Theresa May's second husband: Trident
A belief in unilateral nuclear disarmament for moral reasons is an unfounded belief that puts the lives of every person living on this grey old island at risk. A belief in multilateral nuclear disarmament, however, is just as unfounded. The cold war between Russia and the United States that started more than half a century ago is ongoing, and the matchup between their nuclear arsenals (and that of upcoming superpowers such as China) does not falter. The sad truth is that the numbers alone tell a story of a bleak future. Our future will be one where mutually assured destruction is always a risk, no matter how petite that risk may be. Given that, why bother to oppose Trident? If the American stockpile is worth holding onto, why not the same for the United Kingdom? In complete honesty, it can be proven; all you need is A2 Economics, basic political theory, and the omnipresent Prisoner’s Dilemma (Cooperation Problem).
To further explain why nuclear winter will never cease to be a risk, we need to discuss why unilateral nuclear disarmament is so foolish. It’s best explained with the most vintage example, the same one that explains why communism doesn’t work, or why you never leave freshly baked goods out in your flat. If Chris Grayling, the new Transport Secretary, sets up a new, extended bus network that’s so reliable and efficient that everyone takes buses everywhere, and Theresa May’s husband Philip is the last one yet to ride his bus to work, what will he do? The straightforward answer is that he will ask his wife very politely (she’s not exactly the warmest) to take the car. Given that he is the only one driving a car, he faces a very smooth journey to work. Unfortunately, given the same opportunity, everyone takes the car in an attempt to take advantage of the lack of traffic brought on bus mass transit, rendering Grayling’s lovely bus offering obsolete and creating mass traffic – even though everyone would be better off if they all took the bus.
The world still has stockpiles of nuclear weapons, because if either the United States or Russia chose to immediately disarm theirs, there would be a risk of nuclear fallout. Hardly as grave as the bus problem from earlier, but nevertheless – unilateral disarmament poses such a high risk that for a superpower it would simply never come to pass. However, most should now admit that the United Kingdom, now largely independent of all its redeeming features (EU membership, the Scottish, Top Gear) is a superpower no longer. Why, then, hold onto Trident?
Why indeed? Let’s talk about economies of scale. The United States, a country with roughly 7 times as many warheads as the United Kingdom, is likely to pay only 4 times as much to maintain them (~£20 billion per year for 1481 warheads, in comparison to ~£5 billion for the UK’s 225). Therefore, if the United Kingdom simply requested to purchase a portion of the United States’ future arsenal, they would pay less on a favourable deal. While this seems an outlandish interpretation of the ‘special relationship’ that in fact probably forced Trident’s creation, it could still work, in more peaceful times. Given that the United States’ stockpile is slowly reducing (like everyone else’s), the opportunity for the UK to simply buy control of a portion could well be there. The sense in this point is that Trident would be a sensible choice if it were cheaper and more effective, but it fails this distinction.
Finally, a choice to maintain Trident is obviously a choice to maintain Britain’s status as a powerful nation. This is probably the same logic that North Korea used when they decided to expand their nuclear capacity. North Korea, while very patriotic indeed, shows that populism doesn’t make you a good country. It’s wise policy decisions that do. Unfortunately, while superior alternatives to Trident do exist – and there are many risks to do with keeping it – it remains the most popular solution to a non-existent problem, much like a trouser press, or a piece of novelty silicon bakeware.
In summary, we embrace Trident because we recognise it is important that the UK remains protected from external threats. Is this not ignoring the abnormal dangers of modern world? ISIS, Boko Haram, Boris Johnson – none use traditional methods to threaten liberal democracy. Furthermore, what kind of person would you have to be to be willing to push the nuclear button and kill thousands without a second thought?
Theresa May, apparently.
Oh.
To further explain why nuclear winter will never cease to be a risk, we need to discuss why unilateral nuclear disarmament is so foolish. It’s best explained with the most vintage example, the same one that explains why communism doesn’t work, or why you never leave freshly baked goods out in your flat. If Chris Grayling, the new Transport Secretary, sets up a new, extended bus network that’s so reliable and efficient that everyone takes buses everywhere, and Theresa May’s husband Philip is the last one yet to ride his bus to work, what will he do? The straightforward answer is that he will ask his wife very politely (she’s not exactly the warmest) to take the car. Given that he is the only one driving a car, he faces a very smooth journey to work. Unfortunately, given the same opportunity, everyone takes the car in an attempt to take advantage of the lack of traffic brought on bus mass transit, rendering Grayling’s lovely bus offering obsolete and creating mass traffic – even though everyone would be better off if they all took the bus.
The world still has stockpiles of nuclear weapons, because if either the United States or Russia chose to immediately disarm theirs, there would be a risk of nuclear fallout. Hardly as grave as the bus problem from earlier, but nevertheless – unilateral disarmament poses such a high risk that for a superpower it would simply never come to pass. However, most should now admit that the United Kingdom, now largely independent of all its redeeming features (EU membership, the Scottish, Top Gear) is a superpower no longer. Why, then, hold onto Trident?
Why indeed? Let’s talk about economies of scale. The United States, a country with roughly 7 times as many warheads as the United Kingdom, is likely to pay only 4 times as much to maintain them (~£20 billion per year for 1481 warheads, in comparison to ~£5 billion for the UK’s 225). Therefore, if the United Kingdom simply requested to purchase a portion of the United States’ future arsenal, they would pay less on a favourable deal. While this seems an outlandish interpretation of the ‘special relationship’ that in fact probably forced Trident’s creation, it could still work, in more peaceful times. Given that the United States’ stockpile is slowly reducing (like everyone else’s), the opportunity for the UK to simply buy control of a portion could well be there. The sense in this point is that Trident would be a sensible choice if it were cheaper and more effective, but it fails this distinction.
Finally, a choice to maintain Trident is obviously a choice to maintain Britain’s status as a powerful nation. This is probably the same logic that North Korea used when they decided to expand their nuclear capacity. North Korea, while very patriotic indeed, shows that populism doesn’t make you a good country. It’s wise policy decisions that do. Unfortunately, while superior alternatives to Trident do exist – and there are many risks to do with keeping it – it remains the most popular solution to a non-existent problem, much like a trouser press, or a piece of novelty silicon bakeware.
In summary, we embrace Trident because we recognise it is important that the UK remains protected from external threats. Is this not ignoring the abnormal dangers of modern world? ISIS, Boko Haram, Boris Johnson – none use traditional methods to threaten liberal democracy. Furthermore, what kind of person would you have to be to be willing to push the nuclear button and kill thousands without a second thought?
Theresa May, apparently.
Oh.
Comments
Post a Comment