How can this expensive project be justified at a time of economic crisis and emerging threats to national security such as international terrorism, failed states, pandemic diseases and above all, climate change?

And does it really deliver genuine security for the UK?

The report has received the backing of many senior political and military figures, including former shadow defence secretary Michael Ancram, who wrote the report’s forward, Lib Dem shadow chancellor Vince Cable, and Lord Ramsbotham, former Adjutant-General of Defence Management.

You can read a summary of the report’s findings at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ITFLsummary

And the full report at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ITFL

But dare I jest and say “Niger plutonium” and “Osama Bin Laden…”

Until someone – I think the husband of a CIA operative – went “er, that’s not true”…

gary

Why don’t we (in the broadest sense), “take a risk”.

Act from a basis of principle for a change.

WMDs are immoral and wrong, whoever’s finger is hovering over the button. I don’t buy into the argument that “we” need to defend ourselves from our fellow human beings.

We all need to stop promoting our own individual feelings of self-importance…..each one of us is entirely insignificant as an individual…and just because we can recognise that fact doesn’t add any legitimacy to the idea that the occupants of any particular geographical area in the world has any right to destroy any other.

As Dr Jonathan Miller said on yesterday’s Front Row, “we are a ghastly species”…apparently we have killed 220 million fellow human beings since 1900. That’s WE, fellow members of the Human Race, of our bretheren….who needs earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and other natural disasters……..

What a collective bunch of idiots we are.

It’s £65 bn down the drain, money better spend on research and development of energy so we can avoid being blackmailed by energy rich countries in the future. That will be where the power is, not in antiquated cold-war weaponry.

I can’t believe you’ve been suckered in with this nonsense about “future threats”. Most government have been incapable of dealing with the present ones.
And IF some terrorist group does get a nuclear weapon, how exactly will the UK having Trident mean we won’t get hit? Remember how many Saudi’s were on board the 9/11 planes – yet it was Afghanistan which got bombed.
I can picture it now in the war room.
“General – Big Ben has been hit and central London has become a radioactive wasteland”.
*Rightoh – launch Trident!*
“At who sir?”
*Ah, good point… erm… hold on a mo… er, sorry I think MI5 said Bradford… or was it Birmingham… could be Algeria, no, no, something about plutonium in Niger… hold it, I had it on a piece of paper here a minute ago… forget me own head next…*

So, whatever happened to Education, Education, Education then?

I don’t agree with you that some were out to get Blair, they most certainly were. Let’s see the list and let’s see how many sacked are on it)

Remember Unity, Multilateralism is an ‘OLD LABOUR’ pledge and has won us three election victories.

800,000 children lifted out of poverty and in new schools,warm pensioners and patients in new hospitals have benefitted as a consequence and much more than I have.

Have a good day (as they say in the US of A).

Gary

My full comments are here – but to quickly summarise my views, and respond to a few points raised in comments.

1. Yes, the NNPT’s aspirations of complete disarmament are unrealistic. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, I’m afraid, and the only realistic way of moving to a position where all nation states leave the nuclear club would be via a global deterrent maintained under the aegis of a supranational organisation with a brief to nuke anyone who tries it on.

2. Should we replace Trident? IMHO, no – not because there isn’t a case for the retention of an independent nuclear capability but because Trident is the wrong system for the UK’s long-term needs.

Unless you’re up with the real big players (US, Russia, China), strategic weapons systems like Trident are a waste of time and money and make no rational sense.

We’ve made the wrong decision here because we’re ducking the real issues – the case for retaining an independent capability and the case for Trident 2 are not one and the same, which is why this question should have been debated more widely even at the risk of exposing divisions in the party.

Gary:

Do shut up, please. This isn’t about Blair, its about whether its right to commit £65bn over 30 years to a weapons system that may very well not suit our real needs.

I doubt very much that any of those who voted against the government on this did so simply to try and give Blair a bloody nose and it really is rather stupid to try and suggest otherwise.