Say No to Trident

Add a Comment

Comment by Matt Hill 2 hours ago

In many ways it would be easier to enforce than the chemical weapons convention since a nuclear programme requires much more infrastructure to support it. Still, I guess my point is that Iran can get away with breaking international law now because they provide India and China with oil, and I only see the value of that trump card increasing in the future... Would the West really punish Saudi Arabia if they went nuclear, as they have threatened to do in response to a nuclear Iran?

Comment by Janet King 16 hours ago

The convention would apply to all states and would simply outlaw possession of nuclear weapons. It would work in the same way as the chemical and biological weapons conventions, All signatory states would agree not to stockpile nuclear weapons and there would be a total end to continuous at sea deterrence, which is causing trouble just now. It would need to be strictly monitored, presumably by a UN agency, and there would always be suspicions that some state or other was breaking the convention but they could be brought to justice. Whilst the UK and other countries cannot even get their act together to ban guns in our own countries, it is a lot to ask BUT it can be achieved if sufficient good people lead the way..  

Comment by Matt Hill yesterday

So what would a global multilateral nuclear weapons convention do to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, or anyone else for that matter?

Comment by Janet King on Monday

I have just ben reading Jonathan Freedland's article in Saturday;s Guardian`Syria is not Iraq....' and, whilst he writes recommending that war can only be considered when all peaceful interventions have failed,he says`the anti-war camp refuses to recognise there might even be a problem, namely the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon'. Should we be elated that an influential journalist accepts that possession of nuclear weapons constitutes a problem(the UK does not possibly have a lot of them, we actually have a serious number of them) or dismayed because he fails to make the connection which I have just made. I repeat - the only way to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons without wars is to sign a Nuclear Weapons Convention and dispose of our own weapons, multilaterally if possible (as it would be under the Convention) or unilaterally if necessary. . 

Comment by Janet King on Saturday

So it has happened at last (as we knew it would).Argentina has cited the daily Vanguard/Trident excursion ( continuous at sea defence) as a reason for possible action against the UK re. the Falklands. Of course we all know that Trident has been continuously at sea in international waters, fully armed with nuclear warheads, for the past 30 years and at last this is being used as an excuse for possible action in the Falklands.  It is no longer just a few million harmless peace makers , including ourselves and CND, who are calling for an end to this expensive and dangerous world cruise. Isn't it time the UK Government decided to go non-nuclear like the vast majority of the world? At least countries like Argentina could then not be so selfrighteous in protesting about what they see as UK agression. What do you think, Nick Harvey?

Comment by Janet King on Friday

Would any member of SNTT who is coming to Gateshead and would be able to help to distribute our leaflets outside the Sage please let Janet King know on janet@kingfamily110.org.uk. I am awaiting a reply re putting our literature on a stall (not our own) in the exhibition hall too.

  I notice that non-replacement of Trident got a mention in the Guardian's analysys of how Lib Dems are likely to upset the co-alition this year. Any publicity........

By the way, can NATO force a country to keep a deadly stock of nuclear weapons(member or not)? I hope not!

Comment by Matt Hill on February 1, 2012 at 9:34pm

Nuclear power only really makes sense if it is nationalized infrastructure (which it should be anyway), but that's another story.  I would have assumed Scotland would want to remain/become a NATO member, although perhaps Salmond's vision of a Nordic-style system means they wouldn't seek it by default...  Another possibility entirely of course is that the nuclear base at Faslane remains part of the UK in the same was as the British base on Cyprus did - any border for the new independent Scotland would have to be OK'ed by Westminster by law, after all.

Comment by Janet King on February 1, 2012 at 5:37pm

Would an independent Scotland not wish to become a NATO member? If so, I hope the price of membership will not be their retention of a nuclear arsenal.You could choose neutrality if you were wise, of course.How would you Scottish SNTT folk feel about staying out of NATO? Would the SNP ever seek to renationalise energy production - or is that a crazy idea?

Comment by Rebekah Gronowski on February 1, 2012 at 10:36am

As I see it, we may have to compromise by having to retain nuclear power (not ideal) in order to negotiate on the issue of getting rid of Trident.

Comment by Rebekah Gronowski on February 1, 2012 at 10:15am

Our only problem is that Scotland, as a country, is not a member state of NATO - they can veto any move we make to get rid of it in Scotland, unfortunately. :(

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 108
• Next ›
• Page