WHY WE DON’T NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS

RMTnews :: september 2006 :: www.rmt.org.uk 8 Tony Blair says Britain needs nuclear weapons. More than that, he now seems to be committing us to spending billions of pounds on a new generation of nuclear weapons. This is to replace the existing Trident nuclear weapons system when it passes its sell-by date in about twenty years time. Debates about whether Britain actually needs nuclear weapons have been raging for decades. But with the Cold War over, more and more people are coming to the view that there is no conceivable purpose in having them. We do not face a nuclear super-power rival, and even Mr Blair agrees that they are no use against the threat of terrorism. Neither those attacking New York on September 11, nor those bombing London on July 7, were deterred by US and UK nukes. So if they don’t meet our most urgent security purposes, what is their point? Government ministers have argued that irrespective of current security issues, Britain may face nuclear threats in the future and that we need to plan accordingly – that nuclear weapons are a kind of insurance policy. But CND argues that pursuing new nuclear weapons will actually increase the risks that we are trying to avoid. If Britain argues that it needs nuclear weapons for its security, then other countries will conclude that they need them too. A new nuclear arms race will follow, with countries rushing to achieve nuclear weapons in an increasingly unstable and dangerous world. Better by far, in our view, to try and break out of this vicious circle now. Britain can play a role in promoting disarmament, as required by the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, to which we and the other nuclear weapons states are signatories. Through deciding not to replace Trident, we can help kick start a process of multilateral disarmament which will prevent the development of a new nuclear arms race and potential nuclear catastrophe. Abolition of nuclear weapons is the only way to ensure that they aren’t used. Treaties exist to outlaw chemical and biological weapons – now is the time to make nuclear weapons illegal too. There is also the question of the cost of our nuclear weapons. The full cost of developing a replacement, including missiles, submarines and base facilities is estimated to be as much as £25 billion. This same sum of money is the equivalent of building about one thousand new schools at today’s costs. And that’s before we pay for its regular upkeep every year thereafter. So what else could our money buy for us, if we didn’t choose to spend it on weapons of mass destruction? Thinking about the rail industry, the money spent on Trident could bring about a major transformation. The cost of re-nationalisation of the railways, for example, is put at around £25 billion – more or less the same figure as the overall cost of replacing Trident. That breaks down into around £4.5 billion to acquire trains currently owned by rolling stock companies, plus around £21 billion of nominal debt transfer in reconstituting Network Rail as a public corporation. Consider what could be done to enhance state pensions, or to alleviate global poverty and inequality. These are choices that should be made by the British people about our spending priorities, and not behind closed doors. We have a once in a generation possibility to get rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons. Now is the time to reassert the values of Britain’s labour and trade union movement – for peace, justice and equality, not only at home, but internationally. Helping to prevent a new nuclear arms race, and the criminal waste of resources that would go with it, would be a big step in the right direction. WHY WE DON’T NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament chair Kate Hudson explains why Britain should not spend billions on a new generation of nuclear weapons