Insight – building my own views
on Trident.
Before starting the project I believe it is
for my own morality that I decide if I am for or against Trident, to take part
in the project while being pro-Trident would be contradictory and morally wrong
to do. I aim to investigate opinions, perspectives and insight into the nuclear
program in order to develop an informed understanding that will grant me the
ability to carry on with the project. The act of attempting to build an opinion
does beg further questioning on my own perspective such as
Could I benefit from an anti-Trident
initiative? Would the money spent of the program be used for education,
healthcare or a general bettering of my quality of life?
If Trident is scrapped, is the country in more
danger from forces that would have previously been discouraged due to our
possession of such weapons.
One must acknowledge the difference between
multi and uni-lateral disarmament; Multilateral disarmament is an agreement by
all countries to disregard nuclear weapons whilst unilateral disarmament refers
to a singular country agreeing to disarm nuclear weapons. These versions of
disarmament create further dialogue within the argument for or against.
One must too acknowledge M.A.D in order to
develop a perspective on the argument and to subsequently develop an informed
opinion; ‘Mutual Assured Destruction, a.k.a. MAD. Mutual Assured
Destruction began to emerge at the end of the Kennedy administration. MAD
reflects the idea that one's population could best be protected by leaving it
vulnerable so long as the other side faced comparable vulnerabilities. In
short: Whoever shoots first, dies second.”
The M.A.D concept was to develop into M.A.S
(Mutual Assured Stability);
“a
condition in which neither party has the intention or capability to exercise
unilateral advantage
over the other.”
Stop
Trident Videos
Mr. Hardy discusses the idea of a power
balance, if one country has a nuclear weapons program; other countries are
motivated to do the same in order to sustain a mutual balance of power. Hardy
refers to this armament as an act of insanity and that to trust the powers that
have undertaken such armament is too, insane.
Mrs. Lucas focuses on the monetary cost of
the Trident program noting that, the 183bn that could be possibly spent on the cause
would be more efficiently used in sustaining the security of the country in
renewable energy initiatives alongside industry development.
Referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Mrs.
Britain notes the immortality of the use of nuclear weapons and aspires for
Britain to be a leading force in the demise of nuclear weapons globally.
Britain too refers to the monetary cost of the nuclear program as Lucas has,
proposing the money to be spent of other financial crises such as the NHS and
education.
Describing the spending of £100bn as
‘absolute nonsense’ Bruce Kent dissects the power associated with British
nuclear armament as only possible with American relations therefore the need
for Britain to hold nuclear weapons as ‘nonsense’. Kent notes the accidents
possible with nuclear weapons and a questioning of the effectiveness of a deterrent
to groups such as ISIS in which death is not feared and does not hold a
location to retaliate against. Kent concludes by calling for nuclear free
security based on justice and friendship.
Skinner, a British labor MP begins by
referring to the similarities between the CND Aldermaston
marches in the 1960s and them to take place on February 27th.
Skinner identifies Britain’s armament as hypocritical as attempts to disarm
Iran, amongst other, stating ‘We are calling upon nations [to disarm]… why
don’t we?’.
100 reasons
for pro-disarmament published in the run to the UN’s National Day Of Peace
include:
54. because many nuclear weapons today would
explode with up to 100 times the force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
50. because nuclear weapons cannot deter
terrorism.
27. because if we don't, nuclear weapons will
continue to proliferate.
7. because it will make the world safer for
our children and grandchildren - UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
Pro-Nuclear
Weapons
“1.
Global Defense
Nuclear weapons are likely key deterrents to major wars
flaring up and acts of aggression by rogue nations. With such power behind
them, nations that have nuclear weapons are far less likely to be attacked by
another nation, even if that other nation also has a nuclear arsenal. The
better a nation can defend itself, the more likely it is that no one will want
to risk going against them and that results in more peacetime. This fact also
makes it easier for diplomatic talks to work out since no one really wants to
get into a conflict that can end with nuclear weapons.
2. Power Supply
Nations that have nuclear weapons can benefit from the
power and status that comes with the territory. As small and insignificant as
many view North Korea to be in certain ways, other nations pay attention to
their actions and wishes since they have a large fighting force and a small
amount of nuclear weapons. No one wants their homeland to experience a nuclear
weapon attack and most nations will do whatever they can to avoid any conflict
that may lead to one. This makes it better for communication and the
willingness to listen to one another.
3. War Deterrent
Smaller nations can stand a chance of defending
themselves against larger nations that have more money and military
capabilities when the have nuclear weapons. This can increase the peace and
make it less likely that certain nations will get bullied or invaded. Alliances
have this same affect when a nation that has nuclear weapons is allied with
nations that do not have them. The protection that non-nuclear capable nations
can have from nations that are capable has prevented many conflicts over the
years that could have went badly.
The number of nations that have the resources and
ability to create nuclear weapons is high enough to where nations that already
have these weapons want to hold on to some of them. If a nation that has a
dangerous leader wants to make new nuclear weapons, it is logical for some
other nation to have their own weapons that can face that threat. Removing
every single nuclear weapon from the earth can leave an opening for some
combative nation or group to build their own and pose a real risk to others.”
No comments:
Post a Comment