Nuclear Weapons Inspectors stopped by police at Aldermaston

[grumpyrozzer]

And what qualifications does our Canaidian freind hold??

[PhilDesigns]

@grumpyrozzer enough to be deemed a professional nuclear weapons inspector.. what knowledge do you posses of any nuclear qualifications? none.

[grumpyrozzer]

@PhilDesigns

Oh,none realy. Only a PhD in Nuclear Science...

[randomusernamemygod]

@PhilDesigns The Knowledge that its a prank. He is not a weapons inspector, there is no organisation that has "Weapons Inspector" on the helmets and jackets. For nuclear weapon inspection it is done independently in Britain, US, Russia, France and China with international bodies being allowed to inspect (International Atomic Energy Agency) on permission. The International Atomic Energy Agency is pretty much the only Agency that can.

FAIL!!!!!

[flashpoint145]

This guy is a fake inspector....duh

[pauldve]

He will end up dead in the woods like Dr Kelly if hes not carefull

[oghtlb1]

stop pretending to have a propper job, leave the scientists who have actually done something with their lives, to do there jobs. I really hate you guys, don't you realise we need a nuclear deterent, i wish it wasn't the case, but we do, so go and get some propper jobs, or stop annoying people with jobs.

[bubbles867]

That stupid Yank 'weapons inspector ' is at Aldermaston to 'inspect' British warheads?? what all 200 , maybe he wants to go back to his own country and inspect the THOUSANDS of warheads there!

[GreenpeaceUK]

He's a Canadian actually - they're a non-nuclear nation, last time I looked...

[bubbles867]

They are non nuclear nation in peace time but when a global conflict kicks off they can use US nuclear weapons in a nuclear weapons sharing programme , much like any NATO member apart from France or the UK because they have there own

[lightningpete]

If hes Canadian, whys he here? Why not protest to the THOUSANDS of warheads nearer his home? agreeing with bubbles here.

[MokomaSusi]

Nuclear weapons are the best way to avoid WW III.

[bewaver]

Or to make it real quick for everyone. Don't get me wrong, lowering budget to civil nuclear is dangerous, because security measures will be the one weakened, money talks not ethics. But keep building WMD when there is already enough to blow the all planet to bits, what's the point? Billions spent on weapons and stupid bankers, then they come and cry they don't have the money for schools and hospitals. Give me a break!

[Nano200852]

Nelson Mandela, Ghandi and the Suffragettes changed how people perceived other...classes? (<<not the exact word I want). You lot seem to be missing my point, Im not for nuclear weapons, Im Armed Forces and the last thing I would want is a nuclear war. My point is no country with decent leaders would give up its nuclear weapons because it then becomes weaker than those with weapons. The world isnt such a nice rosy place where countries can all play nicely together.

[GreenpeaceUK]

Maybe you should try listening to the opinions of some of your current and former top brass on Trident:

Field Marshall Lord Bramall, a former Chief of Defence Staff, General Lord Ramsbotham, a former Adjutant-General, and General Sir Hugh Beach, former Master General of the Ordinance, said in a letter to The Times printed last month that Trident had become "virtually irrelevant" and "it must be asked in what way, and against whom, our nuclear weapons could be used".

[GreenpeaceUK]

... and last week Gen Jack Sheehan, a former Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic for Nato, backed their calls. In a BBC interview he said: "I think the UK is very close to saying we're the first permanent member of the Security Council to do away with nuclear weapons. I think it is entirely possible that the British government, for a lot of good reasons, could do it and it would lead the world."

[GreenpeaceUK]

Right now over 100 military and defence experts, backed by the Obama administration, are calling for a new global programme to eliminate nuclear weapons. But our govt seems determined to scupper this major new initiative by replacing Trident - tying Britain into nuclear rearmament for the next 40 years.

Blowing billions on replacing this cold war relic is insane. It undermines efforts to eliminate nukes & ignores the fact that the greatest long term security threat we face is climate change.

[dundonrl]

@GreenpeaceUK

except for nations like North Korea and Iran that are actively developing nuclear weapons.. if you disarm, what's to keep them from using them? threatening words?

[slowdazzles]

@dundonrl What's to stop them? Doing what exactly - N Korea with its (let's be generous) 4 medium range nukes and Iran with it's, um, none - who are they threatening? Not us, that's for sure.

I'm fascinated that you run scared of imaginary threats, but can't see the real ones in front of your face (that'd be a Pakistan/India meltdown and/or terrorist's getting hold of nuclear materials to make suitcase bombs, in my book). Either way, Trident's usefulness would be zero.

[slowdazzles]

It's true value to us is in threatening non-nuclear nations, if truth be told. Unless the world takes major steps to disarm, more and more countries will feel obliged to get them, making life less safe for all of us?

Proliferation is the biggest threat we face after climate change, and we need to do all we can to multilaterally disarm - which means meeting our obligations under the Test Ban Treaty and not upograding Trident at the quite insane cost of £97 billion - just for starters.

[lightningpete]

@slowdazzles How do you know that N.korea has only 4 medium range nukes? Countries like N.korea who keep so many secrets about their own economy nevermind their military might, you have no idea, nor does the shitty media... Russia, N.korea and possibly others may hold secrets that will shock all of you.... Maybe Britain as sussed the possibility of this and are replacing trident for the future...Who knows?!?! Cos you sure dont pal!

[slowdazzles]

@lightningpete Ok, so you are genuinely scared of a nuclear attack on us by N Korea. Excessively paranoid, I'd say, but you're entitled to your own opinion, obviously. Thing is, the senior military people willing to talk on this subject generally see no value in Trident because it has no military use - it's a political doomsday machine - they would far rather use the £97bn we're about to spend on a new version on kit which has practical uses - helos, aircraft etc.

[slowdazzles]

But our politicians are running scared of people like you, who seem terrified by the most unlikely scenarios while ignoring the genuine threats. Truth is, the likelihood of global nuclear conflict grows ever more remote (the new US/Russia Treaty is just the latest example of internatinal cooperation on this), while the chances of terrorists getting their hands on a useable nuke grows more likely due to proliferation and lack of monitoring in the former USSR.

[slowdazzles]

I just wish people would get a grip and rationally evaluate the probabilities here - after all, less than 10 nations out of 180 or so actually have nukes or are working to get them - are the rest living in permanent fear of attack? Of course not.

So let's just forget about wasting £97bn on new nukes, negotiate our existing ones away in multinational treaties (ie we reduce ours as they reduce theirs, proportionally) and spend the money on things this recession-struck country actually needs.

[lightningpete]

@slowdazzles did not say that, i kinda meant that these countries keep a lot of secrets in the East, probably for self-defence rather than offensive, but thats another tangent to discuss. Yes i agree its a political doomsday machine, but because its the politicians with the money to splash about on the MOD and the Armed forces, then they ultimately decide where the cash is spent. I'd love to see the 97 billion making us into the super army again, but like most things, thats never going to happen

[slowdazzles]

@lightningpete Thing is Pete, there's a review on military spending due after the election, and Trident isn't even included in it! If it was, they'd have to justify why it's a necessary part of our defence strategy, and they're trying to avoid this at all costs, because they know it has no military value.

Sure the £97bn we'd save from cancelling it wouldn't all be spent on military kit we actually need, but some proportion of it would - enough to improve the Afghanistan situation, maybe?

[camelsac]

@GreenpeaceUK One thing that all those people have in common that I noticed in your post - they are all FORMER which means they have no relevance to the issue.....

[pterob]

I'm all for safe and legal regulation, but this guy isn't a real weapons inspector. Otherwise he'd have arrived via vehicle through the main gate and would be carrying an access pass. He would also not be using such accusatory language, because he would be a scientist, and a professional.

[ukchris64]

I would like to insect a nuclear weapon, in fact just have a look at one close up, that is the thing that matters not the missile which wil carry it to its destination, curiosity killed the cat as they say, but hell wouldn't it be intriguing.

[dt2002dk]

Despite Hiroshima, despite Nagasaki, you still all talk of money - not human life. What is wrong with you?

Have you truly lost sight of the fact nuclear bombs are built for use. The only reason deterrence works to any unstable degree is the genuine threat of use.

Isn't it so simple? Well, isn't it?

[Finnbar01]

What a complete wast of polices time and public money. Have these wasters nothing better to do? They're stuck in the 1960's. Grow up the lot of ye!

[BRITISHNINJA2007]

Most of these bloody hippies are students they contribute nothing for this country so i don't think they should have an opinion on what this country builds.

[motherlodeuk]

We should be congratulating these guys because they're trying to save us all a load of money.

The real cost of replacing Trident, including running costs, is £76 billion. That's equivalent to over £4500 per British family for a weapons system that's effectively owned and controlled by the US military - gives you a nice, warm feeling inside, doesn't it? And for what - to 'defend' ourselves against N Korea (6-8 nukes)and Iran(0 nukes).

The whole thing is a gigantic scam, basically.

[Swanbow]

Despite the facts the cost of upkeep is high if we were to lose our nuclear weapons we would lose most of the status we got left in the world. Plus the emergance of a new cold war with russia and possible future confilct with china are great reasons to keep our weapons

[motherlodeuk]

What 'status' does being US lackey give us, exactly. We are effectively paying for following them poodle-like into Iraq, for no good reason that anyone can see except oil/imperialist adventure. Lost us a lot of status around the world, although probably did less damage than Bush and Rumsfeld managed to inflict on their own country. Blind, unthinking nationalism is almost always disaterous, both for the country affected by it and its victims. Nukes are an offensive threat, and must be got rid of.

[Swanbow]

I agree, nuclear weapons must be ridden from the earth. However this is not going to happen. America arent getting rid of theres no is Russia. No country has any intention of giving up there nukes. So why should we? We get rid of our nukes and we will just be another pussy european state. Sorry for the course language

[JimaaaH]

Yeh your right, let's get rid off our Atomic Weapons, and let other countries keep them, that way we'll be completely defenceless. Awesome thinking there!

[GreenpeaceUK]

'our Atomic Weapons' are largely US controlled, of course - we just get to pay for them, lucky old us. And defenceless against who, exactly? Our Trident warheads aboard the subs are detargeted these days (unlike in the cold war when they were pointed at soviet cities) - we have no enemies who can attack us (except potentially russia, who depend on europe as a market for their gas). Now's the time to start negotating away our nukes before

before the fundamentalists get their hands on them...

[Nano200852]

Correction! We have no known enemies. You obviously don't remember the Falklands War or Gulf War 1 and how out of the blue the invasions were. Enemies appear from nowhere and always have. If you study the start of both World Wars you will understand. I personally don't like nuclear weapons, however they act as a necessary deterrent to prevent war.

Nuclear weapons will never go, however I very much doubt they will ever be launched in anger again due to the fact there is little to gain.

[GreenpeaceUK]

Sure do remember both of them - neither came remotely 'out of the blue', and I've studied the causes of both world wars, thanks very much. Enemies of that type never appear 'from nowhere' - neither did Al Quaeda. I guess the point is relative danger - nukes may make some of us feel safer, but in fact the dangers of proliferation and accident/error are massive threats. You doubt nukes will ever be launched - we all hope that, but the more nations that have them the less likely that becomes.

[Nano200852]

But that will never happen so why bother protesting. The UK, Russia, US and I think the French?? have reduced there stocks however they will never remove them as its like telling the Armed police to stop using guns. Suddenly the criminals are mighty powerful.

[motherlodeuk]

"But that will never happen so why bother protesting" ... yeah, right - bet you'd have said the same thing to Nelson Mandela, Ghandi and the Suffragettes. If you feel that apathetic why bother writing - putting yourself to all that bother for nothing? Strangely enough, committed people coming together to oppose wrongs can change things. In fact, as someone famously said - it's the only thing that ever has...

[motherlodeuk]

Pay attention dude. Greenpeace aren't asking for unilateral disarmament - they just want us to fulfil our commitment to the NPT and do what we said we'd do years ago - negotiate a controlled decline in the number of nukes we hold as other countries do the same - and thus lessen the chance of terrorisrts getting their hands on nukes.

Try replying to what people actually say, rather than making up what you wish they'd said and answing that instead - that's just plain lazy!

[kingkingkingqueen]

hehe you can hear them sniggering

[emptyhand17]

That's a fuck of a lot of my money that the government wants to spend on weapons of mass destruction. So hippie or not hippie, at least he's got off his arse to do something about the idiocy of building a new generation of nuclear weapons.

The old ones seem to work fine

[gewehrmeister3777]

The meister's Rx:

Give this fool the ghandi treatment.

[ohn276]

What a idiot.... lets all buy a lab coat and go an inspect...hmmm lets start at tesco, or a CND charity shop!!

[antimasonic]

lets get irans inspectors here lol. imagine that.

[kellychippy]

I would have Rodney king'ed his ass

[bonzaimonkey]

I wish the police were aloud to beat hippys like they used to!! That would solve so many problems...

[motherlodeuk]

wow - that's impressive. Didn't know people as dumb as you could write. If you only you had opposable thumbs and frontal lobes you'd be on the way to becoming almost human...

[JohnGardener]

Oh man.. if i was there i'd not have been able to contain my laughter at that moron.

[Dosedmonkey]

what a numpty.... bet it took him a hole 5 seconds to think that idea up on the back of a beer mat, shame the UN already do it to save lives... like those police would of been if they weren't there.

[sparkleplc]

I want 41 seconds of my life back.

Get a job you hippie....