Whilst I was putting on my socks this morning I listened to an unsuccessful attempt by the Today Programme to engage a government minister in discussion about Trident.
It reminded me of a question I have often wanted to ask but refrained from for fear of appearing stupid or unpatriotic. Why do we have an army, navy and airforce? In particular, why do we have a nuclear deterrent ?
I can understand that we need the means of trying to keep the peace within our own borders – even when those borders are disputed. The recent tragedy in Ireland is compelling evidence of that.
I can understand - and support strongly - an obligation to contribute to a UN controlled peace keeping and intervening force where there is compelling necessity on humanitarian grounds recognised by the international community.
I can imagine, just, a situation in which we need the means to respond (but not by nuclear means) to the threat of an imminent attack which diplomacy or the UN can do nothing about.
But I cannot dispel my suspicion that the main force driving our ‘defence’ expenditure, and the level of it, has little to do with ‘defence’. It smacks of a perceived need to support our foreign policy, a policy which, by implication, assumes the need to maintain the status of a ‘nuclear’ power and a right to interfere, armed but unasked, in other nation’s affairs.
Perhaps there are others who would like an answer to the question I have been afraid to ask. If we are truly moving into a more open and transparent world in which our political masters accept a duty to tell us what is going on and why, an answer would be re-assuring. We might even be allowed to respond to it!
