We don't need nuclear weapons

The government has just produced a white paper that supports renewing the nuclear deterrent on the basis of that childish reasoning "because." "But why?" "Just because." Frankly, Britain has absolutely no need whatsoever, now or in the future (take that, so-called 'insurance policy'), for a nuclear weapons capacity.
First and foremost, deterrence means nothing if you're not preapred to carry out you threat, yet the threat here is taking out hundreds of thousands of people with one warhead alone. With the possible exception of the Black Death, no weapon in history has been so blunt. To use it would be to commit mass murder on the gravest of scales.
Secondly, it's not even ours to use. We could never authorise the deployment of nuclear weapons without the previous acceptance of the Americans. The nuclear button is in Washington D.C., not Downing Street. So what's the point. There might be a case in terms of macho pride, if we had an independent nuclear capability like the French Force du Frappe, but we don't. So why don't we just shelter under the American nuclear umbrella like Japan, South Korea and all of NATO bar France. Being a NATO member if we are attacked, the Americans are treaty-bound to come to our aid, (as are all other countries in NATO). If nuclear weapons are needed to deter the threat, then they will use them. What is the need for maintaining toy submarines. I've heard that the Americans could fine us heavily if we pulled out of Trident renewal over some secret contract, but we've got some leverage since we could pull Flyindales in Yorkshire out of their Son of Star Wars programme, leaving a yawning gap in their radar coverage and Britain less likely to nuclear attack itself.
Thirdly, the cost. This is the issue in which most people turn against renewal, proving that the government is running an anti-popular line. At £20-£25bn, up to 1,000 new hosiptals could be built, at a time when the government is making cuts to the NHS after realising it gave away a bit too much largesse than was sustainable. Certainly, the replacement will only be ready in twenty years time, but think what worthy projects could be funded instaed then. If we want to keep submarine production in this country viable, why not just give a £25bn subsidy to the submarine industry and have done with it.
Fourthly, at the moment we have four submarines with nuclear weapons in our fleet, only one of which is currently at sea and the other three are laid up. When the submarine finishes its tour of duty, it is replaced at sea by a newly maintained one of the three in harbour and then becomes itself laid up with maintenance works. How pathetic is that just so Britain can pretend it's still a big power, instead of the middle-ranking power it so manifestly is. Blair says he will cut the number of warheads from 200 to 160 and reduce the number of submarines from four to three, but this tailoring of the Emperor's New Clothes is the height of absurdity (and we know how Blairs loves neo-imperialistic meddling). No critic will be mollified since you either have a nuclear weapons capability or you don't and as we clearly don't with it being controlled by the USA, such modifications are not worth the paper they are written on.
Fifthly, our signature on the Non-Proliferation Treaty obliges us to disarm completely. What better time than to do it now? Iran and North Korea could no longer accuse the West of overwhelming double standards and other countries may think twice about pushing for a nuclear weapon. This sign of good faith from the UK might even bring those countries back to negotiations.
Sixthly, who is the threat? That there might be some unknown danger twenty years hence, well most vulnerable coastlines could be under water in twenty years time, a good deal could happen in two decades. But it would change nothing if we were under the American nuclear umbrella. What if some long-range radio or electronic jamming devices were invented to upset missile gyroscopes in the intervening two decades? We would have spent at least £20bn on an obsolete system.
Seventhly, it would endanger the union of Britain. Scottish nationalists are rising fast in the polls north of the border and one constant source of ire is the siting of the nuclear submarine bases exclusively in Scotland on the assumption that if something goes wrong, the vast swathes of land that will become irradiated will be largely unpopulated. But putting at risk a big chunk of their homeland has never gone down well with the Scots (the Gibraltarians aren't impressed either by nuclear submarines being repaired on the Rock). Park a nuclear submarine in the Thames and see how the English rapidly fade in their support for it. If the government goes ahead with the renewal decision they will signal their contempt for Caledonian concerns (Gordon Brown going after the bigger prize of the UK premiership) and I would have much sympathy for an independent Scotland.
So seven good reasons why Trident should not be renewed, but New Labour will bow to vested interests on both sides of the Atlantic to keep up the pretence that the French aren't the only nuclear weapons power in the EU (when in fact the French are). If as the likelihood it becomes policy (thanks to support from the main opposition party), it will go down - in ten years of New Labour - as one of the worst decisons bar Iraq and certainly the most worthless bar none. It's one more case of Tories in Labour clothing.

On another note, there has been a coup d'etat in Fiji. If only all coups were like this one. Not only has it been bloodless, it's almost been courteous. All that happened was that the soldiers confiscated the car keys of the prime minister. They did surround his house but not so much so they could force their way in, but so the PM could not get out, should he choose perambulation as a method of escape. Curiously, the coup was staged because the chief of the military was acting against a repeat of the 2000 coup. A coup to forestall a coup, whatever next.