Trident replacement is seen by some other countries (and indeed the British public) as contradicting the Government's committment to international nuclear non-proliferation. This is key in 2010 as this year's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in New York could fail if the UK is seen to break this committment - and during a key period for efforts to restrain the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.
More here from the Independent.
Facebook
Twitter
Flickr
YouTube
RSS
ledal07
Which is bigger? Could it be the Nuclear threat?
Jim McClusky thinks so in his article - The Nuclear Weapons Threat
Goto
http://www.u3a.org.uk/sustainable-development/468-jim-mcclusky-article.html
for the full article
The Cold War, we are told, is over. Yet the nuclear weapons threat is still very much with us and it is a greater threat than global warming since it could decimate our planet in a matter of hours, not in 50 to one hundred years.
This is the great taboo topic of our period. In the 1960s,especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world population was aware that nuclear war could break out suddenly because of the way the world’s leaders deployed these weapons. The ready-to-launch deployment has not changed. All that has changed is our willingness to face the threat.
There are still around 27,000 nuclear warheads in existence.
These are enough to incinerate the entire population of the planet five times over.
Around 5000 of these weapons are on hair-trigger alert.
This means that they can be launched within 15 minutes of the command being given (the President or Prime minister will have 10 to 15 minutes to make a decision on launch after the Chiefs of Staff have given the opinion that we are under attack. The Chiefs of Staff will have 10 to 15 minutes to decide if we are really under attack after receipt of electronic information that we are).
The existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a continuous and totally unnecessary threat to the population of our planet making both true peace and peace of mind impossible. With the present high alert deployment antagonisms could escalate quickly into the ultimate disaster. Electronic warning systems could malfunction and trigger a launch. The nuclear weapons networks are highly complicated and subject to unforeseen accidents. In fact accidents have already occurred which took us within a hair’s breadth of disaster.
This dire state of affairs is driven by the belief among the world’s leaders that having a nuclear arsenal at the ready gains them power and prestige; gets their feet under the top table. We all risk paying a terrible price for this power-hunger and hubris; a risk that we have not volunteered to take.
The people of the world do not want these weapons. Of the 192 states of the United Nations only 9 have developed nuclear weapons. The remaining 183 states are put at risk by the 9 who have them.
Of the nine states that have developed these weapons, in no case has the populations of those states been asked if they want them.
ledal07 Which is bigger? Could it be the Nuclear threat? Jim McClusky thinks so in his article - The Nuclear Weapons Threat Goto http://www.u3a.org.uk/sustainable-development/468-jim-mcclusky-article.html for the full article The Cold War, we are told, is over. Yet the nuclear weapons threat is still very much with us and it is a greater threat than global warming since it could decimate our planet in a matter of hours, not in 50 to one hundred years. This is the great taboo topic of our period. In the 1960s,especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world population was aware that nuclear war could break out suddenly because of the way the world’s leaders deployed these weapons. The ready-to-launch deployment has not changed. All that has changed is our willingness to face the threat. There are still around 27,000 nuclear warheads in existence. These are enough to incinerate the entire population of the planet five times over. Around 5000 of these weapons are on hair-trigger alert. This means that they can be launched within 15 minutes of the command being given (the President or Prime minister will have 10 to 15 minutes to make a decision on launch after the Chiefs of Staff have given the opinion that we are under attack. The Chiefs of Staff will have 10 to 15 minutes to decide if we are really under attack after receipt of electronic information that we are). The existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a continuous and totally unnecessary threat to the population of our planet making both true peace and peace of mind impossible. With the present high alert deployment antagonisms could escalate quickly into the ultimate disaster. Electronic warning systems could malfunction and trigger a launch. The nuclear weapons networks are highly complicated and subject to unforeseen accidents. In fact accidents have already occurred which took us within a hair’s breadth of disaster. This dire state of affairs is driven by the belief among the world’s leaders that having a nuclear arsenal at the ready gains them power and prestige; gets their feet under the top table. We all risk paying a terrible price for this power-hunger and hubris; a risk that we have not volunteered to take. The people of the world do not want these weapons. Of the 192 states of the United Nations only 9 have developed nuclear weapons. The remaining 183 states are put at risk by the 9 who have them. Of the nine states that have developed these weapons, in no case has the populations of those states been asked if they want them.