Nuclear weapons almost launched accidentally 13 times!

Nuclear weapons have almost been launched accidentally 13 times – it's time to stop believing in the fantasy that Trident keeps us safe

The £100bn we use to uphold this Cold War relic could instead be used for schools, hospitals and guaranteeing new jobs in renewable energy for the 11,000 people whose jobs are currently dependent on it

The Defence Secretary Michael Fallon in Faslane last month, visiting nuclear submarine HMS Vigilant Getty
This week, MPs will be making a decision that will define Britain’s place in the world for generations to come. Either we replace our multibillion pound Trident missile capability or we join the vast majority of other countries in the world and become a nuclear weapons free state.

The vote takes place at a time of heightened tension across the world, and the security of our country should be at the forefront of every MPs mind when they walk through the voting lobbies this evening.

Britain can't prosper outside the EU if it wastes billions on Trident
It is my firm view, based on the best available evidence, that renewing Trident will not only fail to improve Britain’s security, but in fact poses significant dangers to us. These weapons of mass destruction have the potential to cause death on an unimaginable scale, and they do nothing to hinder the real threat of lone gunmen or extremists. Their very presence here – and the transport of nuclear warheads on our roads – is not only a target for terrorism but a continued risk of accidents linked to human error or technical failure. A recent report from Chatham House confirms this threat, listing 13 occasions from across the world when nuclear weapons were nearly launched accidentally. These weapons present a huge risk – and there’s no evidence to suggest they keep us any safer.

If we’re serious about ridding the world of nuclear weapons and fulfilling our obligations under the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, then genuine disarmament is non-negotiable. Keeping these weapons sends a dangerous signal to the rest of the world that security is dependent on being able to use weapons of mass destruction, and thus drives proliferation.

The UN is currently working on a treaty to ban Nuclear Weapons. Britain can play a part in ridding the world of these weapons, but not if we refuse to lay down our own nuclear arms.

Trident isn’t only a security risk. It’s also a colossal waste of precious resources. Instead of spending over £100bn on this Cold War relic we could invest in what our armed forces really need: the best possible safety equipment and decent homes for service families. And we could use the funds to bolster our ailing public services too: giving vital extra money to schools and hospitals.

If we scrap Trident, we need to guarantee the jobs and economic security of those working at Faslane, Aldermaston and elsewhere. A Defence Diversification Agency would help ensure a just transition for the 11,000 people whose jobs are directly dependent on Trident.

And there is no shortage of alternative industry. Investing in renewable energy would create millions more jobs than nuclear weapons will ever will. The Clyde region – home to the UK’s nuclear weapons system – is a hub in Scotland for the renewable energy industry. The West Coast of Scotland is by far the best site for wave technology in the UK.

Trident has become a totem in Britain. For many MPs it signifies safety and security, when it offers nothing of the sort. Arguments in favour of Trident are so bound to a particular, narrow view of “Britain’s place in the world” that clear evidence is often dismissed out of hand.

So before voting, I’d urge MPs to think about this: would you vote for Trident if we didn’t have it already? Imagine you were presented with plans for a brand new weapon that could kill millions but would never be used, that contravenes international treaties and that presents a genuine risk to our population, and takes precious money away from our vital public services. Would you even consider voting for such a proposal if those weapons weren’t already in place?

Britain’s history as a nuclear weapons state does not have to dictate our future. These missiles shouldn’t be our bargaining chip on the world stage. I am voting against Trident because I believe that we are safer without weapons of mass destruction in our country. I hope a majority of MPs join me in doing the same.


6 minutes ago
TruthMatters
Do you know what would happen if every country got rid of nukes?

There would be more wars, and because no country would have nukes to send instead they' send young men again and hundreds of millions will died like they did in the previous world wars.

Nukes keep the peace between the super powers, they prevent wars.
ReplyShare0

10 minutes ago
TruthMatters
If Caroline Lucas was PM in the 40's you'd all be speaking German and because of my Jewish ancestry I probably wouldn't be here.

The world is a dangerous place and we can't be doing with hippy pacifists and appeasers like her an Corbyn.
ReplyShare+1

27 minutes ago
Dunksy
seriously,..why not just pretend we have upgraded them,..and save billions,..?
ReplyShare1 reply-1

23 minutes ago
ChrisR
We're not upgrading the missiles, we're building new submarines. People can see them from shore so our 'enemies' would know we hadn't replaced the V-boats.
ReplyShare0

1 hour ago
TGE1972
I think you'd have to be out of your right mind to vote against renewing Trident. I simply cannot get my head around how anybody could disagree. At least the survey below backs me up!!

http://cods-wallop.com/parliament-will- ... ick-below/
ReplyShare+3

1 hour ago
Gondor
This is the worst period of humanity since our existence has begun. There is no justification whatsoever for inventing, making, and preserving nuclear weapons. Pure evil in the hands of power greedy psychopaths and a few blackmailed scientists.
ReplyShare-1

1 hour ago
HenryTudor
What this dreadful woman won't tell us is that OUR weapons are aimed at our enemies. It is their weapons which are aimed at us.
ReplyShare1 reply+1

1 hour ago
Gondor
Aimed but thankfully not used - meanwhile extremely dangerous, unsafe and expensive. Plus, many of us don't have enemies. Maybe you should talk to someone. Or at least take a look at the world map.
ReplyShare-1

2 hour Sour puss
Trident is a waste of money, it is not a deterrent.
There is no viable scenario where the UK could ever use a nuclear weapon (apart from MAD).
The only "logical" potential enemy that we would unilaterally launch a nuclear weapon against is the USA ! All other potential enemies would involve a joint strike with the USA.
Compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki , the power of modern nuclear weapons is terrifying and only a lunatic would consider using one - and from that there would be no way back.
Have a look at:

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

This is an eye opener! This shows the effect of droping a Russian 100,000 kiloton bomb on Cardiff using the link below!
It only takes one chump!

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

image.jpeg

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

As a deterrent it has worked everyday

Guess the only way to find out is scrap it and when time comes when we may need them can always say oooops we were wrong ?

As a deterrent it has worked everyday

And NOT been launched 'accidentally' or otherwise since 1945

Sadly, we live in an increasingly unstable world and some off our potential aggressors have nuclear weapons themselves (with others, like Iran, desperately trying)

We need this deterrent for our own national and international safety, as I don't think the reintroduction of the Dad's Army Brigade with their pitchforks and bullet-free rifles will have too much of an effect should the UK come under attack without it!

The old "it keeps the Russkies and Chinese at bay" reason for keeping a unilateral deterrent is getting harder to justify every day.Those glib facebook comments come from people that believe everything they read on the internet.The far bigger threat would be for extremists to get hold of one of these bombs as they couldn't give one about the consequences.My worry is whatever figure they quote for these new subs its always best to quadruple it to get a more accurate view.If it goes ahead I hope they build them in Wales as we need something to replace the lack of EU investment coming our way and the Scots wanna f**k off anyway.If only they placed as much importance on a properly funded NHS and Social care for the elderly etc I wouldn't mind.

Spend it on renewables that don't work ha ha ha

of all the times to scrap the nuclear deterrent! absolute madness.

thankfully, and rightly, the MPs will vote to keep it.

"The £100bn we use to uphold this Cold War relic could instead be used for schools, hospitals and guaranteeing new jobs in renewable energy for the 11,000 people whose jobs are currently dependent on it."

Yours is a hopeful scenario. With this shower in charge it's more likely to go to tax rebates for the wealthiest.

StT.

Isn't the £100 billion spread over 30 years meaning the actual saving pa is around £3.3 billion. Considering our current deficit is running @ about £75 billion pa it's not much of a saving really and wouldn't pay for that many hospitals/schools or upgrading the army.

Also both Pakistan and India are nuclear capable and just think of the circumstances if one of those countries was taken over by some nutter or other?

I understand how at first sight it seems an awful lot of money spent on something which we all hope will never be used, but the truth is it's a National Insurance policy which we have to keep.

Seriously, where is the sense..

Nobody wants nuclear weapons, they are dangerous and cost a lot of money, they won't protect us from terrorists or Argentina having another go at the Falklands.

But what they so is detur Russia as an example from taking over the Baltic states.. It makes them think twice, because If they took over the Baltic states they may then go further... but, what makes them think twice is nuclear detterant.

It has kept a major world war from happening. If we never had them, we would probably be on ww5 by now.

Also, North Korea are developing them...India, Pakistan have them. Who knows who wI'll take over them countries in the future.

So nuclear weapons won't save us from terrorists, but it does make other nuclear countries think twice.