disarmament
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 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 — 21 January 2011 at 11:49am
-
Yesterday's headline in the FT shouted "MoD faces fresh crisis over funding". It turns out that the Ministry of Defence have checked over last October's defence review and found out that they actually need an extra £1 billion a year over the next four years to deliver it.
Posted by Louise Edge — 14 January 2011 at 6:09pm
-
Posted by Louise Edge — 20 October 2010 at 2:55pm
-
Yesterday’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) gave us the welcome news that plans to replace Trident have been put on hold and reductions will be made to our existing nuclear weapons. "Five year delay" shouted the papers who widely interpreted the move as a compromise to keep the coalition government together.
The reality is that in the face of military cuts and a National Security Review (which concluded the threats we face are cyber crime, terrorism, a foreign crisis "drawing in Britain", and natural disasters) it’s hard to imagine how David Cameron could have ticked the yes box on spending £97bn replacing Trident. Particularly as there was already a joker in the SDSR pack in the shape of the aircraft carriers.
Posted by simon clydesdale — 22 September 2010 at 11:31am
-
This morning the Lib Dem conference voted unanimously for a review of the decision to replace Trident, and finally managed to prod their ministers into making some noise on the issue. This is a huge step forward for the majority of Britons who aren't convinced of the need to spend £97 billion on cold war weapons whilst public services are being slashed. Simon Clydesdale, our man on the conference floor, explains the implications:
Shirley Williams was asked recently what it was like being in bed with the Conservatives. She cannily replied that it was actually a case of two beds. And this morning the Lib Dems took the opportunity to make their bed in a distinctly different style to their Tory coalition partners when they voted to adopt an emergency motion on replacing Trident.
Posted by Louise Edge — 28 July 2010 at 3:14pm
-
How The Sun saw last week's spat between Osborne and Fox © Andy Davey
Trident replacement is looking less likely today after Chancellor George Osborne told media that the Treasury weren’t willing to stump up for the project out of central funds.
Speaking in New Delhi, where he is accompanying David Cameron on his visit to India, Mr Osborne told the Bloomberg newswire: "All budgets have pressure. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence. I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget."