So much falls into place once you realise that for Big Capital, profit trumps nation every time. Trident’s a case in point. For it or agin, without a class perspective we really haven’t a clue.
“Our” big banks, including HSBC and Barclays, are financing not just Trident but Russia’s nuclear capacity too. You couldn’t make it up.
Meanwhile, unions are stuck with supporting Trident because they have to defend the few well-paid manufacturing jobs that still exist, wherever they may be. I wish we could see more media coverage (OK, fat chance) and political play made of plans that address both arms plant conversion AND job protection. For example, Steven Schofield’s January 2007 report “Oceans of Work” (http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/oceans_0.pdf) describes the practical possibility of converting Barrow’s nuclear submarine plant (which supplies Trident) to peaceful energy production without loss of jobs.
Corbyn et al. are reportedly also developing an alternative plan for Barrow: does anyone have information about this?
And does anyone remember the 1976 Lucas Aerospace union shop stewards’ conversion plan, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize but squashed by government and management? (This Guardian article is ‘soft’, IMO, but not too bad: https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2014/jan/22/remembering-the-lucas-plan-what-can-it-tell-us-about-democratising-technology-today.)
I done the sums Caroline. MoD says Trident will cost a cool £40 bn for each of the four Vanguard-class submarines. CND gives a higher figure, though not massively so, of £205 bn for the whole shebang. With union bosses like GMB’s Tim Roache – in other matters a Corbyn supporter – saying we need to retain and update Trident to protect 30,000 highly skilled jobs, I say scrap Trident and give each of those workers a million quid. Spend the balance – between £110 bn and £175 bn depending on whose figures you run with – on the kind of stuff you indicate. There you go Tim: sorted it for you.
Oh, and nationalise the banks …