The Politics Society

The Debating Society hosted their first guest speaker debate on nuclear energy this Tuesday. The event was chaired by Ciaran Prendeville, who recently won ‘best speaker’ at the last inter-university competition. The society adopted the stance that the UK should abandon its nuclear arsenal. Guest speakers included Eric Grove, a Professor at the Centre for International Security at Salford University; and not surprisingly, due to the topic of debate, Jackie Burke, a regional development officer for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). There was, however, one difference to the usual style of debate in that there were no POI’s (points of interest) where the audience or the opponent is allowed to interrupt the debate and make a challenge.

Burke started with the mission statement of the CND; basically that the UK has failed to comply to the 1968 Non-proliferation treaty. The CND campaign against this was recently stepped up due to the “hush hush” bill to replace trident - she claimed at a cost of 76 billion - that had been pushed through the commons. The audience was on the verge of confusion whilst she argued that the production of the new weapons would reduce employment. However, she brought the game back when she explained this was down to an increased use of machinery. The conclusion to her opening speech started to tug at the heart strings of the audience using media intense rhetoric like ‘weapons of mass destruction’. She talked about the bombs being eight times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and suggested that the new nuclear program could stimulate a nuclear arms race.

Eric Grove started his speech by applauding Jackie Burke on her arithmetic to work out that the bombs were eight times bigger, as apparently this was a complicated sum, the joke slightly lost on the audience. He did, however, in a slightly eccentric manner, (apparently fashionable among scholars), make some good points. He stated that he felt safer that there was British Submarines patrolling the Atlantic, especially since the Russian T72’s recently crossed the border. His other points, which were usually followed by a dramatic pause, included how nuclear weapons actually added stability to the world and that Britain needed a “minimum deterrent”. This would only cost 5.5% of the UK’s defense budget. Nuclear weapons, Grove argued, where “horrible things but have good affects.”

After the two speeches the floor was opened to the audience. The questions mainly focused around why the UK didn’t “drop the big stick” as this may have a knock on effect and other countries would follow and the fact that “you can’t nuke terrorists”. The most interesting contribution was from Russian student who said that if the UK dropped its nuclear program Russia’s response would be “HA the UK are weak”. Grove’s response claimed cynicism. He argued there was no slippery slope and if one country dropped its nuclear weapons this would not lead to others doing the same. It would simply mean that Britain would not have “stick to hit.”

Article co-author Dan Hart.