CND has welcomed the call from the Church of England for a proper debate on Trident replacement.
In a letter ahead of the general election in May, church leaders called for a ‘fresh moral vision’ from Britain’s politicians. On Trident, the letter states that ‘shifts in the global strategic realities mean that the traditional arguments for nuclear deterrence need re-examining.’ It continues: ‘The presence of such destructive capacity pulls against any international sense of shared community. But such is the talismanic power of nuclear weaponry that few politicians seem willing to trust the electorate with a real debate about the military capacity we need in the world of today.’
CND’s General Secretary Kate Hudson said:
‘Such an intervention from the Church of England is a welcome step in the public debate over Trident replacement. Millions of people from all walks of life in the UK oppose plans to squander over £100 billion on a Cold War weapons system. Nuclear weapons threaten indiscriminate killing while failing to address the real security challenges facing the UK, like terrorism, cyber warfare and climate change.
‘The British public wants to see a fully functioning NHS, living wages and the end of “foodbank Britain” – not a backward-looking political establishment that thinks peace and prosperity is won down the barrel of a gun, while the most vulnerable in our society are kicked to the kerb.
‘The Parliament elected in May will take the final decision on whether or not to replace Trident. It is now or never for candidates seeking election to realise how deeply unpopular it is to spend £100bn on a strategically outdated, morally repulsive and economically catastrophic totem of Cold War paranoia.’
The full Church of England statement on Trident reads:
‘The sheer scale of indiscriminate destructive power represented by nuclear weapons such as Trident was only justifiable, if at all, by appeal to the principle of mutually assured destruction. For many, including many Christians, that in itself was a deeply problematic argument, although there were also many who were prepared to live with the strategy because it appeared to secure peace and save lives. Shifts in the global strategic realities mean that the traditional arguments for nuclear deterrence need re-examining. The presence of such destructive capacity pulls against any international sense of shared community. But such is the talismanic power of nuclear weaponry that few politicians seem willing to trust the electorate with a real debate about the military capacity we need in the world of today.’