Say NO to wasting £97bn on new nuclear weapons

[Joshtodamav]

Gov't needs to invest in nukes so when russia or korea decided to attack we got them to.

[Kunguskang]

Waste of money, waste of life and provides no use. A move away from the cut throat hostility of nuclear arms race and a move to a more mature, progressive, sustainable future sounds like a better idea right?

[InfidelMC]

Nuclear Power?? No thanks....Stop trident....remember those stickers on my dads guitar case when I was a kid. I'll be spreading the word of this video and writing to my MP Gary Streeter

[charlienethercoat094]

i totally agree i'm all for band the bomb but 97billion pounds is nothing spent in comparison due to the money spent on the kyoto protocol in which you greenpeacers know so much about and were a part of..............the results may shock you so much i have no idea how many digits that is i dont how man trillions it is anyone want the link?

[charlienethercoat094]

@charlienethercoat094 97 trillion pounds so far

[wehatemacs]

how can they justify it when we are supposed to be recovering from an economic downturn? I really hate all little rich boys in politics. how can you be in a position to change the way a country works if you are totally removed from society, live in a big house, with loads of cash and in turn have absolutely no idea about the aspirations of the common man or woman. Our system is pathetic, we are super-evolved apes, we need to get over ourselves and cut the bullshit.

[michelexyz]

definitely a waste of £

[2004carlt]

@todiolive Came from something I read in the Independent....Google 'Greenpeace Nuclear power? Yes please...' Former head of Greenpeace.

[andylecap]

the article referred to nuclear power for generation of electricity not for nuclear warheads. Surely it must be possible to have one without the other? i would rather have neither.

[2004carlt]

@andylecap Sure, but nuclear waste is often a by-product that is then put into nuclear warheads and also into bullets for use in Iraq and the like. Google 'Remains of toxic bullets litter Iraq'. Uranium will be the next big thing and people are already hyping it as the next gold rush. Also Google'uranium indigenous people'. To get it out of the ground they will use slave labour with little care for their health. Already, there are reports of 14 aboriginal miners getting cancer.

[GreenpeaceUK]

@2004carlt surely the key word there is 'former'?

[2004carlt]

@GreenpeaceUK I understand that he doesn't speak for Greenpeace and he does seem to have an axe to grind as he's also claimed that Greenpeace was infiltrated and taken over by communists when the Berlin Wall came down and they have used it to their own ends ever since.

[robotcopwin]

The goverment just wants nuclear weapons to test on people and to kill people in a more gory way.

[SlightyDisturbedNBK]

We don't need any more nuclear warheads and missiles. We should be putting the money into renewable energy and nuclear power. These are the only pratical energy sources for the future.

[2004carlt]

@SlightyDisturbedNBK Nuclear power, nuclear warheads, they're all the same to me. That's the trouble with Greenpeace, they seem to be all for something they used to be against.

[todioliver]

@2004carlt

greenpeace have quite a strong stance against nuclear power... i dont know where you got your info from, but serach "greenpeace nuclear" in youtube, youll probably get tons of stuff. :)

[GreenpeaceUK]

@2004carlt @2004carlt Um, don't know what you've been reading but Greenpeace has always been consistently against nuclear power.  And it was originally formed to protest against nuclear bomb testing in 1971.

If you need a quick memory refresh, go to:

greenpeace(dot)org(dot)uk(slas­h)about(slash)our-story

[2004carlt]

@GreenpeaceUK Came from something I read in the Independent....Google 'Greenpeace Nuclear power? Yes please...' Former head of Greenpeace

[000MrAnderson]

Diplomacy is the answer. Achmejenidad seems like a reasonable fellow. And Kim Jong Il is a good guy.

[homeworld23]

Why don't the government just say they've renewed them, then it will still be perceived as a threat and we get to use the money on something worth while. I mean there never going to be used. Just say they're bad ass and there's your nuclear deterrent.

[InfidelMC]

@homeworld23 thats not the message we need to spread, I know its difficult for our government or any for that matter to pioneer it but we need to see the abolition of nuclear weapons and an end to the arms race

[Cozzi0]

There should be no need for the world to even be at war, we should settle everything through diplomacy however since the rest of the world has them if we got rid of our weapons and no longer created them we would be at great risk of attack.

[motherlodeuk]

@Cozzi0 the biggest threat is so-called asymetrical warfare - ie terrorist attacks. Nuclear weapons are no use at all against these - and the proliferation of nuclear material around the world makes it more, not less, likely that it could fall into terrorist hands.

Much better to put Trident into multilateral negotiations with the other nuclear powers, as the US and Russia have done recently.

Embarking on a new project to replace it sends entirely the wrong signals about our future intentions.

[todioliver]

@motherlodeuk

Exactly!!!!