Search

Two years ago, in an almost simultaneous policy turnaround, British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed his determination to develop both a further generation of nuclear weapons and a host of new nuclear power plants--ideally before he left office. Though he made his personal preference (a staunch yes) clear in both cases, he and his government promised open debate and consultations that would involve "the wider public."

The U.N. General Assembly adopted a Global Counterterrorism Strategy in September 2006 in accordance with a mandate from the 2005 World Summit and the recommendations of Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his 2006 report "Uniting Against Terrorism".

British Secretary for Defence Des Browne is a man on a mission. In recent weeks, he's participated in some carefully choreographed meetings in London on Trident replacement, followed by a general debate on defense in the House of Commons and an appearance before the Parliamentary Defence Select Committee.

Does Britain need to replace its nuclear weapons? The current system, which comprises four nuclear submarines, around 50 U.S. Trident D5 ballistic missiles, and up to 200 warheads similar to the U.S. W76 (around 100 kilotons each), is good to go until well into the 2020s. So why is British Prime Minister Tony Blair so keen for a decision before he departs office?

In his January 1, 2007 New York Times op-ed piece, "A Healthy New Year," Paul Krugman wrote that the U.S. health care system is a scandal and disgrace. He noted that in 2005 almost 47 million Americans were uninsured, and more than 8 million of these individuals were children. While Krugman's article discussed the human tragedy and costs of such a disastrous system, it did not mention two other crucial factors--the national security impact of millions of uninsured people and the decline in the number of primary care physicians and nurses who would provide care during a crisis.