Posted by Louise Edge — 18 September 2009 at 7:35am
-
Comments
This week's news has been dominated by debate about the dire economic outlook facing the nation, and the likely severity of the cutbacks we'll need to make to pay down our now massive national debt. Ministers wring their hands about it but can't escape the reality that Britain plc needs to make cuts across the board - unless, of course, it's weapons of mass destruction that are under discussion.
At a time of economic crisis and emerging threats to UK security such as international terrorism, failed states, pandemic diseases and above all, climate change, the government is still poised to commit tens of billions to two Cold War-style defence projects.
Is replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system and building and equipping Britain’s largest ever aircraft supercarriers still relevant or necessary?
In the Firing Line asks whether these hugely expensive projects still represent value for money, and whether they can deliver real security for the UK.
Responding to
Gordon Brown's speech today laying out the government's roadmap to the 2010
nuclear non-proliferation conference Greenpeace UK disarmament campaigner Louise
Edge said:
"We welcome the fact that the Labour government is finally
making some positive noises towards eliminating nuclear weapons - which remain
one of the most serious threats facing mankind.
Posted by Louise Edge — 16 July 2009 at 1:43pm
-
Comments
In recent months it
has become increasingly clear that the UK has a massive hole in its national
budget and whoever comes to power after the next election is going to have to
slash government spending. The debate about what should be cut has just begun,
but already emerging at the top of many people's lists (certainly mine)
is the planned £76bn replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.
Okay, each
side still have enough bombs to destroy the Earth several times over. Plus the
agreement only deals with "deployed strategic" weapons, leaving out the
thousands of nuclear weapons deemed "non-strategic" or "non-deployed". But
coming after years of standoff the fact the two countries are back at the
negotiating table is undoubtedly GOOD NEWS.
Greenpeace today welcomed the announcement by Nick Clegg
that the Liberal Democrats would review the decision to replace the Trident
nuclear weapons system.
And they also urged the government to delay the ‘initial
gate' process for the proposed successor submarine - which commits up to an
estimated £2.1bn to the start of design work (1).
The Ministry of Defence currently plans to make the
decision about whether to proceed with initial gate this September while
Parliament is in recess.
Posted by jossc — 20 March 2009 at 12:44pm
-
Comments
Martin Butcher gives his reaction to the Prime Minister's recent policy speech on the future of Britain's nuclear arsenal. Martin is a consultant on international security issues and a
Nato policy analyst for the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. This article first appeared in Comment is Free on 17th March.
Gordon Brown's speech today at Lancaster House
exposed a fundamental contradiction at the heart of government policy
on non-proliferation. The prime minister sees the importance of a world
free of nuclear weapons
because it is the only way of guaranteeing "that our children and
grandchildren will be free from the threat of nuclear war". And yet,
his government is committed to the development of a new generation of submarine-based nuclear weapons to replace Trident, thus maintaining Britain's status as a nuclear weapons state for half a century.
Cash should instead be invested in "green industrial revolution"
11 December, 2008
Billions of pounds due to be spent on aircraft carriers should instead be used to kick-start
a "green industrial revolution", said Greenpeace
today.
John
Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: "Spending
£4billion on two aircraft carriers - that are going to be delayed anyway - is
not a solution to tackling the recession, or securing long-term jobs for the
UK.
"And this
is made even worse by the further £8billion that the Government is going to hand
to the US for fighter jets to put on these
carriers.
Few people know that convoys carrying nuclear warheads regularly travel along our roads, past our homes and schools. Containing plutonium and other deadly radioactive material, they are transported between submarine bases in Scotland and Berkshire's repair and maintenance facilities at Aldermaston and Burghfield. An accident involving and explosion or fire could cause a partial nuclear blast and result in lethal radiation contaminating the surrounding area.
