Log in

No account? Create an account

Don't Eat With Your Mouth Full

Where can we live but days?

steepholm steepholm
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Trident Tested
I asked this on Facebook yesterday, but so far haven't had any substantive replies, so I thought I'd try my luck here. Though I suspect that in both cases my friends lists may not be the ideal targets for the question.

If there's anyone out there who thinks that renewing Trident is a good idea, I'd love to know what the arguments for it are. The only three I can see are a) it provides employment - which I'm fairly certain could be done in more cost-effective ways, b) it provides a pretext for the UK having a permanent place on the UN Security Council, and c) it means the French haven't got one-up on us. The last two are pretty specious, surely?

So, what are the other arguments? And specifically, what are the arguments that apply to the UK but not to other constitutional democracies that might also wish to have an independent deterrent, and are as threatened if not more so than the UK? Like, shall we say, South Korea? Unless you think S. Korea should have the bomb, in which case feel free to say so.

Two riders: a) note that I'm asking not about NATO membership, but about Trident specifically; b) even if you don't believe in the arguments, if you know what they are I'd still like to hear them.

From what I gather it is to supplement Britain's gallant American allies. If you think the UK is a "constitutional democracy" note
1. it has no constitution (unwritten? like an unprinted fiver?)
2. democracies do not jail folk for holding placards.

I use the phrase loosely! :) Nor do democracies have legislative chambers occupied by people who aren't subject to election, to add to your list.

But it seems a strange argument that we need an independent deterrent in order to be a good ally...

Hitting nail on head. Not ally, but province, of the American Imperium;)

A specific document labeled "The Constitution" is not necessary to be a constitutional democracy; and, by contrast, it's possible to have a democratic-sounding "The Constitution" and not be one. (The old Soviet Union had such a document, but that didn't help.) The definition hinges on: does the country have fundamental laws establishing an open representative government, and does it stick to them?

The factors that might operate to kick the UK, or US, off that list would be things like unaccountable secret government programs, oligarchy, and low voter participation. Not the absence of a formal written Constitution.

I see your point. Paraguay had a very good constitution but under Stroessner it was frozen. Low turn out? UK check. Inability to access documents until 30-40 years? UK check. No right to trial by jury, no right to silence, no verification of deletion of innocent folks DNA (I could go on)...