The real cost of nuclear power

I REMEMBER seeing my mother in tears for the first time in the 1960s during the Cuban missile crisis. The world seemed on the brink of a nuclear conflict following the "knife edge" politics and cold war 1950s mindset of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

Like many a mother, she thought she was going to lose her children in yet another world war. Thus saw the birth and motivation for the activities of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). As Bruce Kent, its outspoken leader during the 1980s, comes to Darlington on Wednesday, the CND movement is at this time witnessing resurgence. We are at a pivotal moment in our nation's response to the nuclear debate and this one isn't about nuclear civil power - it is about weaponry. We have to decide now on whether, as some suggest, we update what has been called our so-called "independent deterrent". As Tony Blair has recently commented - we are at the beginning of a debate.

Britain's nuclear weapon system Trident will reach the end of its lifespan in 2025. A decision will be made in this parliament on its replacement. It is estimated that the total cost of replacing Trident missiles, warheads, submarines and related facilities could be as much as £25bn.

But the majority of the British people don't want to spend their money on these weapons of mass destruction, which even the Prime Minister accepts would be useless against a terrorist threat. In a recent MORI/Greenpeace poll, 54 per cent of the British public said they would oppose a costly replacement of Trident.

CND believes this money would be better spent on defeating poverty at home and abroad, and providing for employment, education and health. It believes that, far from deterring nuclear threats, replacing Trident will increase the risk of nuclear conflict.

I believe the British government should take this opportunity to press for nuclear disarmament worldwide, as required under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and become a force for peace in the world. Moreover, recent evidence suggests that our deterrent is far from independent and begs the question for our children and grandchildren: do we trust those who have their finger on the nuclear trigger? As the writer Will Self recently stated: "Why should we allow ourselves to be the recipients of nuclear weapons technology that clearly breach the Non Proliferation Treaty, while bleating about the nefarious activities of other nations? And why should we allow our leaders to go on manufacturing enemies to justify the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction?"

SOME extraordinary documents, the USA Presidential Directives, have recently surfaced which tell an amazing truth - that in reality we are not and never have been in control of our own nuclear "independent" deterrent. One revealed that "for decades, American Presidents have been authorizing US weapons makers to ship vital bomb components to Britain". George Bush Snr was one of them: in July 1991, for example, he signed a five year directive ordering the United States department of energy to "produce additional nuclear weapons parts as necessary for transfer to the United Kingdom".

In essence, the horrifying reality is that we cannot and do not make our own nuclear weapons. We are not a true nuclear power. We are, in effect, mere clients of the USA and it is the Bush administration that controls when and how we deploy our weaponry. So how safe does that make us feel?

A conscious decision to replace Trident has already sparked a heated debate in some quarters. The estimated cost of £25bn could be elsewhere deployed for the following - 120,000 newly qualified nurses every year for the next ten years; student top-up fees could be scrapped for the next ten years; 60, 000 newly qualified teachers could be recruited every year for the next ten years; 100,000 extra fire fighters every year for the next ten years - and the list goes on. There is also a moral argument. The original basis for Trident was of course mutually assured destruction (MAD). Pope John Paul's position was that the principles of MAD were acceptable as a basis for balanced disarmament (as in the Non Proliferation Treaty to which the leading powers in the world are signatories).

The Attorney General may yet again be wheeled out to advise on whether in itself, renewal of Trident would be a breach of the Treaty. The US and UK have attacked the potential for nuclear weaponry in the hands of North Korea and Iran, yet bask in the power playing of carrying on regardless in relation to their own weapons store. Only existing club members are welcome.

Cost and international law may suggest against renewal, and of course there are those who will raise the question of how to combat nuclear weaponry in the hands of rogue or terrorist states.

There is no easy solution but the need for a genuine and open debate. This debate will have to include a serious look at our own civilized, moral stance on the issue. When we are having our own civil liberties curtailed and millions spent on security measures to be taken against terrorists and the terrorist "threat", we are effectively prepared to inflict great devastation and terror on those who are not part of the nuclear club.

Each Trident contains more firepower than the total expended during the Second World War. They have a range of 4,000 miles and an explosive power eight times greater than the Hiroshima bomb, which killed 70-100,000 people.

I believe that the case for scrapping Trident is brave and right. Stephen Wall, a former advisor to Tony Blair, has recently stated that we can no longer afford a nuclear deterrent. According to John Reid when Defence Secretary, the question for us now is what type of nuclear deterrence we should have, not whether we should have one at all.

Yet with the increased needs of the NHS, pensions, climate change technology etc, cost has to be an issue in addition to the moral perspective. Can it still be morally justifiable with what we now know, that we have the potential to inflict devastation upon cities and populations in the world? In 1946 Ernest Bevin, Labour Foreign Secretary, stated: "We've got to have this thing over here whatever it costs. We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."

But the world has changed since then and we now know that the Union Jack is not firmly planted on our Trident missiles. If I am to consider all the arguments against Trident renewal, the cost when the money could be spent elsewhere, the artificial logic behind the meaning of deterrence in today's world, and primarily the moral argument, I do believe that the bold move would be for Britain not to replace Trident and not to remain a power player in the nuclear club.

The principles of the Non Proliferation Treaty should not be buried under inter-governmental interpretations of ambiguous international statutes.

Maintaining nuclear deterrence in the 21st century will not aid peace in the world for future generations - it will impede it.

*Bruce Kent, vice president of CND, will be speaking at the Friends (Quaker) Meeting House in Skinnergate tomorrow at 7pm. All are welcome.