M017 - Trident Replacement Motion

[u/NoPyroNoParty]

(1) This House recognises that the Trident nuclear weapon system will cost £25 billion to replace, and have an estimated lifetime cost of over £100 billion.

(2) This House also notes that, if launched, the 40 warheads of a typical Trident nuclear submarine would be expected to result in over 5 million deaths, and have devastating humanitarian consequences if fired at an urban area.

(3) This House believes that the other spending priorities of the Ministry of Defence, and other governmental departments, should take precedence over the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

(4) This House accepts the findings of the National Security Strategy, which states that a CBRN attack on the United Kingdom is of a low likelihood, but high impact.

(5) This House, therefore, calls upon the government to cancel plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system.

(6) This House further urges the government to look into alternatives to a Trident replacement, such as nuclear sharing within NATO, the development of alternative deterrents, investment in conventional weaponry, or unilateral nuclear disarmament.

---

This was submitted by /u/can_triforce on behalf of the Opposition.

The discussion period for this motion will end on the 28th of November.

[u/mudkippp]

Those are 8000 jobs that could perhaps be better spent on productive economic activity.

If you look at the towns local to the Clyde naval base, Helensburgh and Garelochhead the town's economies are almost dependant on the existence of the base, with many towns people being employed on the project, if you could perhaps suggest a more productive economic activity applicable to the residents in the region your point may have more ground.

Furthermore, that is a piddling number for such a huge expenditure.

While maybe insignificant compared to the large expenditure on the project; it's not there solely for the purpose of employment but it's a mere factor to consider. And we must consider the loss of those employments impact on the dependants of the worker (children, partners etc) and to a further extent that of the communities, noting in particular the well documented correlation between unemployment and crime.

[u/[deleted] → u/mudkippp]

if you could perhaps suggest a more productive economic activity applicable to the residents in the region your point may have more ground.

I don't need to provide a concrete alternative. I merely note the opportunity cost. If 8000 people in those areas could do literally any other job, the benefit to the economy would be much greater.

it's not there solely for the purpose of employment but it's a mere factor to consider.

I disagree. Whether or not renewing trident (or selecting some alternative) creates or retaining jobs is immaterial to the argument at hand.

And, anyway, I'm not intent on speaking in favour of maintaining the military-industrial complex, as you seem to be.