Blair promises new nukes

[DoYouEverWonder]

and a chicken in every pot.


May 02, 2005

BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided to equip Britain with a new generation of deterrent nuclear weapons, to replace those currently deployed on Trident submarines, The Independent reported today.

"The decision (to replace Trident) has been taken in principle very recently," a senior defence source told the daily on condition of anonymity.

A new nuclear deterrent would cost some £10 billion ($24.45 billion), the paper said.

Blair, who is currently campaigning hard for his Labour Party to win a

<snip>

"We have got to retain our nuclear deterrent. That decision is for another time," he told the BBC. "But I believe that is the right thing."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15151110%255E23109,00.html


My god, what is this world coming to, when the PM of England thinks promising his citizens new nukes will help him win re-election?

[DrDebug]

1. Whatever happened to nuclear disarmament?

I think we forgot about that subject in the 90s and indeed in the new millenium they are rebuilding again. But what happened to the enemy? That old Russia story is long gone. Then again according to wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons ) the UK has less nuclear weapons than France. So it isn't fair...

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. That movement appears to be alive and well

Call to nuclear powers to disarm



2 May, 2005

The world's nuclear powers are set to face calls to speed up disarmament as a conference on atomic arms control opens in New York.

Critics say the US, France, UK, China and Russia have failed to comply with their commitments to disarm.

Iran and North Korea's nuclear activities are also expected to come under scrutiny during a review of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On Sunday, thousands of anti-nuclear protesters marched outside the UN.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4504737.stm

[DrDebug]

3. Thanks. We definitely need those massive protests!

The United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to an attack with non-nuclear "weapons of mass destruction", such as biological or chemical weapons, since the US may not use either of these in retaliation. United Kingdom Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Emphasis added. See also the story about nuclear pre-emptive strike on DU. ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1437616 )

The world is still a dangerous place with all those weapons...

Edit: Link to preemptive nukes added

[wakeme2008]

4. This could be the straw that brakes Blairs back

I am sure every UKer has on his wish list for £10 billion new and improved Nucs to replace the old and bussed Nucs... :sarcasm:

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. No major party has promised unilateral nuclear disarmament since 1983

Blair will hardly lose any votes becasue of this.

[wakeme2008]

14. But has any party

said they plan to spend £10 billion on new Nukes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Both Labour and the Tories were considering it in 1979

back then it cost £5 billion - probably more than £10 billion in today's prices.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/selection/pdf/osp11.pdf

Blair isn't trumpeting this as part of his manifesto - he's just saying "we need to keep a deterrent". Since both the Lib Dems and Tories say that too, they can't challenge him on this.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Apperently one has now

Does anyone think that this will cost Blair his majority? I tend to doubt it.

[saigon68]

27. Blair like his friend the CHIMPANZEE

Needs big destruction and large weapons

To obtain arousal and ultimate release.

[sniffa]

5. who do they need to deter?

seriousLy?

[onehandle]

8. Us, eventually. nt

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. "cost some £10 billion"

It would be better to scrap the lot and save the $19 billion that would need to be spent. I'm sure Healthcare and education investment are bigger priorities.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Not to mention

the good will you could buy with all that money, so that people wouldn't want to attack your country.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. I think a good idea would be...

...to choose a 3rd world country with a responsible human rights' record and invest the money there: Whether on healthcare/medicines, education or economic infrastructure.

Imagine an example that could be set for other nations by helping them raise out of poverty. It would be great for wealthy nations to pool funds together and do this every year.

[Henny Penny]

9. Does Blair have a political death wish???

I mean this is hardly likely copperfasten any labour waverers is it??

Has he had enough of the lies and the guilt? Or did someone else leak this to the press??

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Both

a senior defence source told the daily on condition of anonymity.

<snip>

Blair, who is currently campaigning hard for his Labour Party to win a third consecutive election this Thursday, last week said he not yet decided on a new deterrent.

"We have got to retain our nuclear deterrent. That decision is for another time," he told the BBC. "But I believe that is the right thing."

[sweetheart]

11. War criminals hide behind WMD's

Of course he wants a curtain of nukes to defend his behaviour.

He is keeping the right wing on board by this, as they are nuclear
nutters... They still believe britain is a global empire and they
harken back to the empire days, and can only live their puerile little
fantasies by dreaming about giant explosive iron phalluses, that they
can send around the world to fuck people. It is all part of the
patriarchy and blair's right on cue with the patriarchs.

Its the problem with post-empire states, in that there is a population
who still revels in the empire and the military blood-rush of being
a brutal warmongering power, such that a century on, a prime minister
must still buy them toys to get them to shut up.

Likely as well, they'll wish to deploy these nukes at faslaine submarine
base north of glasgow, to put scotland in the line of fire. Patriarchs
are cowards, and would not endager themselves with their evil weapons,
so they stick it to the scots.

[oneighty]

16. I do not believe

England actually makes their own nuclear weapons. I do believe they buy them from their colony, U.S. of A.

No that it matters I guess.

I also think Israel gets their nuclear weapons pretty much the same way.

180

[DrDebug]

17. They have a factory in Aldermaston, Berkshire

(...)“Planned developments at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston to research and test the next generation of nuclear weapons highlight Britain’s nuclear hypocrisy. The British government appears to be pursuing an aggressive policy of illegal pre-emptive war in which they are prepared to use nuclear weapons. They are claiming they are doing so to rid the world of WMD yet they are simultaneously planning to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons to use in further pre-emptive wars. The development of a new generation of UK nuclear weapons risks escalating the drive for other countries to develop their own WMD rather than encouraging them to disarm deadly weapons.
(...)
http://www.cnduk.org/pages/press/310304.html

The technology does come (or used to come) from the US, but they have their own factories

[oneighty]

18. It is a Trident

Made in England under US patents, if such a thing has a patent on WMDs? Of course I do not know for sure how it is anymore.

180

But then Blair's message is an echo of the Bush* message.

[DrDebug]

19. LMAO! Of course it is patented...

We don't want "rogue" states to have it. Only sensible countries with highly intelligent leaders like * who will never engage in pre-emptive nuclear warfare :wtf:

[oneighty]

20. LMAO

Me too. Hee hee hee!

180

[emad]

21. Revealed: Blair to upgrade Britain's nuclear weapons

PM secretly signs up to new deterrent as UN tries to cut global threat
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
02 May 2005


Tony Blair has secretly decided that Britain will build a new generation of nuclear deterrent to replace the ageing Trident submarine fleet at a cost of more than £10bn - a move certain to dismay thousands of Labour Party loyalists in the approach to polling day.

The disclosure that the decision has already been taken will expose Mr Blair - who has struggled throughout the election campaign to fend off accusations that he lied over the Iraq war - to fresh allegations of deception. He said last week that the decision would be taken after 5 May.

But The Independent has learnt that he has already decided to give the go ahead for a replacement for Trident to stop Britain surrendering its status as a nuclear power when the Trident fleet is decommissioned. The choice over the type of nuclear missile system that Britain will deploy is yet to be made. One Labour candidate described the new deterrent as "Blair's weapons of mass destruction".

The revelation comes as the United Nations hosts a five-yearly review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which Britain is a signatory. The five nuclear powers in the treaty promise to work towards global nuclear disarmament. Mr Blair will therefore face accusations of hypocrisy, for pressing other states, such as Iran and North Korea, to renounce their suspect nuclear weapons programmes while planning a new British deterrent.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634934

...to cut global threat to him and his Poodlemaster being busted for warcrimes....

[Placebo]

22. "New nukes for all!"

Welcome to George W. Bush's New Century.

[Roland99]

23. Britain is such a target. I can understand the need for more devastating

weapons development.

I'm sure adding to their existing arsenal will just scare the bejeezus out of anyone thinking of attacking Britain.


:sarcasm:

[fedsron2us]

24. The US has a number of air bases in the UK

that have been used for attacks against Iraq and other countries around the world. It is also the home to Fylingdales which is part of the USA's early warning system. This fact alone makes Britain a first strike target in any global nuclear conflict regardless of whether the British government has nuclear weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2815115.stm
http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/bases/dwebb.htm

edit for links

[chlamor]

25. '40'

[AlCzervik]

28. Is that a big selling point for British voters?

i could see if they were freepers but i don't see them being all excited over this.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. I don't either, but

I don't see this as something that will cause Labour to lose a significant amount of support.