Money for old iron

They are, yet again, debating whether this country should update its nuclear deterrent. So the obvious question is, do we need such a deterrent. Now before anyone does a knee jerk response of an answer to that you clearly need to ask the question of who would we be deterring from doing what. The fact we have long had the ability to kill vast numbers of people by using nuclear weapons, and use that as a deterrent to stop them doing the same to us, begs the same question. 

To that there used to be the traditional answer of, those on the other side of the cold war iron curtain. That has long gone though the weapons and prejudices remain. So who or what have we been deterring since the fall of the old enemies, if that is what they were. I would suggest no one and I do not think we ever did deter anyone who might have attacked us. Either those old "foes" or any other more recent foe. In the wars we have fought since the end of WW2 I am not aware that our possession of a nuclear deterrent had any impact on any of those we were fighting. So much for the theory of deterrence. Did that power ever get us any of the advantages in other parts of the world we had interests in, no. It seems like it was effectively useless for its supposed role, all it amounted to was a waved boast of alleged, and now only historically meaningless, prestige. Of those countries who, by their apparent policies and behavior, pose a threat to others would/does our nuclear weapons have any impact on them, seemingly only in them wanting to be the same as countries like us in having them. They want to join a club with some very unwelcome implications, a club we should never have got into, with some terrible responsibilities, and one that we should get out of right now and use the money saved to some better and constructive ends.

Why do we need what we have? Why do we need to replace what we don't need?  

Nationalism

I suppose I am in the right place, Belfast, to talk about nationalism and why I detest it so much. Clearly I know we all desire and probably need some sense of identity and belonging, but this so often is enlarged and perverted to a definition of boundaries and a consequent exclusion to all those not of your "type." Of course "type" definitions can mean all sorts of classifications, from class, colour, religion, to more ethereal categories such as lifestyle, expectations, outlook, sexual orientation, background. But my more immediate distaste is with this dreadful division of people into national identities and hence mobs of prejudice and aggression. In some respects just as raw and stupid as rivalries between supporters of football teams. Right now we have the Scots, or at least Alec Salmond, wanting independence for Scotland from the UK, Cornwall romanticizes about it on occasion, but we also have the dreadful lessons over Northern Ireland, part of the population wanting unification with the south, another wanting to be held close to the bosom of the UK and many just wanting to get on with their lives. Belfast being Belfast it is spoken with flags on almost every lamppost in the more entrenched areas, parades, bonfires, religions and reference to way too much history of conflict. Even if you sit down with the quiet ones here there is barely concealed resentment arising from the troubles and before.

In many ways these stresses are no different to what we see in the alleged British resentment of being part of Europe and supposedly controlled and limited by Europe. An association of people is a very desirable entity when it is designed and intended to foster cooperation between people for the greater good. So why, as most of us want to live good fulfilling lives, do we not get on with the cooperation and understanding part of the concept and do our best to eliminate the suspicions and prejudices of nationalism, and the desire to prove we are better, brighter, more entitled than that other group over there.