Peter Hain took advantage of his appearance on Sunday AM with Andy Marr to push strongly the Government line in favour of replacement of trident.
Asked why he was happy to spend billions of pounds that some
pinkos ordinary voters would like to see spent on schools, hospitals and basic kit for an overstretched army, he replied that, “the issue is since we are where we are and the history of having an independent nuclear deterrent I do not think people in Britain will accept us giving that up. ”
This stands rather in contrast with the 1993 joint letter he sent to President Clinton, urging a stop on new research on nuclear weapons. He argued that it would demonstrate a “commitment to the research, development, manufacture and deployment of nuclear weapons”. Just to clarify, at the time, he thought that would be a bad thing.
He attacked the US and Russia for their lack of “vigour” in supporting non-proliferation as recently as 2000. Some people might ask the question how a hugely expensive spanking new nuclear weapon of mass destruction is going to help the cause of non-proliferation. It certainly sends out a single about the UK’s commitment to the cause.
Marr put a very good question, which Hain just refused to answer: “you think it would be a good way to spend taxpayer’s money to develop a new system which could presumably wipe out half of humanity like the current one would. Give me some examples of how in practical terms that’s going to be useful.”