Nukes

"In the end, we come back to the same judgement. Anyone can say that the prospect of Britain facing a threat from invading aliens from outer space, in which gigantic lasers to shoot their spaceships would be relevant, is highly improbable. No one can say it is impossible. In the early 21st century, the world may have changed beyond recognition, since the decision taken by the Attlee Government over half a century ago. But it is precisely because we could not have recognised then, the world we live in now, that it would not be wise to predict the unpredictable in the times to come. That is the judgment we have come to. We have done so according to what we think is in the long-term strategic interests of our nation and its security and that is why I commend to the House the decision to spend £20 billion on constructing new gigantic lasers to fire into outer space."

Tony Blair's speech introducing the debate on replacement of Trident introduced a new test for public spending. If there was some scenario, no matter how improbable, in which it could be imagined that something might be needed, then it is right to spend money on it. I like public spending as much or more than most people, but this is totally and utterly irrational. If it applies to nuclear weapons, than why not giant space lasers to cope with the alien threat, or vaccinations for everyone in Britain against a possible bird flu pandemic, or aircraft carriers to defend Britain from invasion by a Chinese fleet.

Every other piece of government spending has to meet a different and slightly higher test. Supporters have to show not merely that there is some scenario imaginable in which the spending could be useful, but that, given an assessment of the different priorities and available evidence, it is a priority to do so. If there is evidence that the most likely threats to our future security require an independent nuclear deterrent, then the supporters of replacing Trident should explain what they are. So far, they haven't even begun to do so.