Corbyn has come under attack from friend and foe for saying in two interviews widely repeated across the media that he would not, if Prime Minister, press the button to launch a nuclear strike from Trident submarines. Dealing with the question of his becoming PM first. This is where everybody is awry. Corbyn’s influence is not what he may do if he wins in 2020. He will then be 71. It is unlikely he will by then want to lead Labour on age grounds alone. If he does fine, but his earthquake is going on now and his historic influence will come from his stint as Leader of the Opposition. He has already changed the nature of the political conversation, ended the Thatcher consensus and opened up a real and tangible gap, missing for many years, between the Tory view of what has to be done and the Labour view of what should be done. He has defined the political battle as one between vested interests and the people and tripled Labour’s membership in the process.
Now to Trident. This blog has supported the deterrent and I have always been a supporter of Britain having its own bomb and means of delivery. I believe nuclear weapons saved about 60 million lives, which would have been the toll of a conventional WWIII. I would vote for a renewal of Trident.
But Corbyn has made me take a closer look at this whole concept, and the more I look at this awesome system capable of frying half the world, I begin to wonder whether in the current world (rather than the Cold War stand off) it is actually credible. We know Corbyn would not fire it. But, when it came to it, would anybody else? And the answer to that question is nothing like as straightforward as I had supposed.
So I am now continuing to wonder. When my wondering is over I will share my conclusions with you. I am not in any hurry. The end of civilisation and the killing off of the better part of the human race is quite a big subject. For me. And perhaps for you too.