THE TRIDENT DECISION

On the front webpage of Green peace’s anti-nuclear section, stands a frail picture of a young child. Her hands straighten out across her thighs, her sunken face skewed slightly to the left side of her shoulders, her shirt tucked stridently to the her long shorts .The message is simple: it aims to spread the message of what it believes to be the evil of nuclear materials on environment and humanity.

At the age of three, Nastya from Belarus was diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and lungs in the infamous disaster in the defunct Soviet Union at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986. It spurred radioactive contamination across a wide geographic expanse including Britain. By the side of the page is an anti-nuclear triumph news: ‘Sweden closes nuclear plants over nuclear fears’.

Britain’s recent decision to acquire submarines and extend the life of its Trident missles has drawn great sighs of disappointment from people who regard it as a lost opportunity for an industrialized nation to lead the way in halting nuclear usage.
Greenpeace—which began campaigning since 1971 against environmental degradation—was one of the many voices against any attempt to increase nuclear capabilities. It holds an unforgiving stance on nuclear materials and doesn’t mince words about its effects and what it considers-- deceptions that trail it. It even barks against using nuclear power plants for electricity. It says that nuclear power stations ‘contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade.’

Ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko fate after ingesting radioactive isotope polonium 210, has sparked debate about the usefulness of WMDs, consisting of radiological, bacteriological, biological and nuclear materials. The debates rages whether acquiring submarines for Trident—and extend its life—is necessary.

According the Federation of American Scientists, The Trident D5 missile is a three-stage solid-fuel rocket approximately 13 meters long, over two meters in diameter and weighing 60 tons.

Gordon Brown, the chancellor, widely believed to be the next Prime Minister has thrown his weight behind the project. Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke has expressed sceptism about the move. The Liberal democrats say that nuclear capability should be shed by half. The Conservatives back retaining nuclear weapons. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has been a staunch vanguard for the new-generation capabilities; urging the need for independent deterrence in Britain.

Britain’s history of nuclear weaponry started in the second world war when it worked on the development of Atomic bombs under the cover name of Tube Alloys but later as a partner of American Manhattan Project .

Britain had its first nuclear weapon in 1940 and tested its first nuclear weapon on October 2,1950.Britain became a nuclear power in 1952. In total Britain has made 45 detonations. In 1968 Britain became a signatory to the NPT.It is believed to have a current nuclear stockpile of 200 warheads, a shortfall from 300 in the 1970s.

Many point to an imperilled world strewn apart by many security concerns as the reason for a strong nuclear deterrence .But the economic costs is another factor many point to. The billions spent acquiring new generation nuclear deterrence can be put to other useful purposes. The world is already choking with destructive weapons from countries like America and Russia, they say.

Faced with global counterparts like America and France keen on furthering their nuclear interests Britain may not be willing to stay out.

Many point to the deterrent advantages and the continued role Britain plays on the international stage, being militarily involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. Others stress the ecological aspects of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear proliferation is another grave concern for many. Allowing rogue states like Iran acquire nuclear weapons poses a grave threat to the Middle East and the wider world. Pronouncements by the Iranian ruler, urging the destruction of Israel adds great substance to these fears. America has been in the forefront of checkmating attempts to transfer WMDs to deadly hands. In the past, nuclear technology has seeped away from Pakistan to rogue elements. Pakistan’s nuclear scientist, A Q Khan tried to sell the country’s nuclear programme to Iran.

Ownership of nuclear weapons is seen as an easy route to importance on the world stage.

Some countries have acquired or were in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons but finally signed the Nuclear proliferation treaty: South Africa,Belarus,Kazakhstan,Ukraine,Australia,Austria,Argentina,Brazil,Egypt,Germany,Iraq,Japan,Libya,Poland,Romania,Sweden,Switzerland.The Republic of China(Taiwan),Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Nuclear capable states include Lithuania, Japan and Italy who generate electricity through nuclear energy and can convert to nuclear weaponry in few years.

Some say that being in the nuclear club draws a special respect from America. They point to ties America has with nuclear countries as evidence.

In the face of growing hostilities, is it really desirable to shed off nuclear capabilities? Nuclear technology can be put to useful civilian purposes like the production of electricity. In the wake of the 2005 London terrorist attacks that killed 54 people calls for increase in nuclear deterrence has gained a lot currency.

As nuclear technology becomes open to countries fears heighten about the future of the world. Last month, North Korea officially became a nuclear weapon state when it detonated a small plutonium bomb during an underground test.

The president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko said on Friday that his country plans to build a nuclear power plant to ease energy imports. Saudi Arabia has recently indicated interest in nuclear technology.

Amid a highly expected white paper on December 4, Tony Blair highlighted the need for the new submarines that would cost between £15 to £20 billion.The life of Trident missiles would also be extended to 2042. He said that it was vital for national security in the face of country involved in nuclear terrorism.

‘The government's judgment, on balance, is that though the Cold War is over, we cannot be certain in the decades ahead that a major nuclear threat to our strategic interests will not emerge; that there is also a new and potentially hazardous threat from states such as North Korea which claims already to have developed nuclear weapons or Iran which is in breach of its non-proliferation duties; that there is a possible connection between some of those states and international terrorism; that it is noteworthy that no present nuclear power is or is even considering divesting itself of its nuclear capability unilaterally; and that in these circumstances, it would be unwise and dangerous for Britain, alone of any of the nuclear powers, to give up its independent nuclear deterrent,’ Tony Blair said in parliament.

Having new-generation nuclear capability may serve as a deterrent but perhaps other pacifist routes may do. Having a strong nuclear capability may have great advantages. An Israel constantly in the throes of terrorism in the Middle East holds a lot of grounds with its nuclear arsenals as well as potential pre-emptive strikes against enemy targets or nuclear build-ups.