Home | About | Donate

Scrapping Trident and Transitioning to a Nuclear-Free World


#1


#2

Nuclear weapons are humanity's suicide vests.


#3

The problem with trident is that the UK cannot use it. the missiles and launch mechanisms are totally under US jurisdiction and control. So its a scam really. There is nothing British about them. Furthermore the UK has not made a single independent foreign policy or military decision since Suez, except maybe the falklands and even then it needed US participation, albeit indirect.

So the ability of Britain to ever launch them is non existent. They're there for show. The UK is a US client state. a US bitch. It just wants to play the big boy.


#4

I agree about Trident, the rest of your comment is the usual self-aggrandising, US centric bullshit, suggestive of an insecure chip on the shoulder from being just a former colony. Or something. UK policy is determined by parliament such as the recent vote there NOT to bomb Assad against US wishes. AKA a foreign policy decision. And how will the US, in your world, get UK voters to vote to stay in the EU (the US position) considering it's a major, crucial 'foreign policy decision' with 35 million participants? Etc, etc. Just because the US is a totally unresponsive democracy, something of a joke, doesn't mean systems in the rest of the world are absolutely the same.


#5

I truly hope that your point of view prevails. I would like nothing better than the UK breaking out of the US orbit and have an independent foreign policy. I believe that if the UK had that, many of the calamities that have befallen the world since 911 might have been avoided.

One thing u have to understand about the British is that they're not stupid. They knew that toppling Saddam would unleash a murderous chaotic aftermath but Blair went ahead and did it anyway. And as if that wasn't enough they did it again in Libya at the behest of Hilary - "I came, I saw, he died" - Clinton, and whilst parliament - God bless them - voted not to bomb Assad, the British foreign policy towards Syria is still an extension of the US one. Philip Hammond is still parroting neocon positions and rhetoric on Syria. And where the UK cannot participate directly in US military adventures, it is doing so by proxy mercenary companies and huge arms deals.

In short dancing to the American tune.

Not what I want for sure, but this is the current reality. It will be dismantled bit by bit, and getting rid of Trident is one such bit.


#6

Not so. It is more just that the UK has similar views, geo-poltical positions and mentality to the USA (what in the rest of the EU is often derogatarily referred to as the 'anglo-saxon model' which is also shared with Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc, former UK colonies). The UK has it's own neo-liberal scumbags to deal with, it doesn't need to import them from the US nor have them implanted by the US.

There are around 600 MPs in the UK Parliament, who vote on foreign policy matters, so for what you say to be true, it must be the case that most of them are simply working for the USA and ignore any other public or local lobbying which is an absurd proposition.

Tony Blair was a misguided fool, yet he doesn't represent the UK government generally, and he faced much opposition within it, in which many of this own cabinet resigned due to his actions. One man does not a government make. He was booted out eventually anyhow, replaced by Gordon Brown. Your take on Libya is different from mine. It was France that drove this military action (who also opposed the Iraq war) and the UK acted as her ally; the US were initially reluctant to get involved but did so at their behest and then, having the largest military, went on to become the main belligerent. It is not that the UK & France were 'instructed' by the US to act this way, they are quite capable of taking belligerent and calamitious military actions in their own right. And again, the decision to bomb Libya was taken by Parliament, 600+ individuals.