It's a MAD world.

Mutually Assured Destruction. What a lovely idea for a summer's day. 

Wikipedia has it thus: 

Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. 

Nice.

Today there is to be a vote in the Commons on the renewal of Trident, our nuclear weapons system. Actually that is almost totally untrue.  The debate today will be about whether to take the Successor programme forward into the manufacturing phase.

Our nuclear weapons capability comes in three parts:  

• The submarines, of which there will be four so that one can be at sea at all times. 
• The Trident II D5 (UGM-133A) ballistic missile, of which we have title to 58 but of which each submarine can only carry up to 16 and which are built and maintained and stored in the US.
• The warheads which are made in this country.

What is being discussed and voted on today is in fact whether to go ahead and build four Successor Class submarines to replace the existing Vanguard Class.  There was some consideration given to there only being three but that was rejected by Dr Fox in 2011.

Let me say at this point I am totally against nuclear weapons of any kind.  I have not been an active opponent although I did accompany my mother on a protest march against cruise missiles to RAF Molesworth in the early eighties.

I wouldn't say I was an out and out pacifist.  Some things are worth fighting for I imagine, but I was not around during the Second World War, which I suppose was the last time that excuse could have made.  Most wars in which we as a nation have been involved since then have been much more pre-emptive, attempting to neutralise a perceived future problem, with the possible exception of the Falkland's War, which was just good old fashioned jingoism and possible hydro-carbon inspired, as has much of our action in the Middle East.  The world is peppered with nasty dictators and vile regimes but we only seem to intervene militarily when they happen to be oil producers. Funny that.

I consider the cost of renewing the submarines to be out of all proportion to their actual worth.  There is an obvious knock on effect in terms of jobs, although If pressed I would suggest that scrapping our nuclear deterrent would free money to be spent on conventional forces and military hardware.  And lets be honest, when you hear about a coup or in invasion or a military action, it is tanks which feature most prominently, not nuclear missiles.  

The fact that the vote is taking place today has, I suspect, more to do with politics, as the government seek to drive a wedge deeper into the already embattled Labour Party.  In some ways though I might prove to be a good thing. It has been no secret that there are strong differences of opinion within the party, both within Parliament and in the country as a whole about whether we need a nuclear capability or not.  Official Labour policy favours supporting the replacement program, but Jeremy Corbyn is a lifelong anti-nuclear politician, whose views are well known.  The Labour MPs will have a free vote on the matter, and it will undoubtedly be passed.

The government hopes that this will further split the Labour Party, but it may instead just serve to lance one of the boils which are currently adorning the face of the party. It is after all no secret that these differences exist, Labour MPs have been declaring left right and centre how they will vote (in which case why do they bother with a debate?) and once it is over the party can get back to tearing itself apart over who should lead it.  

As I have said, I am totally opposed to nuclear weapons but if we ignore the question of the cost, it is really not the most pressing problem facing the country at the moment. If we could put it to bed for a while and get on with the business of providing an effective opposition, I for one would be very happy.  It may well be something which needs to be debated, possibly at length, both within and outside the party, and especially at Conference this autumn.  Why don't we hold a referendum on it? It makes a sight more sense than holding one on membership of the EU. I suspect in many cases it is the major difference between the Corbyn led left of the party and the dissatisfied majority.  If Jeremy could be persuaded after the debate and it's inevitable outcome, to concede that this matter should be sidelined for later discussion then I think the Party could genuinely move forward.  Sadly I fear that this will not be the case.  

Despite my total antipathy towards weapons of mass destruction, indeed towards weapons of all kinds, I am not worried that the commissioning of four submarines will bring the possibility of nuclear war any closer.  The real objection I have is the enormous and spiralling cost.  That money could be so much better spent on just about anything else, up to and including conventional military hardware.  It is a luxury which we just can't afford. But then so is HS2, and I love railways.

Love Tim xx