Is Trident a Nuclear Shield

Friday's editorial opinion on Friday put forward the argument that Trident was needed to provide Britain with a nuclear shield.

Unfortunately the position put forward contained a fundamental flaw. Trident will not shield Britain from a nuclear attack. It will not stop an incoming missile, or a bomber aircraft delivering a nuclear payload. It will certainly not a stop a nuclear device exploding in a container after the container was delivered to the United Kingdom.

Trident is designed for two uses. The first to provide a first strike capability, a use successive governments have said was unthinkable. The second is revenge. I believe it has deterred another major European war, and has constrained other conflicts around the globe from expanding. However, the cold war is over, the world has moved on. There are still risks from a collapse of stability in China; from a nuclear armed Korea; from an Israeli pre-emptive nuclear strike that may draw in other countries.

Trident did not deter the London bombings. America's ability to destroy the world twelve times over did not deter the attack on the twin towers. Trident did not stop American citizens funding the IRA campaign. The nature and character of conflict, and conflict management has changed.

It is a scandal that our armed forces are housed in poor quality accommodation; that our support for injured soldiers is effectively cut off when they leave the army. We don't have enough army doctor's, and GP's don't know how to deal with post combat stress disorders. A soldier back from Afghanistan released from service has no special rights on housing lists.

Our troops are far better equipped these days but the Ministry of Defence attitude to serving soldiers is no better than it was in the Peninsular War. Our troops are low paid. They should have not have to spend hundreds of pound supplementing their equipment. They should have effective helicopters, and vehicles that are protected from mines and hand held missiles.

So the replacement of Trident has to be up for debate. Is it effective use of taxpayer's money?

The army knows the answer. The politicians know the answer, and so do the public. Our civil servants have an entrenched position to protect. Who serves who?