disarmament

A YouGov poll released today reaffirms what we already knew: a clear majority people simply don't support government plans to build a 'like for like' replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent.

The poll, undertaken on behalf of think tank Chatham House, found that only 29 per cent of the public backed the government's Trident plans. Amongst opinion formers the level of support fell to a paltry 22 per cent.

While George Osborne was busy launching the most swingeing budget cuts in a generation yesterday, he went out of his way to stress that he was being "tough but fair" – and that the pain of his austerity measures would be shared by everyone.

But hey - apparently companies involved in nuclear arms building wont be sharing the pain. This was made clear by new Defence Secretary Liam Fox when he presented his plans for a Strategic Security and Defence Review (SDSR) to parliament.

Over the last six weeks Greenpeace campaigners and active supporters have been energetically campaigning to raise the level of debate about proposals to spend £97bn on new nuclear weapons.

Together we’ve been lobbying candidates, writing to newspapers, polling people on the streets and doing much, much more behind the scenes - helping to make nuclear weapons an election issue for the first time in decades.

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.

Two promising developments today...

First up Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signalled their intention to reduce the number of US and Russian nuclear warheads to 1,500-1,675.

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.

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.

If there's a nuclear truck in your neighbourhood - who you gonna call? Nukewatch! © fototruck.com

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.