Britain doesn't need Trident

Britain doesn't need Trident

20 Nov 2007

Whilst some argue that Britain has no need for the American nuclear missile system Trident, others argue that the maintenance of a modern nuclear arsenal is the only prospective deterrent that Britain has to protect itself from future threats. The panel, chaired by Jonathan Freedland, discuss the pros and cons of maintaining a nuclear arsenal as part of a home defence system.

Arguing in favour of the motion are Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Angus Robertson MP and Dr Rebecca Johnson.

Helena Kennedy QC opens the defence of the motion by describing the horrific effects of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and gives a list of the countries that have, or are supposed to have, nuclear weapons in their military arsenals.

Angus Robertson MP criticises the Trident system, citing the high costs involved in its maintenance, and saying that his constituents (as MP for Moray in Scotland) do not want Trident missiles based so close to their homes.

Dr Rebecca Johnson argues that nuclear weapons are a security problem, not an asset. Furthermore, she continues, nuclear weapons are useless against the main security issues of today, such as terrorism, climate change and the political instability of some states.

Arguing against the motion are Sir Michael Quinlan, Oliver Kamm and Sir Malcom Rifkind MP.

Michael Quinlan gives a number of reasons why Britain needs Trident, but argues that, above all, it is necessary for Britain to maintain its nuclear deterrant, and to honour its international obligations.

Oliver Kamm reiterates the importance of having a nuclear deterrent. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Britain still needs a deterrent because some states, such as North Korea and Iran, are still potentially dangerous .

Malcom Rifkind states that the horrific consequences alluded to by Helena Kennedy are not consequences of nuclear bombs, but of war: World War Two had already claimed 60 million victims before the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He argues that unilateral disarmament is not the answer, as this would expose the UK to potential foreign threats during the next 30 years.

First vote: 283 For, 291 Against, 133 Don't know.

Final vote: 268 For, 429 Against, 18 Don't know.

The motion is defeated by 161 votes.