Nineham, who is vice-chair of the anti-war campaign group, said ditching Britain’s nuclear deterrent would distance the country from the United States’ “disastrous foreign policy.”
“But if it has the impact of asserting the independence of British people from what has been the disastrous foreign policy that has been pursued by Washington over the last 15 years or more, then surely that’s a good thing,” he said.
“The argument against Trident is about Britain developing its own independent foreign policy on the basis of seeking cooperation and understanding in the world, rather than trying to bomb countries that Britain does not like the regime of.”
The comments came ahead of a demonstration in London on Saturday February 27 to stop the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons.
RT spoke with various figures organizing the demonstration at a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) press conference on Tuesday.
The UK public and government are split over the Trident debate, which is expected to cost up to £167bn.
— RT UK (@RTUKnews) February 22, 2016
According to Prime Minister David Cameron, Trident is Britain’s “ultimate insurance policy.” He claims that under his government, “the submarines will be ordered” because he has taken “a decisive action to keep Britain safe.”
Given the Conservative majority in the House of Commons and Labour MPs’ split stance on the issue, the renewal of Trident is expected to be approved by parliament later this year, although the actual process of replacing Trident submarines will only begin in 2028.
Turnout to this Saturday’s protest against Trident will play some part in determining the British public’s stance on whether the UK becomes a nuclear weapons-free country.
TAP – This is literally true. Thatcher agreed that if US would supply UK with Trident, the US President could order the British armed frces to go to war. Source – Gordon Logan.