This 2q8 January 2015 vide from England is called Wrap Up Trident CND mass demonstration in London.
By Rae Street in Britain:
Corbyn brings much-needed sanity to the nukes debate
Wednesday 6th January 2015
The aims of the campaign were sane then and they are sane now. Frank Allaun in 1981 said clearly:
– No Cruise missiles on British territory
– No Trident submarines to replace Polaris
– No other nuclear weapons on British soil or in British waters
– No bases in the UK for British or American nuclear weapons
– A cut in arms spending.
The Cruise weapons have gone after a 1987 treaty, but with the rest we are still struggling. Why? Out there is mindless militarism, some sense that these weapons give us power at the top tables, desire for world domination and power over resources by forces in the US and Nato.
The case against nuclear weapons was made by so many different groups and individuals over the decades, yet still we have those in government not only backing Britain’s part in the US Trident nuclear armed submarines fleet, but also in nuclear armed Nato.
It is worth looking back at earlier statements. In 1981, a group of scientists and physicians published a summary on their findings on the medical consequences of nuclear weapons. Their conclusions were: “The devastation that would follow a nuclear war would be so appalling that it is virtually impossible to imagine. It does appear, however, that the situation has changed from one in which nuclear war was unthinkable because it meant mutually assured destruction to one in which nuclear war not only has become thinkable but also more likely from changes in strategy and weapons technology.”
The authors ended: “An examination of the facts leads to one inescapable conclusion. If for none other than purely medical reasons, nuclear warfare must never be allowed to happen; it is not an option that can be contemplated by any government, however dire the circumstances.”
This was written over 30 years ago. Since that time nuclear weapons development has escalated. Trident missiles can carry multiple warheads, each of which has 15 times the killing power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Consider also a pamphlet from Scientists Against Nuclear Arms written in 1984, entitled Nuclear Winter: A New Dimension for the Nuclear Debate.
The introduction states: “Recent studies have shown that the survivors of the direct effects of even a ‘limited’ nuclear war could face months of darkness and freezing cold … Civilised life as we know it would come to an end.”
It adds: “Even without the nuclear winter, one to two billion people — between a quarter and a half of the world’s population — are likely to perish after a global nuclear war. Nuclear winter threatens the survival of the rest.”
Look too at the argument in It Couldn’t Happen — Could It? An Assessment of the Probability of Accidental Nuclear War, by Anne Grinyer and Paul Smoker (1986).
The authors conclude “It is not logical or sensible to maintain a national security policy in which catastrophic failure is a distinct possibility. If the evidence concerning unintended nuclear war is valid then, given inevitable failures in mechanical, electrical, human and political systems that are likely to occur at some time in the future, nuclear “deterrence” must be replaced by alternative national and global security strategies, strategies that do not include the possibility of unintended nuclear war.”
Add to that the fact that the cost of Trident replacement now “necessary” is a whopping £167 billion and nuclear weapons do not deter any fanatical terrorists. How could anyone with a clear head support nuclear arms?
Given the above, it is clear that Jeremy’s stand is overwhelmingly sane. The accusations repeated on New Year’s Day by Peter Mandelson that Jeremy’s opinions are those of the “hard left” are just empty sloganeering. As for those opposed to Jeremy being called “moderates,” including those who would press the nuclear button, it is a travesty of the use of the English language.
The stationing of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula would be a major escalation of the US military build-up in Asia, directed primarily against China, not North Korea: here.