*** DEBUG START ***
*** DEBUG END ***

Trident debate: does no one remember the Church of England’s policy?

by
28 July 2010

iStock

From Canon Paul Oestreicher

Sir, — The Revd Dr David Attwood is right (Comment, 23 July). Our Church’s public silence on nuclear weapons is shameful. We need to be reminded that in 1982 the General Synod debated the report it had commissioned on “Nuclear Weapons and the Christian Conscience”, popularly called The Church and the Bomb. That debate was nationally televised.

The Church was actually thought to have something to say to the nation. The then Bishop of Salisbury, Dr John Baker, who had chaired the Synod’s working party, presented its findings. Only two of our seven mem­bers were pacifists; but our unanimous conclusion was that both the possession and the threatened use of weapons of mass destruction was incompatible with Christian discipleship.

The Synod did not fully endorse that position, but modified it. In the then prevailing crisis of the Cold War’s balance of power, immediate nuclear disarmament might be de­stabilising. That, however, must re­main the objective of British policy. The Cold War ended 20 years ago. There is now no nuclear stand-off. The abandonment of our nuclear-submarine fleet would cause no in­stability anywhere. What it would do is honour our obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

The renewal of the Trident missile system has been defended by the last government, and now by this, as a long-term security against some hypothetical threat in the far distant future. In other words, we intend to remain a nuclear armed power indefinitely. How is that compatible with our concurrent policy of doing all we can to prevent other nations’ adopting that same policy? Why should Iran or any other nation not have the right to do what we are told is necessary for our long-term security? That makes no rational or moral sense — nor, as many senior officers believe, military sense.

Nearly 30 years ago, our Church promoted a national debate, and came to the conclusion that under post-Cold War conditions there would be no case for British nuclear weapons. Who remembers that we actually have such a policy? This is the time for our bishops to state it, loud and clear, and invite other Churches to do the same.

There are platforms enough, even (still) in the House of Lords, but more importantly in the houses of the Lord and in his name.

PAUL OESTREICHER
(Synod working-party member)
97 Furze Croft, Brighton BN3 1PE

From Mr Henry Haslam

Sir, — The Revd Dr David Attwood looks at the arguments for the UK’s retaining nuclear weapons, and finds them thin.

The case looks stronger if we try to take a global perspective. Would it be a good thing if all peace-loving nations were to get rid of their nuclear weapons? That would leave the field clear for North Korea, Iran, or worse. It would be rather like disbanding the police force.

Or should we trust the United States, the world’s only superpower, to act as the world’s policeman, the only country with nuclear weapons? Or just the US and Russia? These scenarios don’t sound very attractive either, and there may be much to be said for the US, Russia, China, Britain, and France’s retaining their nuclear deterrents in the interests of global security.

Other countries, such as India, Pakistan, and Israel, will have nuclear weapons for their own defence, but the big five, none of whom may feel under threat at the present time, should retain their weapons in the interests of world peace.

HENRY HASLAM
46B Belvedere Road
Taunton TA1 1BS

From Mr Michael Minter

Sir, — It may be too much to hope that Trident will generate as many letters in your columns as women bishops; but I hope that Dr David Attwood will have stimulated a much needed debate.

The coalition agreement says that the Government “will maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent”, but leaves many questions unanswered. Does the omission of the word “independent” leave the door open for a possible joint Anglo-French deterrent? What if the value-for-money study is unable to find signi­ficant savings? What effect does the cost of maintaining our nuclear de­terrent have on our ability to keep our conventional forces fully equipped?

Even if these questions are answered, we are left with the more important ethical issues raised by Dr Attwood. It would be helpful if they could be studied on an interfaith basis.

MICHAEL MINTER
Pax Cottage, 18 Church Road
Sundridge, Kent TN14 6DT

Browse Church and Charity jobs on the Church Times jobsite

Letters to the editor

Letters for publication should be sent to letters@churchtimes.co.uk.

Letters should be exclusive to the Church Times, and include a full postal address. Your name and address will appear below your letter unless requested otherwise.

Forthcoming Events

Green Church Awards

Awards Ceremony: 6 September 2024

Read more details about the awards

 

Festival of Preaching

15-17 September 2024

The festival moves to Cambridge along with a sparkling selection of expert speakers

tickets available

 

Inspiration: The Influences That Have Shaped My Life

September - November 2024

St Martin in the Fields Autumn Lecture Series 2024

tickets available

 

SAVE THE DATE

Festival of Faith and Literature

28 February - 2 March 2025

The festival programme is soon to be announced sign up to our newsletter to stay informed about all festival news.

Festival website

 

Visit our Events page for upcoming and past events 

The Church Times Archive

Read reports from issues stretching back to 1863, search for your parish or see if any of the clergy you know get a mention.

FREE for Church Times subscribers.

Explore the archive

Welcome to the Church Times

 

To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)