CND Chair Kate Hudson on Next Steps in Anti-Nuclear Campaign

CND Chair Kate Hudson discusses the result of the parliamentary vote on 14th March to replace Trident, Britain's nuclear weapons system, and on the next steps for the No Trident Replacement campaign.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• CND
• No
• Trident
• Replacement
• Nuclear
• Weapons
• Missiles
• Kate
• Hudson
• Disarmament
• Campaign

[iGuyHD]

So there we have it, the blind and ignorant faith of a glorified housewife prattling on about how nuclear weapons should not be part of the UK military arsenal. The UK, as a world power, cannot be without a nuclear armed force; it serves, as it had always served, as a deterrent to aggression by opposing nations, and acts as a political 'ace' on the bargaining table. Opposition to the nuclear force is based on the Liberal ignorance of those with no understanding of military operations.

[CNDpress]

Do you define all women from outside the military as "glorified housewives"?

In what situations has the "political 'ace' on the bargaining table" been useful? Did it prevent the invasion of the Falkland Islands, did it thwart the IRA, has it got us a better deal in trade talks than, Germany or Japan, who lack such weapons?

Many of those with the greatest military experience oppose nukes, for example Air Commodore Alistair Mackie who is a CND Vice President & Gen Sir Hugh Beach.

[shoegazer74]

iGuyHD the "UK World power" your talk about the "UK military arsenal".. the UK skint.. i'd rather my kids and grand parents have a decent NHS than a capability of launching missiles that would usurp the genocide of Hitler and Stalin. would you launch a missile that will kill millions of innocent people? oh as a scientist it sounds exciting in a computer game, but real charred bodies of millions of three year olds? and for what? British Nuclear ego?

[iGuyHD]

My central argument is this; the UK needs to develop a second generation of nuclear weapons as the future is unforeseen; whilst there may be no threats at present, 25 years hence there may well be, and were we to take the choice not to replace our nuclear arsenal, we couldn't simply conjure one up were to situation required. I for one am not willing to take the chance that, at some point in the future, will we not be faced with a nuclear threat with no means of ultimate retaliation

[iGuyHD]

Your point concerning the IRA; the IRA was never a serious threat to the continued stability of the UK, it was a terrorist organization who's sole intent, as with any terrorist network, is to spread 'terror' and fear amongst a population, not wage war against a nation. The IRA operated out of civilian areas, and was effectively invisible within the larger population; clearly, a nuclear strike would be impractical and fairly absurd in this situation.

[iGuyHD]

Your second point; has our nuclear card helped reduce the threat from other nations, whereby you cite the Falklands, the IRA and trade deals with non-nuclear powers. If I may deal with each in turn. The Falklands conflict could not have been prevented with the threat of nuclear force; it would have been a disproportionate use of firepower when conventional forces were more suited to such a small scale operation.

[iGuyHD]

Whilst the implication of my statement is that I am somehow a misogynist, it stems from experience of discussion; I dare-say, were I given the opportunity to discuss this matter with someone approaching intelligence on the subject, my opinion concerning 'glorified housewives' may change, but my core belief on nuclear arms would not.

[iGuyHD]

No, I do not consider all women outside of military circles to be 'glorified housewives' however, it has been my experience of dealing with previous CND members that has given me this opinion; by and large, those I have had discussions with retort with basic and nebulous arguments concerning how nuclear weapons are outmoded and unsuited to current military operations, or simply that they are 'horrible' weapons designed to inflict as much suffering as possible.

[marshsja]

I know quita a bit o f inormabation this and in respect of everything Nuclear Weapons are a stand off becuase idfmpeople know you have nuclear weapons they may not attack you with nuclear weapons but with coventainl weapons which which not nuke a whole place unliveable and long term effects.this is my personal opinion

[callumrakhitcallum]

Nukes do to keep people safe, they stopped the cold war becoming WW3? They'd saved lives surly?