10 reasons why renewing Trident defies logic

Thanks to Eoin Clarke for the following:


Your observations are invited.

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


5 thoughts on “10 reasons why renewing Trident defies logic

  1. NMac

    I believe that the only reason we pay (extortionately) for Trident is to keep a place on the UN Security Council. It is a concept which dates back to the 1940s and the immediate post-war world. The reality today is that Britain’s voice on the world stage is very limited and is almost totally dependent upon hanging onto America’s shirt tails. Trident should go.

  2. Michelle Thomasson

    Mike, I’ve tried posting a comment but it did not appear with ‘awaiting moderation’ and so I tried posting again and I was told my double comments had been deleted. To counteract any glitches here is my comment, but if you see a repeat please delete one of them.

    A comment issued by Dr Philip Webber, (14th Jan 16) from Scientists from Global Responsibility, summarises the flaws in the theory and practice of nuclear deterrence for the UK, re the 3 key arguments from the government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR)1 (November 2015) 1) UK weapons are at a “minimum, credible” level; 2)
    The nuclear deterrence effect works “every day”; 3) They have kept the UK out of conflicts for the last six decades, his rational response: http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/trident-deterrence-and-uk-security

    And a report, published 1st December 2015 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the UK-based Nuclear Education Trust (NET), shows that UK strategic nuclear weapons have been a constant ‘contribution’ to NATO nuclear doctrine since the late 1950s but that ‘the exact nature of that contribution has become increasingly obscure since the end of the Cold War’.

    Also worth mentioning, in the rabid rational of nuclear deterrents here’s a snippet from the British Ministry of Defence’s 1998 Strategic Defence Review which has a ‘sub-strategic role’ for Trident. They stated “‘the credibility of deterrence also depends on retaining an option for a limited strike that would not automatically lead to a full scale nuclear exchange’ as a means of demonstrating resolve or conveying a political message’”

    Why I am not reassured that this would not automatically lead to a full scale nuclear war… after all Trident’s ‘mingled asset ownership’ has drawn its missile stock, randomly, from a pile in Georgia, USA, before being fitted with the lethal stuff in Aldermaston. Please ref page 381 of the 2008 SIPRI Handbook, this link takes you directly to that page:

  3. John

    I reckon this whole Trident argument has become rather pathetic, and unfortunately a lot of MPs views are based on emotions rather than good solid facts.

  4. mohandeer

    Trident is not fit for purpose, is not OURS and therefore not an independent retaliatory deterrent, it’s costs are exorbitant and foolhardy when very few people with a brain would actually promote the use of such weapons and even fewer who have the final say. It is a self defeating exercise since going nuclear keeps no-one safe.

  5. DocRichard

    The key point about Trident is this: is deterrence infallible? If it is incapable of failing, we can live with the Bomb. There may be concern over costs and safety, but basically, OK. On the other hand, if deterrence is fallible, then we must abandon it as a strategy and eliminate these weapons worldwide.
    Any objective view of deterrence will conclude that deterrence is fallible. Therefore we must all abandon the nuclear deterrence strategy.

Comments are closed.