All the hoo hah about renewing Trident set me thinking.

When youngsters argue against the mandatory jail sentence for carrying a knife by saying that they do it for their own protection, not for any aggressive purposes, they are told that to carry a knife invites aggression. Does the same argument  not hold with nuclear weapons?

Do the Scandinavian countries have nuclear weapons? If not who will protect them and other non nuclear states,  against rogue nuclear states?

For much of the second half of the 20th century we were continually scared of nuclear attack by the USSR. I can remember some of the wealthier people building anti nuclear shelters, seeing leaflets giving advice on what to do if we heard the “four minute warning” and my father going on Civil defence exercises in case of attack. We are still here 🙂

Surely even the most roguish and irresponsible state would realise that no one can win a nuclear war. If you are on the receiving end of the bomb you are wiped out, but the radio active dust released could travel anywhere; we only have to see how far dust travels from the Icelandic volcano and remember how far away, and long lasting, the effects of Chernobyl were. I think there is still residual effect in North Wales.  As we have seen in this past week we mere mortals are at the mercy of the wind direction and its constant changes. It could be like the gas attacks in WW1 when the wind blew the gas back at the attackers.

I don’t know the logistics of Trident, and cannot understand how four submarines can be in the right place to prevent the missiles being fired and if they only act after they have been fired then retaliation might satisfy the need for revenge, but would not save the people affected. Maybe I am naive, but this seems a huge cost for revenge.

We are constantly being told that we are at war with terrorism, but Trident is no use in that fight, so wouldn’t the money be better spent equipping the armed forces and security forces properly?