts. ANGER IS AN ENERGY- That's how.  We all have a stark option when faced with injustice. We can either ignore it or we can fight it. Whatever you read in the papers about deficits and spending cuts, this is an immensely rich country. The problem in this country isn't that taxes are too high (or too low). The problem is what they are spending it on. Why is it that when I watch the likes of Paxman on TV interviewing the likes of David Cameron, I find myself screaming at the TV. Why? because they never ask the obvious questions.

One big reason I supported the Lib Dems was their commitment (unlike Labour and  the Tories) to not waste £100 Billion on Trident ( a sum which would virtually clear the deficit, unlike the £6 billion George Osborne is proposing). David Cameron scored some heavy blows on Nick Clegg by saying "Oh but what about if a rogue state such as Iran or North Korea threatened us. We'd be exposed. There is such an obvious answer to all of this. Why didn't Clegg say it? Why didn't Paxo ask?

Trident is an American system. We can't actually fire the bloody thing without the Yanks approval. Just suppose that the next President of the USA is a right wing lunatic who decides that he wants to get his own back at Great Britain for the war of Independence? Could we fire Trident at him? What do you think? We have an independent nuclear deterrent in the way a prisoner in jail has independence from being given a kettle. Sure he can make himself a cup of tea, but is he independent?

As to a situation where Great Britain fired a nuclear missile at South Korea or Iran. Did Paxo ever ask Cameron to describe a believeable situation where we would fire one, and the rest of the world stood by and watched. Sadly I believe that someone is likely to use nuclear weapons again. Sadly I suspect it may well be in the Middle East or possibly even the Korean peninsular. There are a few candidates who I think are very likely to fire the first one, but I guarantee that Great Britain is not one of them. In fact I would go as far as to say, there are absolutely no circumstances where Great Britain would fire a Trident Missile at Iran, South Korea or any other rogue state, unless it was as part of a wider NATO or UN action. Even then, it would be part of a coordinated strike with the Americans. They would use our sub, because it happened to be conveniently in the right place.

Do you think that London is a target on the maps of the dictatorships in North Korea or Iran? Do you think that this would change if we didn't have Trident missiles. If you do, you are bonkers. We all know who the Iranians are likely to fire Nukes at. We all know who the North Koreans are likely to fire nukes at. The only thing which actually makes us a target for these countries is our close ties with the USA. Now I'm not advocating loosening these ties, but as a military power, we have an ill funded under equipped army, which can't afford safe vehicles for our troops in combat areas. Why? because all of the money is being spent on a system which is a complete white elephant. What is even more absurd is the people who argue for the next generation of Trident are the same people who argue against action to combat climate change. What poses more of a threat to the world? The effects of climate change or us not having expensive Inter Continental nuclear missiles, which are ultimately controlled by the Yanks? The climate change deniers say "where is the concrete evidence". I say "where is the slightest shred of evidence that any rogue state would ever declare war on Great Britain, without declaring war on NATO or even the rest of the world".

We will give the Yanks £100 billion (or whatever their bit of the cost is) for a completely useless toy.

As I said, ANGER IS AN ENERGY. If ever I need inspiration to write a blog, I just watch this video by Public Image Ltd - The song is RISE. If you can watch / listen to it without having some sort of reaction, then you must have been born on a different planet to me