Your address
Date
Dear _______
I am writing to you concerning Trident replacement in 2016. I support full nuclear disarmament and I
hope I can encourage you to vote against nuclear weapons at every opportunity.
Some political parties advocate a reduction, but this is not enough. Going from four to three
submarines makes little difference to cost and would miss the opportunity to be rid of these inhuman
weapons. We either have them or we don’t.
Nuclear weapons do not provide security. Mutually assured destruction is no protection against current
or future threats, including climate change and terrorism. While there are growing concerns that
extremist groups may build nuclear weapons, because their members are dispersed there is no way
Trident could be a deterrent. Where would it be pointed? London? To threaten nuclear war on them
would only fuel anti-Western feeling, one of their motives. The explosion and radiation from nuclear
weapons is so massive that if the government wanted to bomb an area believed to be a terrorism
hotspot or in retaliation, this would be a decision to kill every civilian for miles. Trident missiles are
many times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 years ago, each bomb
killing 166,000 and up to 80,000 people respectively.
Many former military generals oppose Trident. Speaking openly after leaving the armed forces, even
those who advocate for high military spending say that nuclear weapons are unstrategic and a waste of
money: they don’t contribute to security or defence, they’ll never be used and it takes funds away from
buying equipment used daily including safety gear for soldiers.
I firmly believe in spending a lot on security. It’s vital to invest heavily in research & development for
renewable energy to curb the climate crisis, as frequent extreme weather is already killing people
across the world and affecting us here in the UK. 25 times more is spent in the UK on weapons research
than renewable energy. It’s important to spend on education, as the saying goes, “What if the cure for
cancer is locked inside a child who can’t afford an education?” We need more houses because shelter
keeps people safe. Trident will cost around £100billion over its lifetime. £100bn would pay for every
A&E trip in the UK for the next 40 years. I hope you’ll agree that in terms of security, emergency
facilities in hospitals are better than a weapons system we shouldn’t have and can’t use. Research has
found that the same skills are needed to build weapons as equipment for renewable energy, meaning
no loss of jobs.1
The Red Cross has said that it would be impossible to mount an effective response to a humanitarian
crisis caused by a nuclear bomb attack. Given that the majority of the victims would be civilians, this is
punishment on a massive scale for the actions of a couple of people.
Trident is often referred to as “Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent”. This is untrue: the missiles are
on loan from the United States and politically we couldn’t fire one without their agreement. Building
nuclear weapons is the illegal preparation for indiscriminate mass murder; 114 countries and counting
have signed a pledge to ban them,2 so the UK mustn’t be left behind with an expensive system they
then have to dismantle. We signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1968; replacing Trident
shows that government promises mean nothing. South Africa dismantled their nuclear arsenal in 1989
and fewer than 10 countries have them, proving nuclear weapons are not needed to be major world
players. They must be classed as morally and socially indefensible like landmines and chemical
weapons.
I hope you can see that Trident is wasteful, illegal and immoral and that you vote against Trident
replacement. I am unable to support an MP who is in favour of any renewal whatsoever.
Yours sincerely,
NAME
1 Campaign
2
Against Arms Trade 2014, Arms to Renewables https://arms-to-renewables.org.uk/#page_5
International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons http://www.icanw.org/