Trident Replacement RSS
Trident Replacement at what cost?
© Reuters/Kareem Raheem
Trident Replacement
Call for the government to abandon its nuclear weapons programme
Take action immediately!
Recommended Reads and Actions
The Government wants to commit us to ordering a new generation of nuclear weapons
"Replacing Trident will tie UK foreign policy to US policy for decades to come. It would prevent the UK from acting with others on global warming, poverty and conflict and perpetuate our role as US poodle". - Clare Short MP, Secretary of State for International Development 1997–2003
The Cost? Between £25 and £76 billion
And without any real consultation on this momentous decision
TAKE ACTION - WRITE TO YOUR MP
Further Information
At the government’s Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston they have been spending hundreds of millions of pounds of your money on a refit of the production line for nuclear warheads. We were assured that it did not mean that any decision has been made to replace the Trident nuclear system. The investment was merely intended to keep our options open. But now Gordon Brown have stated their desire to replace Trident. And the Government’s Chief Scientist at Aldermaston, Dr Clive Marsh, recently said that he and his team are working on ‘the ability to provide a new warhead’.
MP's despite the largest post-war backbench rebellion, have voted for the replacement of Trident and the Vanguard submarines - a decision that may well break the Non Proliferation Treaty. Yet where is our voice? the public consultation? The referendum? The deferment of a real decision until after the international Non Proliferation conference in 2010?
Replacing Trident sends a terrible message of double standards to the rest of the world. In fact it absolutely encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Replacing Trident might, according to legal opinion, put the UK in breach of our international legal commitment under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
On a national level, spending an estimated £76 billion on a replacement for Trident would be an appalling waste of money when much of our infrastructure is in such a poor state. For instance, it could provide hundreds of thousands of newly qualified nurses each year for the next ten years. All of us can think of much better ways that this money could be spent on improving life not threatening a massive level of destruction.
Other Resources
Joint Opinion for Peacerights, on the proposed replacement of Trident (PDF) - by Michael Fordham QC and Naina Patel - "In our view there is a powerful basis for concluding that the proposals in the White Paper to maintain Trident may well be contrary to the UK's obligations under the NPT and under customary international law, and that the government has a duty to consult upon the contents of the White Paper."
Britain's New Bomb Programme Exposed - Greenpeace - This briefing reveals:
• how now, 10 years on, the UK Government risks destroying the treaty;
• how billions of pounds are currently being invested in building hi-tech equipment at the Aldermaston nuclear weapons laboratory;
• that the new facilities planned for the site enable Aldermaston to design and build new nuclear weapons; and
• scientists’ concerns – that taking a high-tech approach to the virtual design and development of new nuclear weapons will inevitably lead to a return to full scale nuclear testing.
Treaty On The Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons - Signed at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968
