nuclear weapons

Iran nuclear crisis needs ‘disruptive diplomacy’, not shock and awe

Posted by Kumi Naidoo - 16 April 2012 at 5:33pm - 2 Comments
All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace / John Novis
Rainbow Warrior sails 20 miles from the port of Bushehr, Iran. 2007

Kumi's blog was originally published by IPS, before the Istanbul summit took place.

Disruptive diplomacy may be the only way out of the Iran-Israel nuclear crisis, the only way to pierce the hegemony of hypocrisy dominating the power politics of nuclear weapons control, of those who have them, and of those who are accused of developing them.

Otherwise, this weekend's meeting on Iran's nuclear programme is likely to be yet another missed opportunity, yet another exercise in futility.

Does Trident announcement mark a new Lib Dem broken promise?

Posted by louise - 18 May 2011 at 4:32pm - 6 Comments

A while back I got a letter from the Lib Dems telling me "Trident will not be renewed this parliament - not on a Liberal Democrat watch”.

This ran though my mind today as I watched Defence Secretary Liam Fox stand up in parliament to pronounce ‘thunderbirds are go’ on the next phase of building a replacement for Trident.

FOI documents reveal MoD plans to purchase "long lead" items for Trident

Publication date:  18 May, 2011

A freedom of information request made by Greenpeace reveals that the MoD plans to purchase a whole series of “long lead” items for Trident replacement submarines in the next few years - estimated to cost billions.

Download the report:

MoD starts purchasing Trident replacement without parliamentary OK - get your MP to act!

Posted by andrelotz - 18 March 2011 at 3:22pm - 15 Comments
While cuts are being made to public services, why is money being spent on weapon
All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace
While cuts are being made to public services, why is money being spent on weapons we neither want or need?

At the mention of nuclear today our thoughts turn to the situation in Japan and all of those affected by the earthquakes, tsunami and nuclear emergency. I can only hope that the situation at Fukushima is soon contained and the risks minimised for everyone affected.

Here in the UK, there is another nuclear issue that is silently inching forward without parliamentary approval or public awareness – nuclear weapons replacement.

Trident: what to cut?

While cuts are being made to public services, why is money being spent on weapon
Author Credit:  Greenpeace
Date Taken:  1 March, 2010

Ahoy! A nuclear scandal ahead?

Posted by louise - 14 January 2011 at 6:09pm - 14 Comments
All rights reserved. Credit: John Cobb / Greenpeace

Remember the defence review? The one that left us marvelling at the Alice in Wonderland world we inhabit - where we build two giant aircraft carriers we don’t actually want because building them is actually cheaper than cancelling them? The one that said we can’t actually afford to buy any planes to put on those carriers?

Moving to a nuclear weapons-free world

Today, nearly two decades after the Cold War ended, there are still 23,000 nuclear warheads in the world.

They are held by just nine countries: the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Worryingly, more than 2,000 of them are still on hair-trigger alert - ready to launch at short notice, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

But this is not the whole story. The majority of the world has already shown us the solution to the problem of nuclear weapons - by rejecting them. Many countries have gone down the nuclear weapons path then turned back, realising that they do not increase their security.

Peace - where we are now

At the height of the Cold War in the 1960s it seemed almost inevitable that a terrifying nuclear arms race would spread to all corners of the globe, threatening the future of humanity. That’s why the international community got together and agreed to ban nuclear weapons.

Fifty years on, almost all nations reject the need for nuclear weapons. Today only nine countries still possess them – in clear contravention of international law.

Greenpeace believes that only by cutting our nuclear addiction can we place nuclear materials under strong controls – and ensure they don’t get into the hands of terrorists and dictators.

Leading scientists criticise nuclear weapons research

Posted by jossc - 13 October 2010 at 9:57am - 1 Comment

In a letter in today’s Guardian 36 science professors are calling on the Prime Minister to protect core science funding - by cutting government investment in developing new nuclear weapons. We asked Stuart Parkinson, co-ordinator of the letter, to tell us what it’s all about...

As the announcement of the government’s spending review gets ever closer, the lobbying to defend this or that area of public spending is becoming more and more intense.

Work for peace and disarmament

40 years ago the international community got together and agreed to work towards eliminating nuclear weapons. But these terrifying weapons of mass destruction are still with us. Greenpeace believes that it’s time for the nine nuclear countries - including Britain - to start serious negotiations to reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals, and focus instead on the real challenge facing the world - building a safer, greener future for us all.

License: All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace