|About Us||Arms Trade||Drones||Picture Gallery|
The Nuclear Chain
The nuclear litany goes like this -
Where does Trident fit into this dangerous pattern?
One pretext on which Britain might possibly use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it, (just as Tony Blair legitimised George Bush's invasion of Iraq). In a crisis the very existence of our Trident might make it harder for a UK prime minister to refuse to take part.
The truth is that Trident is not an independent deterrent. Essential components are leased from the US. UK Trident submarines have to return their missiles regularly to the US for maintenance.
Britain is no longer forced to be part of the Nuclear Chain. We would be safer without Trident. Its principal role now is to secure our seat at the Top Table.
The alternative would be to scrap Trident, and place Britain at the head of the non-nuclear powers - the majority of the countries in the world.
"British Values" - Freedom, Democracy and the Rule of Law - are not preserved or promoted by Trident. UK nuclear weapons have more fire-power than all the munitions used in World War II. They have the capacity to kill tens of millions of people and trigger catastrophic climate change.
On 28 September 2016, six countries introduced a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly urging the commencement of negotiations in 2017 for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.
The six nations - Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa - are urging countries "to negotiate a legally-binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons."
The draft resolution "calls upon States participating in the conference to make their best endeavours to conclude as soon as possible a legally-binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination."
Many nuclear-armed nations have expressed outright animosity toward this nuclear disarmament effort. Anita Friedt, a high-ranking official in the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, said that the United States believes "pursuit of such a ban is unrealistic and simply impractical" and "could actually end up harming" broader, tangible efforts toward disarmament.
A vote is expected around the end of October 2016.