WLD oppose Trident replacement in Harrogate

1.53.55pm GMT Thu 1st Mar 2007

WLD will be supporting the Lib Dem Peace and Security Group in their bid to pass an amendment, to establish the Liberal Democrats' opposition to Trident replacement.

The Lib Dem Peace and Security Group argue that the evidence for nuclear renewal is far outweighed by the ethical, social, political, environmental and economical reasons against Trident.

"The ethical argument

No ethical basis exists for the use of nuclear weapons, which would kill millions of innocent civilians. The ethical argument for keeping nukes is the belief that their existence deters other states from using their own nuclear weapons. This argument depends upon a radical contradiction: we would never use nuclear weapons but our enemies believe that we might.

The environmental argument

Liberal Democrats pride themselves upon their green policies. The use of nuclear weapons would have disastrous and persistent consequences for the environment. The possession of nuclear weapons does not assist in addressing our greatest security threat: climate change and its consequences.

The non-proliferation argument

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a bargain between Nuclear-Weapon States (NWS), who promise to negotiate in good faith to get rid of nuclear weapons, and Non-Nuclear Weapon States, who promise in return not to develop them. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan have warned that nuclear states like the UK and USA are not keeping their side of the bargain. If safe countries like the UK keep nuclear weapons we have no moral authority to say to states like Iran that they should not have them. It's time to end the hypocritical stance of "Do as I say, not as I do" which hampers effective diplomacy.

The military/strategic argument

Trident cannot be used for fighting wars. Nuclear weapons have not kept the UK and its territories free from attack, nor has the lack of them exposed other states to attack. Many of those who have been closest to our national military strategy now oppose Trident. One retired general summarised Trident as: "useless, expensive and dangerous". The defence of the UK actually requires more and better equipped infantry and air and naval transport. Trident is a poor use of scarce resources needed elsewhere for our national security.

The independence argument

Trident is dependent on United States co-operation: the US provides us with nuclear weapon designs and the missiles are stored and serviced in the US. This dependence influences UK governments to follow US foreign policy to the detriment of our country's true interests and our relationships with the rest of Europe and the Middle East.

The insurance argument

Britain is more secure from direct threat from foreign states than at any time in history. If Trident is insurance against unantici¬pated threats to national survival, we are paying a high premium against a highly unlikely risk. That the future is always uncertain can be used to justify the development of any weapons system (nuclear, biological or chemical or anything else) by any country.

The financial argument

New submarines would cost around £25bn with life-time running costs reaching around £75bn. Instead, we should use these resources to strengthen our overstretched forces and equip them properly. Taking a wider look at our country's security we could spend more fighting against famine, disease, poverty and environmental disaster that will do much to prevent future conflicts that could have a serious impact on the UK."

WLD would urge any of its members who are conference voting representatives to register for this important debate.

The amendment will be discussed on Saturday 3rd March at 11.10am at the Party's Spring Conference in Harrogate.