The Trident 'issue' has has seen a lot of heat recently - from Labour, the Tories, the SNP and even the Yanks. What is everyone so up in arms about, and why are the yanks the only ones that are making sense?
Nicola Sturgeon, the public face of Alex Salmond, and the rest of the SNP hierarch have long opposed Trident - claiming that weapons of mass destruction are immoral and that Scotland (read, SNP) want none of it. Fast forward a few months later, post referendum defeat, and they are now claiming that they oppose Trident based on financial concerns.
Slight change of tack aside, it is clear that they want Trident gone... At least, gone from Scotland. Once they achieve this, if they achieve this, then removing themselves from the Union would be a much simpler affair. Whether or not they realise that they would be left no armed forces whatsoever (even if Trident remained) isn't known, but that doesn't seem to faze them if they do know.
So, are they concerned about Trident on moral grounds or because they want a quick getaway from the Union? Personally speaking I hope they fuck off tomorrow but that isn't likely to happen. Ever since the SNP referendum machine got underway, the true colours of many a Scot have been displayed bright and clear - and yes, the same could be said of the English too.
The whole affair turned pretty ugly, pretty quickly, but would they stoop as low as to lie to the public about their motives for scrapping Trident? Well, yes - everyone involved is more than capable, but when listening to these debates and soundbites it's worth keeping that in mind.
The Jeremy Corbyn Problem
Jezzer is a different animal altogether, and one that the other party leaders can't seem to get a handle on. Regardless of your personal opinion about him, and I think he's a fucking idiot, nobody can deny that he's played this like a virtuoso.
The media would like to paint him a Marxist and a borderline traitor to Queen and country, but he isn't the massive threat that Cameron would like us to believe. Yes, he's a massive dick but a threat to the country he is not. Corbyn would like nothing better than to see an end to the Monarchy, a reshuffle of what we perceive capitalism and democracy to be and, yes, the scrapping of Trident.
He isn't a Marxist, but even Karl Marx wasn't that much of a one either. Marx was something of brilliant forward thinker in terms of capitalism, it's benefits and pitfalls and we could learn a lot from his work (in fact, the welfare state was created precisely because of the issues that arose after Marx had already predicted them). Corbyn is a potential asset, not a potential threat. Mostly.
So when he says he wants to scrap Trident, and he would never use Nukes, why do I think he is being the planet's biggest dick?
Look at the Baltic states. Take a long look at what Russia is doing, now consider the fact that Iran seems set to bring in ground forces under cover of Russian air protection. Iraq seems the next stopping off point, and with Russia controlling the air the western (yes, 'western' - let's not kid ourselves here) government in Baghdad is not going to last very long.
Turkey and her Saudi friends are reported to be prepping for war in the region, and I think we know that going toe to toe with Russia is not going to end well.
Where does Corbyn fit in? He's basically told Moscow that they can do whatever the hell they please, because he isn't even prepared to use tactical nukes. In lieu of a powerful, sizeable, conventional force our tactical nukes are the only real hammer in our drawer - let's not be mistaken about that.
So, yes - he's a dickhead and a potentially dangerous one at that. Regardless of how he feels about Trident, or any other nuclear deterrent, he should have kept his gob shut. I firmly believe that he shouldn't be in No. 10, ever. He would make an excellent deputy, I think, but leader? That should never be allowed to happen.
The Sensible Yanks
The Americans are rightly concerned about our nuclear situation, because as a NATO partner we have certain responsibilities - one of these is posing a credible threat to any opposition forces. Right now Trident is that threat, because our armed forces have been so successfully disarmed by successive cost cutting governments.
Washington are of the opinion that Britain has a choice to make - renew Trident and remain as one of several large nuclear hammers to keep rogue states from our door (Russia, anyone?), or beef up our conventional armed forces.
You see, there is no moral issue here - there never was one, except the ones that the politicos throw up to blind us from the truth of their own power grabs - there isn't even an austerity issue, again as thrown up in certain corners of the British political system.
Just a simple, logical choice. This is where I will probably throw some of you...
Trident has to go. Not because I'm against nukes, or against using them - in a weird way I find them fascinating - and not because of the austerity measures and the ridiculous amount of money Trident costs, and will cost to refit... At least, not entirely.
Looking at this as a purely national security issue, which the Americans rightly are, we cannot afford Trident - cuts or not.
Taking the cost of training, maximum length of service (24 years) and the current payscale for a Private 1st class soldier, Trident could pay for 209,000 new soldiers from basic training to retirement (this does not take career advancement into consideration, but the following £2bn a year running costs for Trident would more than cover it).
Of course, at the end of that crop of new recruits there would be another big spend but this would be a naturally staggered event - not every single soldier needs replacing at exactly the same time.
Our standing Army would be taken to over 300 thousand men and women, and the current army budget wouldn't even be touched. In fact, we could halve the new intake and place the remainder of the savings elsewhere such as education, policing, hospitals...
The point is, our armed forces are woefully under manned, equipped and cared for. Scrapping Trident would see an end to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment