Trident and jobs: the employment implications of cancelling Trident replacement
Categories: Articles:Nuclear Weapons |
Published: 01/07/2016 |
Views: 2567
A new report by CND sets the record straight on Trident and jobs. It's often argued that Trident and its replacement provide civilian jobs. While this is true, the extent of this job creation is tiny relative to the sums involved. In effect, they are among the most costly jobs in history. This report looks at how the money saved by not replacing Trident could be used for a massive level of investment that would create many more jobs than the current or future nuclear weapons systems can provide.
PARLIAMENT will soon make a decision on whether Britain gets a new nuclear weapons system. Replacing Trident, the current system, would be one of the most expensive military programmes ever undertaken at a cost of at least £205 billion once construction, maintenance and decommissioning costs are taken into account. This project serves no useful military purpose and is not even independent.
But it is also argued that the current system and its replacement provide civilian jobs, some of them highly-skilled and well paid, many in deprived areas where alternative employment of the same quality is scarce. While this is true, the extent of this job creation is tiny relative to the sums involved. In effect, they are among the most costly jobs in history.
The money saved by not replacing Trident could be used for a massive level of investment that would create many more jobs than the current or future nuclear weapons systems can provide. The sums involved are so vast that whole areas, such as the one around Barrow, where the Trident submarines are made, could be regenerated.
The skills of the current workforce would form the nuclei of a large-scale industrial investment programme. A host of industries are in need of investment, from wind and wave power, to nuclear decommissioning, to aerospace technology to marine industries and others. British industry as a whole faces chronic skills shortages which public sector-led investment can address. The money saved by not replacing Trident would provide the finances for this programme. This would amount to an industrial strategy for Britain with the existing workforce and regions at its core
.
There are far more, better and well-paid jobs to be created by this type of investment than in persisting with the replacement of Trident, a militarily useless yet hugely expensive weapon. Read more here
Return to previous page