The Issue of Trident & the Non Proliferation Treaty

The question of Trident hangs over us as a British collective…and will not cease to raise its head in future endeavours we have on an international stage.

Firstly, let us address the principle of Trident. It is a simply a purely ‘attacking’ form of proliferation:

“The UK Trident programme encompasses the development, procurement and operation of the current generation of British nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them.” (Wikipedia)

How can we seek to hold the best form of nuclear missilery in a multilateral, constantly altering, war-mongering world?

Let me depict a scenario:

Tailored missiles across the world dependent on country of origin. A sort of cultural, technical customization of WMDs.

Each of these customized missiles using technology gained from abuse of this pillar in the NPT:

“These five NWS (Nuclear Weapons States) agree not to transfer “nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” and “not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce” a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to “receive,” “manufacture” or “acquire” nuclear weapons or to “seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons” (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).” (Wikipedia)

So, I ask you, what prevents other countries such A, B or C from acquiring, legal technology under the auspices of the Third Pillar of the NPT and channelling it to use within their independent Nuclear Missile programs? After all the five Nuclear Weapon States cannot TRADE WITH EACH OTHER, but what prevents them from TRADING WITH OTHERS? Under the Third Pillar, this is possible:

“The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.” (Wikipedia)

What we should be asking is to see the Nuclear Trade Black Books of every member of the Nuclear Weapon States and connecting the dots to see how far this technology has REALLY advanced…who have the five NWS been trading with and what customizations have they made in their own development of nuclear technology from known, reliable sources such as the IAEA and Nuclear Suppliers Group.

What I am trying to get at is simple. All this money spent on Trident will go to waste in the event of Nuclear War. It’s like having a Bugatti Veyron running at 1200bhp, the supercar of supercars, costing over £1 million, versus a Nissan GTR running 1500bhp. That cost my friend Matt only a ‘mere’ £75,000 to demolish a Veyron off the line. (His is black and yellow, btw). He had it remapped, turbocharged, intercooled and gearbox double-strengthened, to achieve this.

The argument for Trident is redundant. We, once again, live in a world where each of our technologies can be beaten by another. If one country wanted to start Nuclear War, it would firstly shut down ALL our capabilities of using our own fleet. It would SEEK out our weaknesses.

Therefore now I come to the ‘defence’ of the UK.

We are a protective island in a Nuclear ocean, and we need to protect ourselves. Our Nuclear guidelines must stem from this. Our asset as an island, is a unique advantage, we must USE this to our gain.

So.

Please read on Rapier Missiles:

“Rapier is a British surface-to-air missile developed for the British Army and Royal Air Force. Entering service in 1971, it eventually replaced all other anti-aircraft weapons in Army service; guns for low-altitude targets, and the Thunderbird (missile),[2] used against longer-range and higher-altitude targets. As the expected air threat moved from medium-altitude strategic missions to low-altitude strikes, the fast reaction time and high maneuverability of the Rapier made it more formidable than either of these weapons, replacing most of them by 1977. It remains the UK’s primary air-defence weapon after almost 35 years of service, and its deployment is expected to continue until 2020.” (Wikipedia).

The Rapier missiles and similar technologies should be our focus; developing defence mechanisms to Nuclear War, missiles that can shoot other missiles out of the sky. Defending our nations…and our Great British Islands.

In summary, we need not be aggressors. We need to be defenders. Defenders of humanity.

By Vinny Munbodh

Founder of United Change

united-change.uk