DEBATES about Trident tend to be dichotomous and a title like The Truth About Trident isn’t going to change that. It invites comparisons with the type of literature favoured by door-to-door proselytisers. Tim Wallis addresses this to a degree when he observes that “any book with the word ‘truth’ in the title is bound to attract a certain kind of scepticism if not downright ridicule”. But that only raises the question, why not give it a title that invites the sceptics in?

It’s not much of a surprise when Wallis reveals on the second page that his book comes down “very strongly” in favour of the anti-Trident position, though it would have been more truthful to say “completely”. In essence, it consists of 21 arguments in favour of Trident, briefly presented and then blown away by a barrage of counter-arguments.

So, for instance, the oft-repeated notion that Trident acts as a deterrent is countered here by the argument that deterrence is in the hands of politicians and generals who don’t have a great record of basing decisions on humanitarian principles; that attack invites devastating counter-attack; that the threat of retaliation never deterred Hitler or prevented the Falklands War and so on. In a rare injection of humour Wallis quotes from Yes Minister when PM Jim Hacker is reluctant to devastate the whole of Eastern Europe. Sir Humphrey persuades him that Trident is a deterrent which he probably won’t have to use: “Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t [use it], they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would.”

Wallis argues that Trident is equally useless against the real threats to national security that have been identified by the UK: terrorism, cyber warfare, international military conflict, instability overseas, public health and major natural hazards. He monsters the idea that Trident is necessary to maintain the UK’s place in the world or that it can be described as “independent” when so much of it is owned and controlled by the US. Ultimately, the system is unsafe, exorbitant and probably illegal.

In a chapter entitled ‘What about Scotland?’ Wallis recognises the political and civic opposition to Trident and the various ways, short of another independence referendum, that it could be obstructed in areas where the Scottish Government has authority. Earlier, he had provided some encouragement by noting that Greece and Canada have removed nuclear weapons from their territory. Though Wallis doesn’t say so, the squadron at Comox on Vancouver Island quietly flew the last nuclear weapons back to the United States in 1984, leaving Canada as a non-nuclear member of NATO. It can happen.

There’s much to admire in Wallis’s encyclopaedic knowledge, but doubts remain about the way that he has chosen to present it. The most likely outcome of his approach is to reinforce the anti-Trident position one already holds, albeit with enhanced understanding. It’s only in the last two pages that the book’s core purpose is revealed. “Ten Steps to a More Productive Trident Conversation” includes “bringing this book” when you intend to talk to someone about the issue. Before the referendum, I had many such discussions with a friend who has a history of anti-Trident activism. He now believes in multilateralism and doesn’t simply want the weapons moved somewhere else. Had Wallis’s book been available, I could have fumbled through it to show that the UK is only posturing on multilateralism (p 118) and Trident has nowhere else to go (p 110), but I would have been sitting alone in the pub. Anyway, my friend’s readjusted position was part of a package he was assembling to persuade himself to vote No. The Trident argument can be wrapped up in other things, but Wallis’s buttonholing style doesn’t allow for that.

His years as an anti-Trident activist convinced my pal that most people don’t give a damn. It contrasts with Wallis’s optimistic view that Trident is second only to Brexit in its potential to trigger another referendum. This seems unlikely, though recent developments might help his case. Thousands marched against Trident renewal in February; the UK Government announced £642 million of further spending ahead of any vote; and it’s been revealed that 20 workers were exposed to radiation at Faslane. Not giving a damn is an increasingly difficult position to sustain, but I’m not sure that preaching the truth is the best way to combat it.