A report from House of Commons Defence Committee was launched today, asking a lot of hard questions about the continued relevance of nuclear weapons as a tool for building global security. One piece in the Guardian describe the report as 'hard hitting' (Richard Norton Taylor) and Kate Hudson , Chair of CND says the report 'bristles with rage at the government. It inveighs against the Ministry of Defence's refusal to give evidence'. Kate Hudson concludes: 'It can only be hoped that this report, added to widespread public and parliamentary pressure, will enable an outbreak of democracy to take place. In a recent ICM poll commissioned by CND, 81% said that they thought the decision should be made by parliament.'
In a longer informative and analytical piece on Open Democracy, Paul Rogers writes: 'In the coming weeks and months there may well be a debate on plans to replace Trident - Britain's submarine-carrying ballistic nuclear-weapons system - and it is probable that Labour will, in due course, make its decision. There could be some discussion in parliament and there might even be a vote, though few doubt the outcome. "Middle England" will no doubt remain comforted by Britain preserving its civilised, semi-great-power status by retaining the capacity to kill tens of millions of people'. - now that's getting to the nub of the matter.
Paul Rogers concludes his piece thus: ' Although the publicly acknowledged "declaratory" policy remains one of "last resort" use of nuclear weapons, the "deployment" policy involves the idea of nuclear war-fighting that fall far short of responding to nuclear attach on Britain. This is the long-standing reality. It could certainly liven up the forthcoming debate on replacing Trident if this enduring feature of Britain's nculear-weapons policy got a really thorough airing.'
