tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post767835218556342822..comments2024-03-25T12:55:40.911+00:00Comments on Caron's Musings: Shirley Williams supports Liberal Democrat Trident callAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04988201531739344840noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-57218619297907047772010-09-22T14:56:41.150+01:002010-09-22T14:56:41.150+01:00Moving in the opposite direction to Obama? We'...Moving in the opposite direction to Obama? We're in rather a different position to the US, though. Not renewing Trident would leave Britain without any strategic nuclear capability whatsoever. Obama has never suggested that the US disarm itself in such a way, and indeed his speeches on Iran which bang on about keeping al options open would surely make it impossible, politically, for him to suggest complete unilateral disarmament. <br /><br />If Britain had several nuclear weapon systems, and the debate was over whether to replace just one, then you would have a point that letting it lapse would support the general Obama-esque goal of nuclear weapons reduction, but unilateral disarmament -- which is, make no mistake, what not replacing Trident would mean -- is a far more extreme position than that. <br /><br />Obama isn't anywhere near that extreme position (unsurprisingly, as it would be impossible for him to be elected if he got within an ICBM's range of it) so while it may be true that to not replace Trident wouldn't hurt the relationship wit the US (though I've never heard that put forward as an argument for replacement -- all the arguments I've heard have focused on how stupid it would be to leave ourselves without a strategic nuclear capability, as while it might not be as relevant in the current global situation as it was thirty years ago, we're really, in this discussion, talking about the situation thirty years hence, and if the changes between now and then are as huge and unforeseeable as the changes between 1980 and today, who's to say we won't need it -- and better, surely, to have it and not need it than need it and not have it?) it is going far to far to suggest that by keeping a nuclear capability we are somehow moving in the opposite direction to a US president whose policy is also for his country to retain such a capability.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.com