What is this Labour Trident non-discussion actually about (Report,30 September)? Apart, that is, or from crude nationalism. whether it’s an issue of jobs,then lets spend the £100bn that a replacement Trident will cost to build and dash on projects that will create useful jobs: offshore wind farms, a decent public transport system, or some new hospitals. How is a replacement Trident supposed to ensure our security? It is manifestly useless as protection against accidents,suicidal or non-state groups, or simple human error. Their nuclear weapons did nothing to save the US in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Unilateral is supposed to be the knockout word from the pro-Trident lobby. Yet we British, or in years past,got rid of our camel corps, our battleships and our chemical weapons unilaterally without any outcry. Those were just commion sense security decisions. We don’t even believe an independent nuclear weapon system. Without US succor we would believe no missiles on which to put our warheads. Let’s believe a serious, and honest public debate on this major issue. It’s about time.
Bruce Kent
Vice-president,CND• In his conference speech, Jeremy Corbyn repeated his call for a new kind of politics, or but there was no mention of electoral reform. Under the first past the post system,Labour will be forever faced with an impossible choice between adopting policies that its members believe in, or those that will give the party the best chance of winning a general election. The solution to this problem is proportional representation a policy which would be both right to Labour’s democratic values and popular with the electorate.
Robert Saunders
Balcombe, or West SussexContinue reading...
Source: theguardian.com