My MP, John Penrose, is minister for Tourism, and therefore will not sign EDMs.
So this is what I wrote:
Dear John,
I know you will not and cannot consider signing EDM 96 Trident Replacement.
The EDM highlights the conclusions of the Government's own National Security Strategy that the threat of a nuclear attack by another state is of low likelihood.
Following on from that, the EDM is a simple statement of opposition to Trident replacement, highlighting its £25 billion procurement cost and £100 billion lifetime cost.
The conclusion is that there are better things to spend the money on, whether within the Ministry of Defence or in other Ministries.
The key point that I would like again to remind you of is that if Trident is ever used, it will be as part of a general exchange that will almost certainly put an end to human civilisation in its present form.
It is reasonable to use a system whose failure means such a cost if and only if the chance of its failure is zero. The chance of a filure of the nuclear deterrence system is greater than zero, therefore, in supporting the nuclear deterrence system, you are supporting an irrational policy, as well as wasting a significant amount of taxpayers' money.
This is very sad.
Richard
see also - 12 steps to getting rid of Trident
Dear John,
I know you will not and cannot consider signing EDM 96 Trident Replacement.
The EDM highlights the conclusions of the Government's own National Security Strategy that the threat of a nuclear attack by another state is of low likelihood.
Following on from that, the EDM is a simple statement of opposition to Trident replacement, highlighting its £25 billion procurement cost and £100 billion lifetime cost.
The conclusion is that there are better things to spend the money on, whether within the Ministry of Defence or in other Ministries.
The key point that I would like again to remind you of is that if Trident is ever used, it will be as part of a general exchange that will almost certainly put an end to human civilisation in its present form.
It is reasonable to use a system whose failure means such a cost if and only if the chance of its failure is zero. The chance of a filure of the nuclear deterrence system is greater than zero, therefore, in supporting the nuclear deterrence system, you are supporting an irrational policy, as well as wasting a significant amount of taxpayers' money.
This is very sad.
Richard
see also - 12 steps to getting rid of Trident
No comments:
Post a Comment