copyright Steve Bell 2004/All Rights Reserved: steve.bell@guardian.co.uk

Responding to yesterday's announcement to the City by Gordon Brown that he intends to back building a successor to the Trident nuclear weapons system, Greenpeace urged Gordon Brown not to ignore the real long term security needs facing the world.

Dr Dominick Jenkins, Greenpeace nuclear campaigner, said, "Brown may want the top job more than anything else in the world -- but is he really prepared for the global cost to be the destruction of international treaties and the kick-starting of a new nuclear arms race?"

He continued, "If he really wants to take difficult long term decisions and protect future generations then he should listen to the words of the people that are tasked with controlling WMD globally -- like Hans Blix and Kofi Annan -- who are urging nuclear weapons states not to build new nuclear bombs".

Hans Blix recently said to UK MPs, while outlining the findings of his recent Weapons of Mass Destruction report, that "it would send a positive echo around the world if Britain, one of the original five nations with nuclear weapons, did not renew Trident".(1)

Addressing the Conference on Disarmament in New York yesterday, Kofi Annan urged nuclear weapons states to act to prevent negotiations to ban nuclear weapons falling apart. He stated: "The core of the impasse [at the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)] lies in the fact that the contract between the nuclear-weapon states and the rest of the international community, which is the basis of the NPT, has been called into question."

"These facts have engendered a self-defeating debate between those who insist on disarmament before further non-proliferation measures, and those who argue the opposite, while both are essential."

Annan further stated that nuclear weapons must be "devalued for security", citing Japan, South Africa, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Libya as countries that have realised that "security and status need not be equated with possession of nuclear weapons".

Dr Jenkins continued: "Rather than obsessing about how he politically best places himself to destroy the left wing of his party, Gordon Brown should be focusing on creating real long term security for Britain and the world."

"Long term security means working with the rest of the world to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction, not holding them up to the world as an essential way of getting a place 'at the top table'."

Greenpeace is proposing an alternative way forward for government that involves neither unilateral nuclear disarmament nor nuclear re-armament. This is that Britain should agree not to replace Trident, then remove its Trident submarines from patrol and store the warheads safely ashore. This move should then be used as both an inspiration and a bargaining chip within international treaty meetings to get other countries to follow suit.

Such a move would also free up some £25 billion to spend on tackling our real security threats -- like tackling climate change and developing secure alternatives to Middle East oil.

Greenpeace also described as "deeply disturbing" reports in the Sun newspaper that the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston is already developing new nuclear weapons, despite the fact that they and MP's have repeatedly been assured that no new weapons are currently being designed at Aldermaston.

For more information contact Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.

(1) The UN Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission report launched in Britain on 12th June this year by Hans Blix recommended that nuclear weapons be outlawed completely and highlights the importance of Britain's decision whether or not to replace Trident. It states:

"Any state contemplating replacement or modernisation of its nuclear-weapon systems must consider such action in the light of all relevant treaty obligations and its duty to contribute to the nuclear disarmament process. As a minimum, it must refrain from developing nuclear weapons with new military capabilities or for new missions. It must not adopt systems or doctrines that blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons or lower the nuclear threshold."

"France and the UK... are now at a crossroads: going down one road would show their conviction that nuclear weapons are not necessary for their security, while the other would demonstrate to all other states a belief that these weapons continue to be indispensable."

For the full report see http://www.wmdcommission.org/

(2) Speaking to the Conference on Disarmament in New York yesterday Kofi Annan warned that the failure of governments to strengthen the foundations of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- first at the review conference in May, and then at the World Summit in September - was deeply worrying.

"This sent a terrible signal -- of waning respect for the Treaty's authority, and of a dangerous rift on a leading threat to peace and prosperity," he said.

He noted that the Conference and its predecessors have registered "some truly important gains", such as the major treaties on weapons of mass destruction it negotiated. "But the last such success -- the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty -- was nine years ago, I repeat, was nine years ago -- and it has still not entered into force," he said, once again urging those states whose ratification is still needed to take action as soon as possible.

The core of the impasse, he said, lies in the fact that the contract between the nuclear-weapon states and the rest of the international community, which is the basis of the NPT, has been called into question and that nuclear weapons worldwide still number in the thousands, many of them on hair-trigger alert.

These facts have engendered a self-defeating debate between those who insist on disarmament before further non-proliferation measures, and those who argue the opposite, while both are essential, he stressed.

He said nuclear weapons must be devalued for security, citing Japan, South Africa, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Libya as countries that have realised that security and status need not be equated with possession of nuclear weapons.

A delegation of church leaders and MSPs outside the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston

This morning a high level delegation of Church Leaders and members of the Scottish Parliament were refused a meeting by the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and turned away by armed police.

The delegation had formally requested a meeting with the Managing Director of AWE to ask why more than a billion pounds is being spent on new facilities and technical staff at Aldermaston despite the fact the government claim not to have made a decision on whether or not to replace Trident (1).

Requests for a meeting inside the base were refused so a further letter was sent requesting a meeting at the gate. Today this too was turned down. The delegation instead read out a list of demands to the government. These included that:

• No further commitment be made to new developments before a decision has been made on whether to replace Trident.
• Government should disclose to Parliament the proposals for developments at AWE including the cost, timescale and purpose of each of the facilities which may be built or refurbished.
• Meantime Trident should not be replaced and no new weapons should be deployed by the UK government.
• More resources at AWE should be focused on disarmament verification and nuclear decommissioning -- in line with Britain's obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

The group, which included the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and The Right Hon. Lord Murray, former Lord Advocate, (Scotland's most senior law officer) were then taken on a tour of the outside of the military site, having key new developments pointed out to them.

The Right Reverend Alan McDonald, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland said, "If no decision has been made on whether to replace Trident then why are billions flowing into Aldermaston and why are new hi tech lasers and super computers being installed behind closed doors?"

He continued, "The Government should listen to the findings of Hans Blix's new WMD Report which clearly calls for the UK to refrain from developing new weapons, as such a move would encourage a new arms race."

The AWE in Aldermaston near Reading is where Britain's Trident nuclear weapons are designed and built. From there they travel in convoys to Faslane in Scotland where the Trident submarines that carry the nuclear missiles are based. Developments are currently underway on the site which AWE themselves describe as 'on the scale of Heathrow's Terminal 5 expansion' (2). They strongly suggest that the government has already decided to develop a new generation of UK nuclear weapons. These include:

• Government investment of £1 billion in Aldermaston over the next 3 years and commitment to invest a further £5 billion.
• Preparations to build a new laser, called Orion, which is one thousand times more powerful than the existing one onsite.
• Development of new 'super computers' - capable of simulating nuclear tests and designing new weapons - which will increase the facility's computing power by a factor of nine hundred.
• Plans to build new hydrodynamics test facilities and tritium and highly enriched uranium plants.
• Plans for recruitment of 80 new specialist scientists and advertising for staff to join the 'warhead development centre'.

Following the fact-finding visit the delegation will travel to the House of Commons to meet Hans Blix, who will present the new UN Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission report to MPs and the media. The report recommends that nuclear weapons be outlawed completely and highlights how important Britain's decision whether or not to build a new generation of nuclear weapons is to the future of international nuclear disarmament:

"Any state contemplating replacement or modernization of its nuclear-weapon systems must consider such action in the light of all relevant treaty obligations and its duty to contribute to the nuclear disarmament process. As a minimum, it must refrain from developing nuclear weapons with new military capabilities or for new missions. It must not adopt systems or doctrines that blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons or lower the nuclear threshold."

"France and the UK...are now at a crossroads: going down one road would show their conviction that nuclear weapons are not necessary for their security, while the other would demonstrate to all other states a belief that these weapons continue to be indispensable". (3)

The delegation has travelled from Scotland to reflect widespread Scottish opposition to nuclear weapons. Britain's Trident nuclear submarines are currently based at Faslane on the west coast of Scotland. The delegation is being jointly organised by Scottish CND, Greenpeace and the Nuclear Information Service.


(1) A letter requesting a meeting at Aldermaston was sent on May 1st. A reply rejecting the application was received on 2 June. A follow up letter requesting that Don Cook the Managing Director of AWE meet the delegation at the front gate to discuss their concerns was then sent to the facility.
(2) Source AWE Today magazine December 2005.
(3) ) For more on the Blix report visit http://www.wmdcommission.org/. See page 99 for relevant quotes on new UK nuclear weapons.

The delegation includes Bill Butler MSP, Labour; Colin Fox MSP, Leader Scottish Socialist Party; Rev. Kathy Galloway, Leader Iona Community; Robin Harper MSP, Co-leader Scottish Green Party; Mary Alice Mansell, Scottish Quaker General Meeting; Dr Richard McCready, National Secretary Justice and Peace Scotland (Catholic Church); Right Rev. Alan McDonald, Moderator Church of Scotland; Isobel Lindsay Vice Chair Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Lord Ronald King Murray, former Lord Advocate; Matt Smith, Scottish Secretary, UNISON; Sandra White MSP, Scottish National Party; John Ainslie, Coordinator Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Simon Clydesdale Greenpeace; Dr. Rebecca Johnson, The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy; Philip Austen, Quaker Peace and Social Witness; Di McDonald, Executive Director Nuclear Information Service; Kate Hudson, Chair CND; Richard Maguire, Mountbatten Centre for International Studies.

Nukes out of NATO - Greenpeace activists enter the NATO site in Brussels

A Briton was amongst 24 Greenpeace volunteers arrested this morning for blockading the main entrance to NATO with a replica B61 nuclear bomb and dropping a banner from the main NATO building roof calling for "Nukes out of NATO"¹.

The protest coincided with the start of a NATO Defence Ministers meeting preparing for a debate on the future of NATO.

A recent report by a US think tank revealed that 480 US/NATO nuclear weapons currently remain in Europe - twice the amount previously thought². These include 110 B61 nuclear bombs based at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk³. The remaining weapons are spread across Germany, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Each of these bombs has a destructive capacity up to ten times of that which destroyed Hiroshima and together they have a combined power capable of wiping Europe off the map.

Greenpeace Disarmament Campaigner Simon Clydesdale said "With all the debate over Iran's nuclear intentions, countries must accept their own responsibility and role in de-escalating nuclear tensions. By removing US NATO nuclear weapons, European leaders have the opportunity to strengthen the position of Europe in negotiations with the Middle East and Russia and take a real step towards achieving a more peaceful future".

He added: "Now is the time to make a 21st century NATO free of 20th century nuclear weapons and policies."

A report released last week by the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDC) chaired by Hans Blix explicitly called for all 480 US/NATO nuclear weapons to be removed from Europe.⁴ It explained how the failure to withdraw these weapons is impeding international efforts to negotiate further Russian nuclear reductions.

The governments of NATO countries have a direct role in shaping NATO policy and can insist that these weapons be removed from their territory. The US has been told to take their weapons home several times before: Canada, Greece, Denmark (Greenland) and Iceland are all now free of US nuclear bombs.


For further information: contact Greenpeace UK press office on 020 7865 8255.

Notes to Editor:
For more about the Greenpeace campaign visit http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/securing-our-safety.

Read the full story

¹ The arrested UK volunteer is Trish Whitham of Berkshire.

² Hans Kristensen, "U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe: A Review of Post-Cold War Policy, Force Levels, and War Planning" (Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington DC, February 2005)

³ RAF Lakenheath is a US military base situated near Cambridge. It is home to nearly 5,500 US military personnel and 2,700 American, British and Icelandic civilians.

As well as hosting 110 B61 nuclear bombs, Lakenheath is also the base for two squadrons of F-15 Strike Eagle aircraft, which are assigned for delivering the B61 nuclear bombs. These planes are the most advanced two-seat tactical fighter aircraft in the world and capable of carrying up to 5 bombs each. This is more than the F16s and Tornado aircraft deployed in other NATO nuclear bases in Europe, which can only carry two. Their presence is the key reason RAF Lakenheath is considered the most important US tactical nuclear bombing base in Europe.

⁴ WMDC RECOMMENDATION 21: "Russia and the United States should proceed to implement the commitments they made in 1991 to eliminate specific types of non-strategic nuclear weapons, such as demolition munitions, artillery shells and warheads for short-range ballistic missiles. They should agree to withdraw all non-strategic nuclear weapons to central storage on national territory, pending their eventual elimination. The two countries should reinforce their 1991 unilateral reduction commitments by developing arrangements to ensure verification, transparency and irreversibility."

WMDC RECOMMENDATION 22: "Every state that possesses nuclear weapons should make a commitment not to deploy any nuclear weapon, of any type, on foreign soil." http://www.wmdcommission.org

A Trident submarine leaving Faslane naval base in Scotland

Greenpeace today accused the Government of steam-rollering the country into adopting a new generation of nuclear weapons after planning consent was given to a controversial new defence project.

Greenpeace believes the Orion laser, planned for the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, and other elements of the current £1 billion upgrade of Aldermaston's research and development facilities will be used to develop a new nuclear weapon - very possibly a new generation smaller, so-called 'battlefield' nuclear weapons that would be more likely to be used.

Last night West Berkshire council gave planning consent to the project, removing the last bureaucratic obstacle to construction of the laser.

Dr Dominic Jenkins, Greenpeace Senior Disarmament Campaigner, said:
"Defence Secretary John Reid promised a national debate on whether we should replace Trident, but by building the Orion Laser the Government will have made the decision already. By proceeding with plans for new nuclear weapons without even asking if we need them, or if the billions they will cost could better be spent on fighting terrorism, New Labour has put the cart before the horse."

Construction of the laser, which can recreate the conditions of a nuclear explosion, undercuts the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) - at a time when both these treaties are in peril. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has warned that the collapse of these treaties is possible - a development that would lead to the runaway proliferation of nuclear weapons and a new arms race.

It is almost certain that the Orion laser is part of preparing the Aldermaston site to design and build a new atomic bomb:

• In its 1998 Strategic Defence Review the Government stated that its development of a science-based program to give it the capacity to build a successor to Trident without nuclear testing was the "main driver" for the future development of the Aldermaston site.
  
  
• AWE annual reports and other statements have repeatedly placed the building of the new laser, acquisition of super-computers, and other developments at Aldermaston in the context of its retaining a capability to build a new atomic bomb.
  
  
• Former top American nuclear weapon designer physicist Seymour Sack has pointed out that there is no need for US nuclear weapons laboratories to build high-powered lasers if their only concern is to maintain the safety and reliability of existing nuclear warheads.
  
  
• The history of the Cheveline nuclear weapons program shows past prime ministers and AWE scientists have hidden previous development at Aldermaston from the public, from Members of Parliament and from members of the Cabinet.
  
  
• The scale of the development of Aldermaston, described by the AWE as "similar in scale to the Terminal 5 project at Heathrow," would involve the hiring of hundreds of new scientists and other staff, increased meetings with US scientists, the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement for technical cooperation, and the commitment of over a billion pounds during the next three years to the project. Such a development makes no sense if the sole intension is the maintenance of the existing arsenal. The Government has presented no evidence that these expenditures are needed to maintain Britain's existing nuclear weapons.

For more information contact Greenpeace on 0207 865 8255

Unnecessary and unwanted: a replacement for the Trident missile system

The Government will make a decision on whether to build a new nuclear weapon system to replace Trident in this parliament.

This is a key decision for the UK and the world. A decision to build a new UK nuclear bomb will endanger the threatened Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the only international legally binding treaties covering nuclear disarmament. If they fall we face a breakdown of international co-operation leading to a nuclear free for all.

That's why we are launching a campaign to persuade the UK government to take a lead in restarting international disarmament by:

• Taking Trident submarines off patrol and removing the warheads to an internationally monitored storage site in the United Kingdom.
  
  
• Cancelling plans to build a new nuclear weapon and halting associated developments at AWE Aldermaston of new laser facilities and super-computers.
  
  
• Working closely with other key states to strengthen existing disarmament treaties and to restart global multi-lateral disarmament negotiations.

In the past decisions about nuclear weapons systems have been made in secret with minimal if any parliamentary oversight, never mind public input, with billions of pounds being committed to programmes without any real debate.

Our campaign will seek to ensure that this time there is full and open debate and that the powerful arguments for nuclear disarmament are heard.

The government need to explain to the public why after the end of the cold war the UK needs nuclear weapons. They also need to explain how they expect other countries not to covet nuclear weapons if we implicitly give them military status. For instance why should Iran, facing a hostile US and hostile neighbours with nuclear arsenals not develop their own weapons?

The government also need to explain how they envisage using nuclear weapons. Emerging US doctrine shows their military moving towards smaller, more useable nuclear weapons, using them first, rather than in response to a nuclear strike, and against chemical or biological weapons or in a conventional conflicts (1).

What is the UK government's view on this? Do they really conceive of using nuclear weapons in this way? The evidence to date is that they do, under the Tory government the UK abandoned their 'no first use' of nuclear weapons policy, a previous keystone of disarmament negotiations. And it transformed Trident into a 'substrategic' nuclear weapon which could be used to secure Britain's 'vital interests' overseas.

The Labour Government has never repudiated this doctrine and in the run up to war in Iraq Geoff Hoon, echoing the new US doctrine, shifted the UK position further by repeatedly emphasising that if British forces where threatened by chemical or biological weapons the UK 'reserved the right' to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively.

We need to hear what expert views are, for instance about whether a nuclear strike is a safe way of destroying a biological weapons factory. Just as importantly we need to know how the public feel about UK nuclear weapons being used against a non nuclear country, or in response to a concern that chemical weapons may be used against British forces overseas, or to secure Britain's overseas interests. Past polls indicate the public are strongly opposed to such use, but has this changed?

Greenpeace's position is clear - we oppose the development and use of nuclear weapons. And we believe that it is vital we now kick-start a nuclear disarmament process, which has already led to over half the world's nuclear weapons being decommissioned. That's why we are re-launching our campaign to rid the world of nuclear weapons not just in the UK, but worldwide.

We are already pressuring the government to release all relevant information about a possible successor to Trident, by putting in Freedom of Information requests for any studies on the military, foreign policy, and financial consequences of building a new atomic bomb. The responses we've had make it clear reports exist, but also that the government doesn't want the public to know about them (2). We will continue to exert pressure for their release.

Where are the UK's Nuclear Ambitions Taking Us? '

View the leaked pentagon report outlining operational guidance for the new US nuclear posture '

FOIA Requests: MoD refuses information on Trident replacement '

To get copies of the responses to our FOI requests call Louise Edge in the Greenpeace Press Office on 020 7865 8115 or Dominick Jenkins Greenpeace Disarmament Campaigner on 020 7865 8248.