On the bridge of the Arctic Sunrise at Faslane

Greenpeace campaigner Frank speaks from the bridge of the Arctic Sunrise about the day's activities at the nuclear missile submarine base Faslane

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Greenpeace
• Arctic
• Sunrise
• Trident
• nuclear
• wepons
• WMDs
• disarmament
• peace

[sundog47]

WTF don't you brits know about Dentistry.

I suggest a name change is in order. I think your organization should be called "GREENTEETH YUK"

Just a suggestion.

[GreenpeaceUK]

Ho Ho - bet you keep all your sub-buddies in stiches with your quips. Bet they can't wait for your next rip-roaring witticism.

[GreenpeaceUK]

@johnboy098 this forum is moderated and if you post abusive comments they will be deleted, ok?

[Togs91]

Right, for christ sake, the nukes we have are a big stick. Countries challenge us with nukes, then we have something to hit back with, hense why they dont attack us with them, hense why were still here, not to say they wont try nukes are a terrible thing but there here, thats that, history cant change, and this bullshit about everyone sign a form and get rid of nukes, terrorists wont get rid of nukes theyll make them and use that as an oppertunity to attack us with no retaliation.

[maramoto1]

Bush Doctrine??? - Faslane is in Scotland so hardly think US policy is relevant. We could carry this on forever but thankfully greenpeace is a fringe group with little real power.

[motherlodeuk]

"Your argument completely ignores the fact that nuclear weapons would only be used by a western country as a response to a WMD attack."

Again it's you who are living in a dream world - have you never heard of the Bush Doctrine - permitting the US to launch 'pre-emptive' strikes against anyone they think might be plotting against them? And specifically not ruling out the use of a nuclear response to non-nuclear attacks. Your confidence in our 'democracy' is touching, given recent events.

[motherlodeuk]

It's you who are being dangerously naive in your faith that nuclear weapons will never be used. They already have been, and almost certainly will be again as the global energy crisis sets states competing for scare resiurces aginst each other, and climate change sets whole populations on the move. That's why it's so vital that we act to get rid of as many as possible while there's still time...

[maramoto1]

Your argument completely ignores the fact that nuclear weapons would only be used by a western country as a response to a WMD attack. The West is Democratic so if you disagree with "whatever shit" your country is dishing out - persuade enough people you're right and change things politically (assuming you live in the West). That argument also applies to nuclear weapons - if you don't want them then get elected and change things.

[maramoto1]

That is certainly one interpretation of US policy with regards to N Korea and Iran. It ignores the fact that Iran doesn't have any yet though. Much as I admire your idealism and would like to see a world free of nuclear weapons - it is unrealistic to assume that everyone in the world shares your sentiments, in my opinion that kind of optimism is dangerous in the extreme.

[motherlodeuk]

...are fair game for whatever shit they feel like dishing out. This is known as realpolitik. Nuclear weapons may have a deterrent aspect when you have two reasonably equally matched sides facing of against each other, but not when one or two players hold all the cards in the game. The fact that the west has 100s of nukes probably doesn't feel like a problem for you because (I'm guessing) you're a westerner yourself. It doesn't feel so good for those worried about being on the receiving end.

[motherlodeuk]

.. illegally become nuclear states during that period - with no comeback whatsoever - they've just been tacitly accepted into the nuclear club. Asd as we've seen with recent US policy - having nukes actually does deter bullies like BUsh/Cheney from going after you - hence their prefermce for Iraq over Iran, and avoiding conflict with N Korea. The message they are sending out is: get your own nukes and we will treat you as equals - those countries without nuclear weapons...

[motherlodeuk]

ok, quick history lesson - everheard of the NPT? All the big 5 nuclear powers signed it - promising to negotiate away their nukes in return for non-nuclear states pledging not to acquire nukes of their own. Oh and we also promised them aid with civil nuclear projects if they wanted it. That was in 1968 - in the meantime no nuclear power has made serious progress in arms limitation (except US & USSR ditching 1000s of outmoded weapons in the Reagan/Gorbachov era). India, Pakistan and Israel have..