Last night house of commons voted to renew Trident UK nuclear deterrence.    Debate around Trident has been rather simplistic with public media failing to inform or educate on the subject. Nuclear deterrence requires parliament to exercise unlimited sovereignty.  Government decided that giving house of commons vote on the subject means future governments can’t undo that decision.  Shows you that for some matters parliamentary sovereignty is all powerful.  Ministers have been avoiding the subject for some time now kicking the can into the long grass.  Last night House Of Commons decided to stop kicking and start digging.  Just because you win the argument once does not mean the debate is over.  Devil is in the detail with that have some questions still over Trident.

Questions

• Why have ministers not exercised right to make decisions without parliament?
• Why the delay if the decision was important?
• Why was it not taken sooner?
• Which is more important hard power or soft?
• UK influence based on military strength?
• Trident flexile for future threats?
• Likely future targets or targets in general?
• Does Trident require parliament before firing?
• Situations which make Trident worth keeping without use?
• UK power linked to Trident when other states don’t have nuclear weapons but same influence on global stage?
• Why are these jobs more important compared to others cut due to spending constraints?
• Wise to spend 6% of defense spending on one giant project?

Jobs

• Total number of jobs connected to the program?
• Total number of jobs directly connected to the program?
• Total number of jobs directly connected by the supply chain?
• Total number of jobs which could be relocated to other roles?

Most likely more questions around the whole subject.  Personal thoughts on the subject yet to hear convincing argument for keeping cold war relic. Argument comes down to idiom ‘Keeping up with the joneses’.   Don’t believe Trident is flexible enough for modern world.   Do find it rather frustrating the jobs argument given fiscal spending decline which reduced jobs in public sector.   Being honest feel this only reason behind not scraping the project.  However curious if jobs can’t be transferred with supply chain focused on other roles.  Plus curious how many United Kingdom based jobs are linked with Trident.

Would like to see Trident scaled back with clear plan on ditching nuclear weapons with money spent on other defense projects.  Jobs program designed to keep as many jobs as possible linked.  Willing to show pragmatism when comes to Trident.  Against nuclear weapons in general but understand nobody wants to cut jobs.  Current government has cut jobs in the past for no good reason.