A Blockade on Nuclear Weapons

ePulse: Is it safe to be without a nuclear deterrent? Will people take us seriously in the global community if we have to rely on others for nuclear defense?

Alex Rosen: The question is rather: is it safe to have a nuclear deterrent? Right now, Britain is seen all over the world as a co-aggressor on the international stage, threatening to use WMDs against other countries, invading sovereign states to secure its own access to resources, breaking international law, planning to breach the Non-Proliferation act by replacing its Trident System with more advanced missiles

Britain has in the past already been Targets of terrorism due to its role in Bush's 21st century crusade. As long as Britain retains nuclear weapons, the danger of one of them being used against Britain is always these. The nuclear deterrent is like a gun in the home - who is to say that it won't go off against the owner itself?

Another thought: what security do the weapons give Britain? Do they prevent a terrorist attack? Would a situation be conceivable where the threat of a nuclear strike could actually prevent an attack on Britain? By whom? Right now, as far as we know, the weapons have been de-targeted and do not automatically point at Moscow anymore. Retargeting them would take hours if not days. The scenarios which the military practices still run under the old "hit the Soviets before they hit you" banner. What real security do these weapons then provide that could possibly outweigh the risk (and the costs) of having them?

A final thought: What if the money poured into nuclear arms would instead be used for debt relief? development? Would not real security mean investing in global development, easing the pressure on countries of the Global South and thereby creating quality of living in regions like Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia or the Middle East. Would people not take a country more seriously that addressed the real problems in the world heads on? Would they not respect it more? Would such a move not make Britain (and the world) much safer than! any amount of nuclear arms could ever make it? Why fight terror with state terror? Why not steal the terrorists their arguments? And what if the money would instead be used for education or health care, easing the pressure on the British population caused by Globalization? Would that not make Britain a safer country as well?

There are so many ways of creating real security and real respect for Britain in the world - why is the only answer politicians seem to find the continued development of nuclear weapons? One of the participants in the blockade, André Michel from Ireland said: "Even putting the 20 billion pounds on a big pile and burning them would be a better use of the money than putting it into Trident."