Debates & Lectures archive

Ethical questions were at the heart of an informed and lively exchange as much as monetary concerns, as speakers disagreed over the moral philosophy of a continuing nuclear deterrent.

QUENTIN LETTS was ‘troubled by Trident’ and its £24 billion cost, opining that politicians would ‘waste it on something else’ if not on Trident. Most people lose any sense of scale when the conversation turns to billions.

We cannot scrap Trident, he admitted, but we can question the
decision to continue with it. In order to buy Trident weapons, we are borrowing billions of pounds from our supposed predators; rather than aiming missiles at our foes, we should, he said, respond with culture and truth.

BERNARD JENKIN viewed a commitment to Trident as an
investment, yet admitted that defence spending was never popular in peacetime. Britain’s sixth-largest world economy imparts a great responsibility for the influence we must bear in the world.

Sustaining a Trident programme to 2025 would cost between £1.6 and £2 billion a year, he said. Cancelling such a programme would cost billions too, so yes, we can easily afford Trident. We have no choice as we trade a high proportion of our GNP; we are under a moral obligation to promote peace and stability – to defend our children – and to guard against what the world might become in 30 years’ time.