nuclear weapons
Last edited 18 July 2016 at 2:45pm
Commenting on today's parliamentary vote on whether or not to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, Greenpeace UK Executive Director John Sauven said:
‘Replacing Trident is economically unjustifiable, strategically ill-conceived and morally reprehensible. To commit billions of pounds to replace a relic from the Cold War is not just a ludicrous folly, it’s also incredibly dangerous. If Britain declares that we need nuclear weapons for our security, then who are we to tell others not to do the same? We know where that road leads.
Last edited 16 July 2013 at 2:19pm
Greenpeace Response
In response to the publication of the Trident Alternatives Review,
Louise Edge, Disarmament Campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said –
“One hundred billion pounds could do a lot to address some of
the real threats facing modern Britain – climate change, the recession,
terrorism – but instead we’re throwing it away on a system designed for the
threat of Soviet tanks entering West Germany. Nothing in the Alternatives
Review changes the fact that Trident replacement will be a colossally expensive
weapon targeted at the last century.”
Last edited 1 January 1970 at 1:00am
n/a
Last edited 1 January 1970 at 1:00am
n/a
Posted by Louise Edge — 18 May 2011 at 4:32pm
-
A
while back I got a letter from the Lib Dems telling me "Trident
will not be renewed this parliament - not on a Liberal Democrat watch”.
This
ran though my mind today as I watched Defence Secretary Liam Fox stand up in
parliament to pronounce ‘thunderbirds are go’ on the next phase of building a
replacement for Trident.
Last edited 1 January 1970 at 1:00am
n/a
Posted by andrelotz — 18 March 2011 at 3:22pm
-
While cuts are being made to public services, why is money being spent on weapons we neither want or need?
At the mention of nuclear today our thoughts turn to the situation in Japan and all of those affected by
the earthquakes, tsunami and nuclear emergency. I can only hope that the
situation at Fukushima
is soon contained and the risks minimised for everyone affected.
Here in the UK, there is
another nuclear issue that is silently inching forward without parliamentary
approval or public awareness – nuclear weapons replacement.
Posted by Louise Edge — 14 January 2011 at 6:09pm
-
Last edited 12 November 2010 at 1:03pm
Today, nearly two decades after the Cold War ended, there are still 23,000 nuclear warheads in the world.
They are held by just nine countries: the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Worryingly, more than 2,000 of them are still on hair-trigger alert - ready to launch at short notice, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
But this is not the whole story. The majority of the world has already shown us the solution to the problem of nuclear weapons - by rejecting them. Many countries have gone down the nuclear weapons path then turned back, realising that they do not increase their security.
