The government estimates replacing Trident as costing £80 billion. Other estimates are higher. It’s a lot of money. The Green Party does not believe we need the fire power to kill 45 million people. There is no situation in which that kind of carnage could possibly be justified. Labour and Tories alike have claimed Trident means jobs, but according to this article, Ministry of Defence figures say we’re talking more like 520 jobs based on Trident at the moment. Obviously making new weapons will involve more people, but perhaps not on the scale that has been suggested. If the only interest is job creation, there might be safer, more productive ways of creating jobs that actually achieve something good, if you had a hundred billion to play with.
What would you spend it on?
We want to hear and share alternatives. How would you deploy that much money? What are your priorities? Do you think it’s the best value for money in terms of defence? Write in. Leave a comment. Tweet at us (@stroudgreens) put a comment on the facebook wall https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stroud-District-Green-Party/178834628826252?fref=ts and if you want to get indepth, send longer pieces to brynnethnimue (at) gmail (dot) com and I’ll put them up as guest posts.
Let’s get an alternative conversation going about what we might spend one hundred billion on for the common good. This is not pie in the sky thinking, because if the money is there to pay for weapons, the money is there to pay for other things and if we want alternatives, we should not just talk about them, we should demand them!
(The photo shows a sew up session from Wool Against Weapons. How many war refugees could have not just blankets, but food and proper shelter, for £100 billion?)