Trident replacement

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of replacing Trident, our nuclear deterrent. The thought that we might wish to obliterate 100,000 people or more is something I personally would abhor, and I think the church should too. But there are practical reasons why one should oppose this move. Can we think of any situation within the lifetime of the replacement when we would actually use it? And if we are not going to use it, spending on conventional armaments is likely to be much more effective. And think about the political effect of retaining it against the political effect of giving it up. If we do not give up Trident, what hope is there for nuclear disarmament, ever? I think we would be safer without it than with it.

Whatever the outcome, I think the issue should be debated, in Parliament and on the streets and in church. To go ahead with the replacement without a debate would be nothing short of scandalous. We need to get a message across to our politicians and I for one feel that it is 'Not in my name'.