Views (cont'd): Nuclear; military
Sep. 3rd, 2017 09:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mtbcControversial though it is, I am in favor of Trident, the UK's submarine-based nuclear deterrent. Perhaps I am colored by my years of working for the US Department of Defense because I am in favor of military spending in general, though perhaps of a more Iranian-style self-sufficient form. I do not trust alliances to last and I expect climate change and other coming stresses to greatly challenge international relations. I fear that maintaining a credible military remains a long-term necessity and I am mindful of the effort and luck that made the UK one of the few recognized nuclear powers. Having inherited position as a former great power, what the UK gives up now it may not easily regain.
I consider disarmament a fantasy: speaking of Iran, I recall Boris Johnson's half-joking remark that perhaps the UK ought to just give them fission bomb technology because they are going to get it someday and when they do it would probably be good if the UK is on good terms with them; the Israelis may differ. We can retard proliferation and encourage responsible weapons management but I do not foresee any meaningful regression in nuclear capability. This is one reason why I favor space exploration: it may be imprudent for our species to rely on advanced civilization being sustainable on Earth.
Trident is expensive and in general I am in favor of self-sufficiency not only for strategic reasons but to help retain money and expertise within the national economy. As with the American focus on dual-use technologies, I would very much like military spending to support national research centers and domestic skilled industries. It is unnecessary to lead the world in military technology but I expect that the UK is at least able to not lag far behind. I would like to think that the UK can learn to produce its own adequate nuclear missiles and that, in the long run and counting indirect benefits in supporting local industry, it may be cheaper to do so, especially given the waste in the US defense industry. Further, I fear that austerity in UK military spending may unconscionably underresource the armed forces given that so much is and may need to be asked of them.
I have little idea how well these supposed indirect benefits would appreciably assist the domestic economy. I would hope that they go quite some way because I am also mostly opposed to international trade in arms, highly profitable though it may be. I can see it for small arms and their ilk but, for instance, not for advanced offensive missile systems. Most nations that feel to me like morally justifiable customers are able to design and manufacture their own hardware, though I do favor the Taiwan Relations Act.
In terms of dual-use technologies, while renewable energy is to be encouraged, certainly more than the present Conservative government has, my guess is that the UK needs nuclear power for decades yet. That is another reason to develop domestic capability in nuclear engineering. I thus object to the Hinkley Point C project in which foreign businesses play key roles in the domestic construction of a nuclear power plant of a rather old design.
I consider disarmament a fantasy: speaking of Iran, I recall Boris Johnson's half-joking remark that perhaps the UK ought to just give them fission bomb technology because they are going to get it someday and when they do it would probably be good if the UK is on good terms with them; the Israelis may differ. We can retard proliferation and encourage responsible weapons management but I do not foresee any meaningful regression in nuclear capability. This is one reason why I favor space exploration: it may be imprudent for our species to rely on advanced civilization being sustainable on Earth.
Trident is expensive and in general I am in favor of self-sufficiency not only for strategic reasons but to help retain money and expertise within the national economy. As with the American focus on dual-use technologies, I would very much like military spending to support national research centers and domestic skilled industries. It is unnecessary to lead the world in military technology but I expect that the UK is at least able to not lag far behind. I would like to think that the UK can learn to produce its own adequate nuclear missiles and that, in the long run and counting indirect benefits in supporting local industry, it may be cheaper to do so, especially given the waste in the US defense industry. Further, I fear that austerity in UK military spending may unconscionably underresource the armed forces given that so much is and may need to be asked of them.
I have little idea how well these supposed indirect benefits would appreciably assist the domestic economy. I would hope that they go quite some way because I am also mostly opposed to international trade in arms, highly profitable though it may be. I can see it for small arms and their ilk but, for instance, not for advanced offensive missile systems. Most nations that feel to me like morally justifiable customers are able to design and manufacture their own hardware, though I do favor the Taiwan Relations Act.
In terms of dual-use technologies, while renewable energy is to be encouraged, certainly more than the present Conservative government has, my guess is that the UK needs nuclear power for decades yet. That is another reason to develop domestic capability in nuclear engineering. I thus object to the Hinkley Point C project in which foreign businesses play key roles in the domestic construction of a nuclear power plant of a rather old design.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-03 11:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-03 02:46 pm (UTC)Partly I like Trident as being the only fundable excuse we have at the moment for maintaining and improving expertise in nuclear bombs. Peacetime uses for nuclear weapons might seem unconvincing, from nuking the Deepwater Horizon site to stop the oil leak, to the earlier idea to use nukes to excavate a railway through mountains in California. I do think that nuclear weapons will end up being useful in the long term, in space and whatnot, not that I am holding my breath for the UK to even still exist by the time we get around to a Project Orion spacecraft. At least I think the ESA is separate from the EU so Brexit may not harm UK participation there.
I agree about the sort of people who might use a nuke on the UK but I'd caution that the future is full of surprises and after giving up Trident it may be hard to reverse if that turns out to have been a bad idea.