Uncomfortable truths go straight to heart of our defence polcy

AS THE country seemingly ramps up to war with an increase in spending on weapons for destruction, and less for constructive purposes at home and abroad, it is worthwhile remembering, not just VE Day in May, but the misinformation we are continuously being fed.

- 

Firstly, economist Mick Burke argues that there is ‘no benefit to the wider economy from a tank, a bomb, or a missiles system...’ He writes that “military spending has one of the lowest ‘employment multipliers’ compared to other economic categories. It ranks seventieth in terms of the employment it generates, out of one hundred. Health is rated number one. Everything from agriculture to energy to food manufacture, chemicals, iron and steel, to computers, construction, all have greater ‘employment multipliers’ than military spending.” So much for the myth of creating jobs!

Secondly, it is absurd and immoral to call on pension firms, banks, and investors to remove rules and treat weapons manufacturers as ‘ethical’ investment opportunities.

Thirdly, Macron’s idea of extending France's nuclear umbrella is also absurd; we saw in 1986 that nuclear fallout from Chernobyl didn’t stop at the Channel!

Fourthly, £3 billion is being spent every year on our nuclear weapons. Trident is an immoral weapon of mass destruction which not only doesn’t protect or benefit anyone, but has lifetime costs (at 2016 figures) of 205 billion pounds, and could cost the earth.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament will be taking these points to Barrow on 22 March in support of the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, ratified by many civilised countries.

According to the Federation of American Scientists ‘Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it, of course, is absolutely not. And, currently, we are all the mercy of Donald Trump.

Steve Roman, Manchester M20

Trump's bid to silence science

WHAT'S happening to science in America under Trump amounts to censorship.

The Trump administration is no longer providing support for scientific research that contains a word he finds particularly inconvenient: 'climate.