I find it quite scary and saddening that, even after 30 years of protest, Aldermaston still continues to pour out weapons of mass destruction.

But also inspiring that there are people continuing to fight he good fight for 30 years. Perhaps younger activists (like me) need to realise that we need to be in it for the long term?

And then I found a really scary thing. I was reading this story and thought "but what's the point of producing nukes in Reading?" As far as I know, that's not where most of the UK's nuclear 'deterrent' are based (thing Farslane). Then I found this site:  http://www.nukewatch.org.uk/ . Now I'm shit scared (check the accidents page).

It seems that anti-renewing Trident is quite popular at the moment, but very little attention is paid to a (the?) key source (Aldermaston). Please let me know when the next action is.

Kudos to all concerned. As the drones continue to parrot "cuts" (is anyone listening to them anymore anyway?) nukes and the subs that carry them, as well as their bunkers, are now outmoded. Relics from a dead age - welcome to the 21st Century.

While the cuts word is parroted we also give rich landowners millions of pounds through the EU agricultural subsidies. We give the pharma industry money through the NHS while suppressing alternatives. Military commanders have stated before that nukes are useless in the world situation that we now live in. All power to the protesters !

Times change. What if we return to a cold war situation in the near future.
The only thing that stopped Russian tanks rolling in across Europe was the threat of Nato.
Russia only recently was seen snooping on the Vanguard submarine coming out of port trying to get their acoustic signature. We might not need nukes right this second, but I imagine we will need their deterent in the future like we did in the cold war.

Toby? hilarious! how the fuck did you get here?! what a larf! now piss off back to mummy

Clearly ybot has not read any history books.
Another fool who things the world get on by giving each other bunches of flowers and handjobs.
How nieve. How stupid. Glad these people arent in charge. Without nukes, we would of been fucked. Without nukes we will be fucked. Wait till Iran has nuclear technology then were need them.

I'll try and be civil, unlike some others on the thread.

@ Toby

I don't need your permission to speak for myself, but thank you for the kind offer.

I do not subscribe to you 'what if ..,' argument. I think that route leads to paranoia and is impractical.

The paranoia comes from looking at everybody (people, organisations, countries) and saying 'what if they become my enemy and try to harm me. I need to get tooled up just in case.' Adam Curtis made two interesting documentaries about this: The Trap  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series) and The Power of Nightmares  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares (about The West / Islam, but instructive on East / West).

Impractical because there are so many 'what ifs.' For example, what if an asteroid hits us? What if a flu pandemic occurs? What if there's a simultaneous attack on all of our water and energy supplies? What if the Day of the Trifids happens? To try to be prepared for all of them would take up so many resources that we wouldn't have any left over to just get on with life.

"The only thing that stopped Russian tanks rolling in across Europe was the threat of Nato." The threat of Nato was largely due having far superior (numbers and quality) conventional military power. And, if you really want to stop Russian tank rolling across Europe, plant a forest. (Really - I'm not kidding. Tanks cannot get through forests, and if your enemy tries to bomb the forest, you have plenty of time to stop them).

"Russia only recently was seen snooping on the Vanguard submarine coming out of port trying to get their acoustic signature." What's so threatening about that? They want to know where other countries subs are. I would be amazed if other countries, including us, didn't do likewise.


@ Max

"Another fool who things the world get on by giving each other bunches of flowers and handjobs." Nobody has said or implied that here.

"Wait till Iran has nuclear technology then were need them." This seems to be based on the premise that the only reason Iran does not attack us is because they don't have the technology. However, technology other than nuclear to use for weapons of mass destruction is very easy (for a country) to make. Chemical and biological agents are what spring to mind. If Iran really did want to attack us, they would develop and use these technologies.


@ Toby & Max

Interesting that your views on the need for Trident seem to be different from the UK military high command that has them pretty low down the priority list of toys that they want. If you have information that they do not, I'm sure they would appreciate it if you sent them a message. I'm not sure that they check Indymedia on a regular basis.


A modest proposal (with apologies to Jonathan Swift)

If we are going to have weapons of mass destruction (which it what nukes are), let's build a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons. They will do as much damage as nukes, and be a lot cheaper. Any takers ;-)

"I do not subscribe to you 'what if ..,' argument. I think that route leads to paranoia and is impractical."
I do. In terms of defence, you have to have a high level of preparation and planning. Being prepared for various forms of attack is the key to a good defence. I thinl that to assume that we would never be under threat of attack in the future is ridiculous. Who knows what the state of the world is in 10 years time from now. You can't just roll out a nuclear submarine in 3 months. That isn't an effective nuclear deterrent.

"The paranoia comes from looking at everybody (people, organisations, countries) and saying 'what if they become my enemy and try to harm me."
Sad as it may be. Thats how countries often behave towards one another. Check the history books. There is no point making comparisons to being tooled up to walk down the street, that isn't comparable to nuclear weapons. For instance, with nukes, you have early warning alerts meaning that mutual destruction is assured. Therefore a deterrent exists. Two guys walking down the street tooled up can in no way guarantee mutual destruction, so being tooled up is pretty pointless.

What if an asteroid hits us?
We have planned for that.

What if a flu pandemic occurs?
We have planned for that.

What if there's a simultaneous attack on all of our water and energy supplies?
We have planned for that.

What if the Day of the Trifids happens?
Thats a story.

"To try to be prepared for all of them would take up so many resources that we wouldn't have any left over to just get on with life."
We seem to do well enough. I think nuclear deterrent can't be shuffled into the same priority as what happens if theres a bit more flooding than normal.

"And, if you really want to stop Russian tank rolling across Europe, plant a forest. (Really - I'm not kidding. Tanks cannot get through forests, and if your enemy tries to bomb the forest, you have plenty of time to stop them)."
Impractical. People live there and forests take many, many years to grow. You would have to grow it right across Europe and grow them very think, but i think Russia could of still cut through them very quickly. I don't think you've thought this through enough. Theres much better solutions - nukes being one of them.

"Russia only recently was seen snooping on the Vanguard submarine coming out of port trying to get their acoustic signature." What's so threatening about that?
A lot actually. The vanguard submarines PRIMARY defensive capability would be completely lost. Once the submarines could be tracked then they have lost much of their strategic advantage.

"They want to know where other countries subs are. I would be amazed if other countries, including us, didn't do likewise."
Yes. Of course we want to know where there submarines are and to keep ours hidden!!! Its not a game of cricket. The whole point is that we retain as many advantages as we can. We don't want them to know where ours are, but we want to know where theres are.


"However, technology other than nuclear to use for weapons of mass destruction is very easy (for a country) to make. Chemical and biological agents are what spring to mind. If Iran really did want to attack us, they would develop and use these technologies."

I completely disagree 100%. Chemical and biological weapons would be useless in taking out an aircraft carrier or a battalion of tanks. A nuclear weapon on a missile could do both.

Devonport Dockyard is where the Trident nuclear weapons submarines dock for a major maintenance programme. After about ten years of service, each of the four submarines arrives (unarmed) at the yard for a refit. As the Trident submarines are also nuclear powered, during this time the nuclear reactors are refuelled and a new reactor core is fitted. The old reactor core and spent fuel rods (all highly radioactive) are then transported to be stored at Sellafield.
Rolls Royce in Derby design and produce the reactors and reactor cores for these and Britain’s other nuclear powered submarines which also undergo refit at Devonport. During refit, the radioactive coolant water from the submarine's reactor is allowed to be discharged into the local river, the Tamar.
The company Babcock Marine runs Devonport Dockyard. It also services the Naval Base run by the Ministry of Defence next to the Dockyard and provides services for Rosyth naval dockyard and Faslane Naval Base where Trident submarines are based.

Obsolete nuclear powered submarines

Devonport Dockyard is also where eight obsolete nuclear powered submarines are being kept stored afloat. Plans are currently being hatched about what to do with them plus seven more obsolete submarines at Rosyth dockyard in Scotland, and the twelve submarines including Trident ones currently in service which will eventually be declared obsolete too. The problem is that the storage space at the two dockyards will be full by 2012, and any cutting up of the submarines (whose radioactive nuclear reactor compartments are the size of two double-decker buses) may release further poisonous radioactive discharges into the environment. Short term plans might mean nuclear waste from the submarines being stored at Devonport for many decades. Long-term plans for the waste to eventually end up in an enormous underground nuclear dump site elsewhere might not be viable. Such dumps have not yet been built anywhere in the world.

The radioactive risk

Devonport Dockyard is in the heart of Plymouth, which has a population of around 250,000 people. The Dockyard is close to the city centre and situated in an urban area minutes from homes and schools. The refit work and any proposal to cut up obsolete nuclear submarines there risks contaminating the local people and their environment with potentially harmful radioactivity. There have also been numerous accidents at the Dockyard further releasing radioactive discharge into the river.

We call on the government to pay heed to ever increasing local and national opposition and ensure that the city of Plymouth does not become a nuclear waste processing site or dump for obsolete nuclear powered submarines.

A city location is no place for handling radioactive waste in this manner and there is no guarantee that accidents will not occur. The government should make alternative investment into a regenerative strategy for the city, providing long-term sustainable job development; potential areas could include renewable energy projects like wave and wind power.

In November 2008 an investigation was launched after hundreds of litres of radioactive coolant spilled from a Devonport-based nuclear submarine.

The liquid escaped into the River Tamar after an incident involving HMS Trafalgar.

The Royal Navy confirmed up to 280 litres of water, likely to have been contaminated with tritium, poured from a burst hose as it was being pumped from the submarine.

The submarine was alongside at Devonport, after undergoing routine maintenance.

No-one was hurt in the incident and the vessel’s nuclear power plant was unaffected.

Previous reported radioactive spills at the dockyard include one in October 2005, when it was confirmed 10 litres of water leaked out as the main reactor circuit of HMS Victorious was being cleaned to reduce radiation.

Earlier the same year the Environment Agency had threatened legal action against former dockyard owners Devonport Management Limited (DML) after two spillages within the space of a week.

There were 10 nuclear leaks at the base between 1980 and 1998, during which 570 litres of radioactive liquid was lost. The worst incident was in 1985 when around 350 litres was spilled.

Call for Trident to be scrapped and for no Trident replacement.

pounds earmarked for this nonsense.

Today the 'government' decided not to decide to replace Trident until after the next election.

Yet AWE is still spending money hand over fist developing laser technology etc with no democratic mandate.

Seems the MOD can do whatever it wants with our money and the 'government' does nothing to stop them developing these useless deadly toys.

LINK to Photos and Video - U.S. Celebration of 30th. Anniversary of Plowshares 8 at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

 http://www.brandywinepeace.com/plow830anniv.html

Flickr photo slide show of Sept 8, 2010 - 8 Arrested at KC N-Plant
Groundbreaking
 http://www.flickr.com/photos/frank_cordaro_and_the_dm_c...8899/

-----------------------------------

KCUR 89.3 FM Public Radio KC MO interview of Jay Coghlan, executive
director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico
 http://archive.kcur.org/kcurViewDirect.asp?PlayListID=7687

New Honeywell Nuclear Weapons Plant (Up to Date, 9-9-2010) Recently,
politicians, workers and others attended a groundbreaking ceremony at
Honeywell's new nuclear weapons plant that will replace the current
one at the Bannister Federal Complex.

There's no doubt that the plant has an economic impact on Kansas City.
About 2,600 employees will work at the $687 plant, but what does the
new plant bring to Kansas City that the old plant didn't, and more
importantly, why are we still building nuclear weapons in a day and
age when countries are trimming - not expanding - their nuclear
arsenals?

Steve Kraske talked with Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear
Watch New Mexico and others about the plant, how its non-nuclear
components manufacturing line interfaces with the nuclear parts plants
in other regions of the country, what the plant means to Kansas City's
economy, and why so many people favor construction of the plant.

 http://dontpaniconline.com/magazine/politics/trident-impossible-debate

Dan Plesch: Let's clear away the Trident delusion, Independent on Sunday, 19 September 2010
 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dan-plesch-lets-clear-away-the-trident-delusion-2083256.html

The End Game - Steven Schofield, Morning Star, 21 September 2010
 http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/95541

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/09/461428.html

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/09/461839.html

 http://www.tridentploughshares.org/article1608

Good old West Berkshire Council does it again, despite 1331 objections from the
public:

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-11435606

 http://greenreading.blogspot.com/2010/09/awe-project-hydrus-planning-decision.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

There will be no public inquiry into this or any of the other developments at the (two-thirds US-owned) Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) sites, intended to enable the development of a new generation of nuclear warheads. Over £1 billion a year (£3 million a day) of public money is currently being spent on AWE, with no public consultation or parliamentary debate or approval, and barely any public scrutiny.

AWE is currently 'celebrating' 60 years of making nuclear bombs in Berkshire:
 http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2079162_bomb_factory_celebrates_60_years_at_aldermaston

The Orion laser, an integral part of the new developments at AWE Aldermaston, is
apparently due for a royal unveiling later this year.

Might be the time to step up the direct action at Aldermaston, and against Trident and its planned £97bn replacement?

 http://www.tridentploughshares.org

Devonport Big Blockade, Plymouth, Monday 1 November 2010
 http://www.tridentploughshares.org/article1608