Should Britain Scrap Trident? Mark McLaughlin
Over the past 10 years, there has been much debate on the Trident Renewal programme. On 19th July 2016, Members of Parliament finally voted for its renewal by a majority of 355. Therefore, Trident will be renewed and the overall cost will be a staggering £205 billion. I strongly disagree with this decision. I am convinced that Britain would be better off without Trident; I strongly support public opposition to the Trident replacement and I believe that the MPs were fundamentally wrong for a number of reasons.
It is abundantly clear to me that the reason why a number of MP’s voted this way was related to nothing more than …show more content…
That is why the International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to the rules of international law. It is not a legitimate or ethical way to deal with international problems. Consequently, it is my belief that Trident is immoral and potentially genocidal. Each Trident warhead, of which there are 40 per submarine, is estimated to be able to kill over 1 million people outright. The vast majority of those killed would be civilians. Countless more would subsequently die from secondary radiation exposure. I have read a terrible account of a survivor of Hiroshima, where the nuclear bomb was exploded in 1945, talking about witnessing her schoolmates die : “Some fell to the ground and their stomachs already expanded full, burst and organs fell out,” he said. “Others had skin falling off them and others still were carrying limbs. And one in particular was carrying their eyeballs in their hand.” How can anyone, after living through or hearing about such a horrific outcome, support the continued renewal of nuclear weapons such as
Over the past 10 years, there has been much debate on the Trident Renewal programme. On 19th July 2016, Members of Parliament finally voted for its renewal by a majority of 355. Therefore, Trident will be renewed and the overall cost will be a staggering £205 billion. I strongly disagree with this decision. I am convinced that Britain would be better off without Trident; I strongly support public opposition to the Trident replacement and I believe that the MPs were fundamentally wrong for a number of reasons.
It is abundantly clear to me that the reason why a number of MP’s voted this way was related to nothing more than …show more content…
That is why the International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to the rules of international law. It is not a legitimate or ethical way to deal with international problems. Consequently, it is my belief that Trident is immoral and potentially genocidal. Each Trident warhead, of which there are 40 per submarine, is estimated to be able to kill over 1 million people outright. The vast majority of those killed would be civilians. Countless more would subsequently die from secondary radiation exposure. I have read a terrible account of a survivor of Hiroshima, where the nuclear bomb was exploded in 1945, talking about witnessing her schoolmates die : “Some fell to the ground and their stomachs already expanded full, burst and organs fell out,” he said. “Others had skin falling off them and others still were carrying limbs. And one in particular was carrying their eyeballs in their hand.” How can anyone, after living through or hearing about such a horrific outcome, support the continued renewal of nuclear weapons such as