Moral Maze - 01/07/2009

Michael Buerk chairs a debate on the moral questions behind the week's news. Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips, Clifford Longley and Kenan Malik cross-examine witnesses. The question of the future of Trident, Britain's nuclear weapons system, is back on the agenda. In straightened times, it seems that people are starting to worry about the 20 billion pound cost. During the debate on the pros and cons, we've heard about the financial, diplomatic, military and political arguments. By contrast we have heard little about the moral arguments for retention or rejection. In a world where there's a real prospect of Iran and North Korea getting nuclear weapons and with the Taliban making a concerted effort to unseat the Pakistan government, have we come to accept that having a nuclear deterrent is a necessary evil? Does possessing nuclear weapons and threatening their use undermine our moral authority in the world? And why don't we hear the principled argument that in any and all circumstances, the use of a nuclear weapons would be immoral? Witnesses: Rebecca Johnson Director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy Mike Clarke Commissioner on the Shared Responsibilities report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and the Director of the Royal United Services Institute Bruce Kent Honorary Vice-President for the CND, Vice-President for Pax Christi and Veteran campaigner Professor David Conway Senior Research Fellow, CIVITAS.