Comments on: Nick Clegg writes: Yes to multilateral, global disarmament

By: Matthew Harris

Matthew Harris — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:44:23 +0000

I am (still) a floating voter in this contest. Since the 1980s, I have believed that this country should retain its nuclear weapons until they can be “negotiated away” multilaterally, rather than renouncing them unilaterally. That is my gut instinct. Nick Clegg’s stance appears to be closest to what I believe. My frustration with the Huhne camp is that their answer to the question: “If you scrapped Trident, would you (or would you not) replace it with another nuclear weapons system?”, appears to be: “We don’t know.” How can you not know whether or not you want this country to retain nuclear weapons?

By: Veronica Edwards

Veronica Edwards — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:14:50 +0000

As Nick Clegg is not opposed to Trident I shall not be voting for him

By: Geoffrey Payne

Geoffrey Payne — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:12:34 +0000

For the record, the South African government under Nelson Mandella did give up nuclear weapons.
It can be done.
Now on the NPT, what I would like to know is what leverage Britain’s unilateral possession of nuclear weapons will have in persuading the USA, China, France, Isreal, Pakistan, India, China and North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons?
I think the answer is none at all.
To to claim that if you support replacing Trident that makes you a multilateralist is pure spin. It really means you are committed to having nuclear weapons forever.
And that of course is a tragic waste of resources when the real security threats come from global warming and international terrorism. It is hard to conceive that these weapons will have any deterrence effect at all. Compare and contrast with Iran with potential nuclear threats from Isreal, USA and Pakistan.
How can we say we can have them, with no threat from anyone, and Iran cannot?
We should stop being hyprocrites and get rid of Trident and not replace it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 22:49:06 +0000

I have to say. This is EXACTLY what I thought the Huhne campaign would do. Cheap policy announcements. It’s the only way he might sneak it and it shows just why it would be a mistake to vote for him. I know where my vote is going.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:57:48 +0000

Being a unilateralist is determined by your DNA??? That’s rather racist!

By: Denis Loretto

Denis Loretto — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:12:00 +0000

As I see it Chris is (sensibly – in view of the long timescale) not committing himself as to what should replace Trident. He is quite clearly retaining the option of not replacing it with another so-called independent nuclear deterrent at all. What he is ruling out now is renewal of a Trident-type deterrent and giving very cogent reasons for this.

By: Peter Bancroft

Peter Bancroft — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:41:41 +0000

Well Chris does say that unless things change he wants a new type of nuclear weapon.

Why is that different?

By: Mick Taylor

Mick Taylor — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:27:21 +0000

Come off it all of you. It’s simple. No major power has ever given up nuclear weapons. Nuclear disarmament has to start somewhere. No-one has ever shown that the UK would be a less safe place without weapons of mass destruction. I’m with Chris Huhne on this. Trident is expensive, dangerous and should be scrapped. All this talk about broken cricket bats is hogwash. We could lead the disarmament process and take a moral stance.

I will not vote for any candidate who even suggests there is a case for replacing Trident.

By: James

James — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:26:08 +0000

On the issue of multi-lateralism and the subject of negotiations, I think it would help if we pointed out our support for global governance systems, such as through the (cumbersome) structures of the UN.

Neither candidate supports ‘going it alone’, but both know they want to get away from the aggressive bullying stance which asks for a fight, and which would be frighteningly destructive.

Because you can’t make the world suddenly safe, it makes sense to get there gradually.

I’m not going to go on about the candidates because this is an issue which shouldn’t be allowed to become divisive: they should agree.

If we are serious about our prospects then issues which are this serious should be a matter of negotiation, not debate.

By: Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:58:28 +0000

Geoffrey – given that he mentioned the 2010 talks on the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty three times, I would assume we’ll be talking to the states who will be at the 2010 talks on the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty?

That would include at a minimum the four most significant other nuclear powers: USA, Russia, China and France.

Also Iran will be there.

Maybe that’s too simplistic? Maybe there’s some nuance of this I haven’t grasped? Never mind. What I do know is that both candidates have committed today to retain Trident until the talks in 2010, to try to negotiate away our nuclear deterrent in exchange for other nations disarming, and to retain a nuclear deterrent after that date if the outcome of the talks is unsatisfactory.

In fact, the only thing they disagree on is the nature of that continuing deterrent, if it is needed after 2010.

So who is doing the “spinning” here?

Let’s ignore for a second that Clegg’s article here has raised some serious concerns about the detail of Huhne’s stance that he has yet to answer satisfactorily – what really irks me is that Huhne is using the rhetoric of unilateral disarmament to paint a picture of a view he simply doesn’t hold.

Let me make it clear that I am by no means a unilateralist. I have no problem with existing party policy on this matter. But Liberal Democrats do not like to have their intelligence insulted, and that’s how I’m feeling about Huhne’s campaign at the moment.

By: Geoffrey Payne

Geoffrey Payne — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:11:50 +0000

You are wrong because despite the spin, similar to what we saw at the party conference, the policy Clegg supports is to replace Trident.
No one has said who we are supposed to “multilaterally” negotiate with, so I think that term is a smokescreen. However I am more than happy for someone to write in and say specifically who we are supposed to negotiate with.

By: I don't get it

I don't get it — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:56:48 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong:

1. Huhne says replace Trident with a smaller and cheaper nuclear system although doesn’t say how/what/when/where.

2. Clegg says cut Trident in half and negotaite away the rest if possible, replacing Trident if appears necessary after negotiation.

I’d say Clegg has most radical disarming position.

Having said that no-one here to vote for if you want to ‘ban the bomb’ although Clegg comes nearest as Huhne is pledged to replace while Clegg isn’t

By: Geoffrey Payne

Geoffrey Payne — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:58:09 +0000

I would like to ask Nick Clegg who specifically are we negotiating with in order to “multilaterally” disarm?
I do not see how replacing Trident, something he implicitly supports although says little about in his spin actually supports the Non-Poliferation Treaty. Surely it gives other countries a pretext to have their own nuclear weapons, the opposite of what the NPT intends?
After all, the UK does not have an obvious enermy with which to point the weapons at. Countries like Iran have both Isreal and Pakistan as enermies that could use nuclear weapons against them. Logically they have a far better reason to have nuclear weapons than we do.
Historically the Liberal party has been opposed to an independent nuclear deterrent, going back to Jo Grimond, because it is a form of unilateralism; having nuclear weapons independent of Nato.
And why should the Liberal Democrats commit themselves to spending billions to counter a tiny theoretical possibility that a dangerous enermy may be deterred from UK nuclear weapons when there is a far greater threat to our security being posed by global warming?
Today the Warsaw Pact is history and both Nato and the UK no longer need nuclear weapons. To unilaterally have nuclear weapons under the pretext that we will multilaterally get rid of them is a nonsense. In reality it will mean if we support this philosophy that we will always have nuclear weapons.
Clegg’s position completely lacks imagination, and we saw how the SNP benfitted from the Lib Dem fudge in the Scottish elections recently.
Huhne has similar questions to answer, from my point of view, but at least he is committed to spending less money.

By: Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:30:28 +0000

Instant reaction – that makes a hell of a lot more sense than what I was going to write on the matter! Mr. Clegg certainly has a disarming turn of phrase (groan)…

I had up to now assumed that Huhne was winning the debate on Trident – now I’m not at all sure.

Both candidates have now said they are multilateralists during this leadership contest, so there is little ideological difference – but ultimately will it come down to which candidate has the more mature and sensible policy, or which one uses the more rhetoric?

Let’s see what Chris will come up with for his piece…