I have now read Dr Lewis's essay [1], Charles Moore's article in the Telegraph [2] and Matthew Parris's article [3].
Lewis and Moore are right if Trident and its successor are ours to use if we want to.
But Matthew Parris raises the possibility of occasions where we might want to use them and the Americans not let us. In which case they're not really ours.
Which is it?
[1] http://www.julianlewis.net/local_news_detail.php?id=64
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1K2XH1RCQVKABQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2007/03/03/do0301.xml
[3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article657423.ece
Posted by: David Moss | 19 Mar 2007 22:09:19
How did I manage to forget to mention Simon Jenkins's article on Trident [4]:
Trident is like the Olympic games or ID cards, projects whose mindless extravagance stretching beyond parliaments puts them out of reach of sane value-for-money accounting. They demand a quasi-religious "justification by faith", supported by a baying priesthood of weapons contractors, publicists and BAE lobbyists. Trident worshippers are a mystical freemasonry, seemingly obsessed with priapic enhancement and ancestor worship. Their concern is with prestige, not with defence.
[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2033133,00.html
Posted by: David Moss | 20 Mar 2007 11:49:15