The myth of nuclear deterance.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/29/tories-lib-dems-trident

 Philip Hammond announces go ahead for nuclear deterrent replacement before review completed

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond.

£1 billion deal paves the way for Trident nuclear deterrent replacement

The myth of the "independent nuclear deterrent" gets another breath of life blown into it by Hammond's decisions to award a further multimillion-pound contract for a new generation of nuclear missile submarines, clearly signposting plans to press ahead with a replacement for Trident. Since the 1980's, and even before then,  there are those of us who have argued that the "deterrent" is not independent (as we have to obtain launch codes before we can use it) and it does not deter as was demonstrated by the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands to name but one example. The "threat" is an empty one now and always has been. However, successive war mongering governments have played up the threat, first from the Eastern block, then from radicalised Arab nations, now from rouge former states of the USSR. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. A 5 megaton weapon, (or any other size in fact) does not and will not deter Al Qaeda. As a further justification, the secretary of State for defence, from Thorneycroft in 1964 through Mulley in the 1970's to Hammond, today's incumbent, have hinted at the positive effect that this policy has on employment in the United Kingdom, safeguarding thousands of jobs in the defence and associated industries. The expenditure of £ billions on a myth, seems a touch extravagant, particularly at these times of austerity. There are numerous other ways to safeguard jobs in this country, and the sums of money earmarked for the submarines and Trident could be put to far better use. Spending huge sums  on a fallacy is an exorbitant way for politicians to justify their position, or even their existence.