We have a fifty years at sea continuous independent nuclear deterrent. Every day at least one nuclear submarine prowls the seas around the world, ready to launch nuclear missiles with multiple warheads at any country which might attack us. These weapons keep us safe and have for fifty years. Except they do not. They were conceived in vanity and have deterred nothing. They are zilch, a money plughole into the arms business and BAe Systems in particular.

The idea started with Winston Churchill who was keen to be nuclear and a superpower. Churchill’s life was fighting; he had one very good fight and a lot of bad ones. He wanted to be a nuclear power and gradually the US let us in the club. It was run by US arms companies. In the 1950s and 60s they exaggerated the nuclear bombers and missiles the USSR had to that they could sell more nuclear bombs, bombers and missiles. It was a highly successful ploy for the military-industrial complex; the USSR was hardly likely to announce that it had a fraction of the weapons the US said it had and the Cold War grew around the arms industries in the US and USSR.

Britain was an also-ran superpower. We had expensive failures with nuclear bombers – the four V bombers – although they looked good. Then we flirted with buying various US missiles and then asked to buy the US Polaris system. We needed to buy US nuclear reactors for the subs, the nuclear weapons and the missiles. Harold Wilson described it as not British, independent or a deterrent. We moved on to the US Trident system. The Cold War ended, and the only vaguely potential enemy disappeared, but we still motored on with this supposed deterrent. Let us examine this idea of deterrence. The military industrial complex say, without any evidence, that our deterrent has been a success. It has deterred nobody, no-where, at no time for four reasons.

First, the United States has had a vastly bigger force than Britain – say 40 times more nuclear warheads and delivery systems – and so no-one was going to take any notice of us. We were a me-too poodle and have not counted in any international situation or problem.

Second, everyone has worked out that nuclear war destroys the planet. Killing tens of millions of people through blast and radiation is wicked and cannot be done. The “deterrent” says we would use it, but the obvious evil requires nobody does. That is why nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945, not deterrence.

Third, the UK has had no potential aggressors. The USSR has no interest in aggression against us, nor does China, India, North Korea (Theresa’s May’s fall-back), France, Paraguay, the Maldives or the Isle of White. Throughout these fifty years we have had no potential aggressor against us, or conceivable potential aggressor but only a general fear that something might crop up. We have been like a man in a full suit of armour with twenty swords and machine guns, sitting in the park hoping a dog would growl at him and no-one would notice that he has not been attacked. If things get really quiet, the militarists bring a dog along to growl and make it seem dangerous.

Fourth, nuclear weapons do not stop conventional wars, especially ones, we start. We have been involved in wars in Suez, the Falklands, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, but in none of these has nuclear deterrence affected anything. For all these reasons our nuclear deterrence has done nothing in the last five decades. They cannot be used; there is no reason to use them; ours do not count and conflict is different. So, we have had a continuous, at sea, British nuclear pointless and useless non deterrent. It’s rationale is really just to provide funding for the arms industry, especially BAe systems, and jobs in Barrow in Furness. With a little thought, good, useful shipbuilding in Barrow could be redesigned and continue. But why do we continue with pointless?

You, me, everyone have been brainwashed by scares and the presumed danger out there; drummed up fear keeps you in your place. In addition the control of the military-industrial establishment over the political system has been complete. Even after the Cold War ended, the nuclear deterrent was retained to deter, er, someone. We have been duped. We have been scared off thinking. There is no nuclear deterrent. The deterrent is not. It is a dead deterrent. There are merely several submarines prowling around doing nothing for fifty years – dangerously. You and I agree to this because a rich arms industry has pickled our brains. Time to close it down, because threatening to murdering millions is wrong and upsets people, and costs billions, and because those who take the sword do die by it.