Keeping Trident

[poliphilo]

The first thing one has to understand is just how vulnerable the powerful feel themselves to be. 

After all, they're no different from you and me and look how paranoid we are and with much less reason.

They're all of them, always, just one cat-call away from falling to pieces. 

They're like prey animals animals foraging out in the open. A moving shadow, a rustle in the bushes and they take fright and run.

Or maybe freeze and bare their teeth or roll into a ball and show their prickles.

Poor sweethearts.  Poor, fuzzy, little, fluffy things. Poor, fuzzy, little, fluffy things that have to pretend to the world and even to themselves that they're actually lions. 

Of course they have their territory. That's something. Their comfort zone. They have it all marked out.  It's not where they feel safe- because they never feel safe- but it's where they feel safer.  

So imagine how freaked they get when something in this landscape changes- when something is added or taken away. They barely understand the world as it is- can barely cope with it-  so please, please don't switch things round on them.

Take our rabbits.  We move an item of furniture, drop something on the floor and they immediately have to go all round the room, snuffling at the familiar landmarks, making sure they still know where they are.

And that's why the British Government is determined to keep Trident. At the most basic level it's not about fear of some hypothetical enemy,  It's about fear of suddenly finding oneself in an unfamiliar landscape and not knowing  where the burrow is.

Comments

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

Yup. Exactly. I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with that, though.

Does landscape change = North Korea or Iran with ICBMs?

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

The nuclear genie has been out of the bottle too long. Couple that with the very real certainty that states with (shall we say) less than stable governments are actively pursuing nuclear technology, and it's easier to understand why anyone is reluctant to give up even a redundant weapons system.

[jenny_evergreen]

Excessively well put. Thanks. *saves*

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

What's wrong with it is that Government is always working to an outdated paradigm- embracing yesterday's political science, fighting yesterday's war.

Re: Does landscape change = North Korea or Iran with ICBMs?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

A counter argument is that we can hardly preach against nuclear proliferation when we're updating our own systems.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Cheers!

Re: Does landscape change = North Korea or Iran with ICBMs?

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

Oh, I make no excuses for that. It's certainly a "do as I say, not as I do" brand of politics. I'm merely saying that in a world where some states' behavior seems to indicate their belief that they have nothing to lose in an arms race/global thermonuclear war, other states are all the more reluctant to lead by example when it comes to disarmament.

Re: Does landscape change = North Korea or Iran with ICBMs?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not suggesting the USA should disarm, because I know she won't, but mightn't it be interesting if a minor nuclear power like Britain were to opt out? It would be something that hasn't happened before and it could change the weather. On a purely parochial note it would mean that the billions of pounds that are going to be spent on the upgrading of trident could be spent on all sorts of other more worthwhile things.

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

Well, so are my adrenal glands. I think this is the way humans (if not animals) work.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

That's true. But does it have to be?

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

It's what we default to. I don't think I could find it in me to blame someone (or some government) for not being better than that. How can we expect governments to be better than the people who comprise them?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Good point. And I don't suppose I really expect any better- just hope- wildly.

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

You are an optimist.:) And sometimes humanity triumphs. Just not often.

[ibid.livejournal.com]

In some senses I'm reassured. Trident could destroy the world. Full stop, there is no way anyone in their right mind could even begin to concieve of using it. If we partially disarmed, then there might be a temptation to use the weapons (let's face it I think we can rule out full disarmamanet)
Frankly we should be arguing about the money as much as anything. I think it is £200 a second to run!

God knows why we are still in the cold war MAD (best acronym ever!) mindset.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It amazes and infuriates me that the Government can always find money for things like this- and, of course- for all the wars it gets us embroiled in.