What was BASIC thinking?

Letter by Bruce Kent, London

Despite its length Paul Ingram’s defence of BASIC’s Trident Commission report (PN 2572-73) leaves many unanswered questions.Your headline to his article suggests benefits. It seems to me that the report has done considerable harm.

How did the members get chosen?

If you asked some senior and respectable fishmongers their views about an essential diet you would not be surprised if they came up with fish.

No surprise that the commission, granted its membership, decided that British nuclear weapons are needed .

A commission sounds like something which hears various views. I sent in a submission but heard no more.

Who was heard? Who did the funding and why?

Why, months before the commission reported, did the Friends produce a briefing on Trident written by Paul in which it said that all one had to do was to ask your MP not to support a ‘like for like’ Trident replacement? Four subs no, but three OK?

Paul seems to suggest that those of us who believe that Britain’s nuclear weapons do nothing for our real security spend our time being rude to Establishment personalities (‘marginalise or abuse them’).

Far from it. To get them to discuss these issues openly at all is very difficult – not a time to be wasted.

The report a lost opportunity? I fear so.

Topics: Nuclear Weapons