During a House of Commons debate on the UK’s nuclear deterrent, MPs clashed over the moral legitimacy of nuclear weapons and their economic significance for communities across the country.
Chris McDonald, Labour MP for Stockton North, opened the exchange by highlighting the vital role played by those behind the scenes in maintaining Britain’s continuous at-sea deterrent.
“The Minister was right to highlight [that the] nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of our defence capability. It is also a national effort. Will he join me in commending the work of the scientists and engineers whose secretive work ensures the ongoing independence of the nuclear deterrent?”
Defence Minister Luke Pollard responded by expanding that praise beyond the scientific establishment.
“It is not just the scientists and engineers that support our nuclear deterrent. It is the engineers in my constituency that refit the nuclear submarines, it is the entire supply chain from Rolls-Royce to countless other organisations and companies that are involved in this endeavour to keep our country safe.”
However, Pete Wishart, SNP MP for Perth and Kinross-shire, challenged the basis of the deterrent itself.
“Sometimes when we discuss the nuclear deterrent, we forget this is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. If ever deployed, it would end civilisation as we know it. He might not agree, but does he accept that opposition to nuclear weapons is a legitimate, conscientious, and moral position – and one held by most people and nations in the world? Will he and his colleagues stop trying to demean and insult those who legitimately want nothing to do with these evil weapons and want them out of their country and their community?”
In response, Pollard acknowledged the strength of feeling on both sides of the debate, but emphasised the economic and industrial impact of the deterrent programme across the UK – particularly in Scotland.
“I recognise there is a range of views on nuclear weapons. I also recognise there are thousands and thousands of jobs in Scotland that are dependent on supporting our nuclear fleet… not just submarines, but the entire nuclear supply chain through SMEs and large companies across Scotland. Although we may disagree on our views on that, [Mr Wishart] was not speaking for them when he made that point.”
The statement “ one held by most people and nations in the world?“ really, this proves the statement there are non so blind as those who will not see.
The entire western world is very very happy to live under and accept the U.S. nuclear umbrella.. china is building nuclear weapons.indian has nuclear weapons.. so actually most people and nations of the world live under or are attempting to live under a nuclear umbrella..so his view is actually a minority view..
Infact the commonly held view is that” yes it would be lovely to get rid of nuclear weapons.. but you get rid of yours first” the SNP entirely misses the point of evidence base around nuclear weapons and the concept of pax atomica.. the point of large strategic nuclear arsenals is that they prevent nuclear weapons becoming practical weapons of war.. the most dangerous situation is a potential conflict in which one side does not have nuclear weapons or each side only has a handful.. because then someone would use them to try and win..
We know this is true because at that point there were few nuclear weapons and only one side had them or there was massive overmatch and doubts about one side’s strategic capabilities they were used or likelihood of use was always close, WW2, the Korean War was very very close, the Cuban missile crisis was so close because the U.S. had such an overmatch and Russia has poor delivery systems that the US thought it could still at that time possibly win a nuclear war…possibly. The reality is as soon as humans had access to nuclear bombs they dropped them on their enemies in war…until their enemies were equally good at dropping them back.. then we stopped dropping them..MAD is the only proven method of preventing the use of nuclear weapons and so anyone who advocates cutting the nuclear deterrent is mad.
The SNP are often child like in their stance and rely on student politics outside of their core fundamental belief which is simply independence at any cost.
Of course, most reasonable people would love to live in a world without war, without crime, a world where everyone gets along perfectly. But the truth is, that’s a dream, not reality.
In the real world, we need the police. We need a strong armed forces. And yes, we need nuclear weapons, both as a hedge against future threats and as an insurance policy against current ones.
I also believe it should be compulsory for elected politicians to undergo structured education on key areas such as defence, policing, the NHS, and other vital institutions. If, after gaining a proper understanding, they still hold their views – fair enough, that’s democracy. But decisions on national security and public services should be informed, not just ideological.
Re the education on the core structure of our society.. personally I think it should be mandatory education as part of holding suffrage.. the cost of suffrage should be education.. about how countries work, forms of government, types of government, geopolitics etc..
what percentage of the electorate knows: what a fascist, Neo right, libertarian, neo liberal, one nation Tory, traditional liberal, social democrat, socialist or communist actually is… how a health care system works.. what different interpretations of freedom of speech really means.. what are the fundamental differences between liberal democracy, populist democracy and authoritarian states…
Now to be honest these did not really matter so much when we lived in a cohesive society with essentially a single political consensus and a choice of two parties that were not really much different ( when I was young our democracy was about healthy competition and holding to account not true choices around complete direction changes ) but that is not true now.. the electorate are faced with profoundly existential questions.. leaving the EU.. the future of our nation.. Neo right vs Neo liberal, national cohesion vs destruction of the Union.. un regulated freedom of speech vs significant social control and conflict… these are massive questions that I’m not sure out electorate have been fully equipped to make informed choices over.. especially considering our enemies are constantly lobbing political warfare hand grenades to stoke societal collapse ( China does not give a shit about any agenda it just want us to fall apart fighting about something or other, be that the danger of WOKE or fascist or liberals or communists).
That’s a good point, and I would support the idea of a minimum level of civic understanding as a core responsibility tied to the right to vote -not as a barrier, but as part of taking that responsibility seriously.
But let’s be honest: the cultural challenge of shifting society – especially younger generations away from a world of instant gratification (Love Island, TikTok, etc.) and toward meaningful civic engagement feels out of reach for now.
So, I’d start with educating the politicians.
Hi M8 Wow what an idea, just imagine if it was applied across the pond 🤔 The electorate would fit in a phone box and Ex USAFE would be President 🤣
The thought.. personally I think we are so profoundly dismissive of what our suffrage actually means, in reality it’s one of the most important tasks we all have ( apart from raising and protecting the next generation).. we make every child this country study maths, English, science, a foreign language even to 14 art, basic swimming and some form of music.. but we don’t teach the fundamentals of political science to an actual electorate who pick who runs the country, the counties and our towns and villages…. That’s profoundly warped when you think about it..and personally why I think modern western democracies are up shit creak without a paddle.
SNP is in the other side. They will sabotage England but at same time know they have no capacity to go alone without suffering and poverty. So they are waiting for a serious crisis either real or manufactured.
Now, why didn’t Pollard saying something like ‘Nuclear weapons are an abomination. Sadly, our enemies has used the threat of this abomination to try and cow the UK into submission a number of times since 2022. It is only by having nuclear weapons ourselves that nations that threaten us with nuclear devastation will be deterred from carrying out those threats.’
In other words, totally right, evil weapons, but as long as the enemy has them so must we… unilateral disarmament is not a viable option.
It’s always the same with these SNP, CND types.
Always the western democracies who must blink first, Mr Mcdonald?
McDonald’s are always the first to sell a burger to the fascists and communists..🫣
When man first figured out he could pick up a stick or stone to use as a weapon other men followed in order to protect themselves. Nothing has changed in millenia, the sticks and stones have just got bigger. Anyone thinking we can down sticks whilst others don’t is dangerously naive.
It’s Utopians who get the most people killed not Realists.
A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction has saved more lives than all the environmentalists and left wing progressives in the world put together ever have or ever will.
Pax atomica is probably one of the few absolute truths in late 20c geopolitics… ww3 would have happened pretty soon after ww2 without it.. we know this as paradigm of international communism demanded it…
In case anyone asks why we should have nuclear weapons and why we should go to the cost of developing them and deploying them, just as a reminder only yesterday the President of Russia and his foreign and defence secretary all said on record that they wanted to see the UK slide underneath the sea and it might require a little nuclear assistance on its way.
Putin has threatened the UK with nuclear attack no less than 30 times in the last 3 years formally.
Last night on Russian TV their arch propogandarist made a stirring speech to the Russian peasants about how the UK was arming Ukraine and was responsible for the derailing of trains inside Russia “terrorist actions” which were in fact attacks against legitimate targets and that Russia would burn the UK in its entirety to ash using nuclear weapons of unimaginable power and scale and numbers.
The fact we have nuclear weapons is known- we are a permanent member on the UN security council- but we should definetly add additional warheads to our CASD equipping each trident to the maximum number of MIRV payload as well as having secondary air launched nuclear weapons to counter Russia’s battlefield and intermediate range nuclear weaponry which they have deployed widely in contravention of multiple treaties they had signed.
So a real threat- definitely.
A need to have nuclear weapons so we cannot be held to nuclear ransom and threats- definitely
Being prepared to retaliate should Russia deploy a nuclear weapon or other WMD against the UK and its population- definitely our citizens deserve the right to live in peace, free from threats, free from blackmail and with the certainty that if any state attacks us we will retaliate and do unto them as they do unto us.
That is why we have nuclear weapons and I am very very glad we do.
The best retort to that SNP platforming should have been:
.
.
“Correction member, “If ever deployed, it would end THEIR civilisation as THEY know it. (FULLSTOP)””. and then “…The next order of business…”
.
.
It can be fun to rattle one’s cages sometimes 🙃