trident

Trident replacement vote - Greenpeace comment

Last edited 18 July 2016 at 1:45pm
18 July, 2016

Commenting on today's parliamentary vote on whether or not to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, Greenpeace UK Executive Director John Sauven said:

‘Replacing Trident is economically unjustifiable, strategically ill-conceived and morally reprehensible. To commit billions of pounds to replace a relic from the Cold War is not just a ludicrous folly, it’s also incredibly dangerous. If Britain declares that we need nuclear weapons for our security, then who are we to tell others not to do the same? We know where that road leads.

Trident Alternatives Review

Last edited 16 July 2013 at 1:19pm

Greenpeace Response

16 July, 2013

In response to the publication of the Trident Alternatives Review, Louise Edge, Disarmament Campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said –

“One hundred billion pounds could do a lot to address some of the real threats facing modern Britain – climate change, the recession, terrorism – but instead we’re throwing it away on a system designed for the threat of Soviet tanks entering West Germany. Nothing in the Alternatives Review changes the fact that Trident replacement will be a colossally expensive weapon targeted at the last century.”

Does Trident announcement mark a new Lib Dem broken promise?

Posted by louise — 18 May 2011 at 3:32pm - Comments

A while back I got a letter from the Lib Dems telling me "Trident will not be renewed this parliament - not on a Liberal Democrat watch”.

This ran though my mind today as I watched Defence Secretary Liam Fox stand up in parliament to pronounce ‘thunderbirds are go’ on the next phase of building a replacement for Trident.

FOI documents reveal MoD plans to purchase "long lead" items for Trident

Last edited 18 May 2011 at 3:33pm
Publication date: 
18 May, 2011

A freedom of information request made by Greenpeace reveals that the MoD plans to purchase a whole series of “long lead” items for Trident replacement submarines in the next few years - estimated to cost billions.

Download the report:

MoD starts purchasing Trident replacement without parliamentary OK - get your MP to act!

Posted by andrelotz — 18 March 2011 at 2:22pm - Comments
While cuts are being made to public services, why is money being spent on weapon
All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace
While cuts are being made to public services, why is money being spent on weapons we neither want or need?

At the mention of nuclear today our thoughts turn to the situation in Japan and all of those affected by the earthquakes, tsunami and nuclear emergency. I can only hope that the situation at Fukushima is soon contained and the risks minimised for everyone affected.

Here in the UK, there is another nuclear issue that is silently inching forward without parliamentary approval or public awareness – nuclear weapons replacement.

While cuts are being made to public services, why is money being spent on weapon

MoD have a Trident-sized hole in their budget

Posted by louise — 21 January 2011 at 10:49am - Comments

Yesterday's headline in the FT shouted "MoD faces fresh crisis over funding". It turns out that the Ministry of Defence have checked over last October's defence review and found out that they actually need an extra £1 billion a year over the next four years to deliver it.

GPUK Trident Parliamentary Briefing

Last edited 21 January 2011 at 10:41am

Follow Greenpeace UK