Categories
Scottish Referendum

Nuclear – Who Needs It -We Don’t

1. A majority of MSP’s in Holyrood voted against a renewal of Trident.

2. The UK’s entire arsenal of nuclear weapons are secured in a store not 60 miles from Glasgow Scotland’s most densely populated area.

3. A Scottish court ruled that Trident was an illegal weapon. Westminster refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court.

4. Trident is a criminal weapon of mass destruction which is in Scotland without the approval or consensus of the Scottish people.

5. The International Court of Justice, (July 1996) there is no higher court in the world. ruled that any threat or use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to international law.

6. Westminster has stated that in the event of hostilities breaking out, the UK nuclear fleet would be assigned to NATO. How does this fit with the Westminster claim that, “Trident is our independent nuclear deterrent”.

7. The UK’s arsenal of nuclear missiles is ever expanding, (1990 – 96 warheads) (1998 – 180 warheads) (2018 son of trident ?).

Categories
Scottish Referendum

he 21st Century Nuclear Arsenal – A Report by the American Security Project

The 21st Century Nuclear Arsenal – A Report by the American Security Project

The policy of the United States is clear. The, “Nuclear Weapons Umbrella” maintained by the USA, serves not only to deter attack on the USA, but also to protect their allies’ security. The deterrent covers NATO, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Australia.

Rethinking and Reshaping the American Nuclear Deterrent and its Forces for the 21st Century

1. Nuclear weapons have been a bulwark of the U.S. national security strategy for nearly seven decades. The thinking surrounding the employment of these weapons is nearly as old. The international system has changed greatly since that time, and consequently, America’s nuclear strategy must change to adapt to this new system or risk fading into ineffectiveness and irrelevancy.

2. Massive arsenals of politically unusable weapons simply no longer fit the deterrent needs of the United States — and the size of the U.S. arsenal is an irrelevant factor in deterring proliferation. Therefore, U.S. national security is better served by diverting resources toward strategies, weapons, and equipment that are designed to address the challenges it faces today.

3. To move toward a new effective strategy, the U.S. should develop a three-tiered strategy for deterrence; reduce in size it’s nuclear arsenal; reanalyze and better coordinate its counter-proliferation efforts; and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Lawmakers and the media should address these issues with the breadth and seriousness they deserve.

Summary; Major change is beyond the talking stage. The USA nuclear arsenal is to be much reduced. The cost of maintaining it is prohibitive. Nuclear weapons require a nations available finance to be diverted away from conventional forces, (witness the massive reductions in the UK armed forces in the last year or so). The USA will increase their conventional forces, finance being diverted away from nuclear weapons that will never be used.

WHITE PAPER: The 21st Century Nuclear Arsenal

Categories
Scottish Referendum

First Report of the Deep Cuts Commission – Reducing Nuclear Weapons

First Report of the Deep Cuts Commission – Preparing for Deep Cuts: Options for Enhancing Euro-Atlantic and International Security – April 2014

Click to access First_Report_of_the_Deep_Cuts_Commission_English.pdf

1. Four years ago, the United States and the Russian Federation concluded the New START Treaty. Even after New START, however, both nations will still possess nuclear arsenals that far exceed reasonable deterrence requirements. Both continue to rely on nuclear weapons employment strategies that are based on traditional Cold War planning assumptions, with hundreds of nuclear arms assigned to targets in each other’s territory and available for prompt launch.

2. Achieving further nuclear reductions could enhance national, Euro-Atlantic, and international security to the benefit of all states. This first report
by the trilateral German-Russian-U.S. Deep Cuts Commission examines a number of obstacles impeding progress and it offers practical options that would enable the key parties to make headway. While the current environment does not promise an early breakthrough on further nuclear reductions, this report recommends that all sides should pursue a more energetic dialogue and explore a range of options to overcome and resolve key obstacles.

3. Even before Washington and Moscow agree to begin formal negotiations on a New START follow-on agreement, measures can be taken to achieve further strategic reductions within the current treaty framework. One option is for the United States to accelerate the pace of planned reductions so that nuclear force levels reach or fall below the New START limits ahead of the 2018 implementation deadline for the Treaty.

4. This measure could be accomplished through executive action by the U.S. President. Russia is already below two of the three numerical limits in the Treaty. The United States could also commit itself to continue reducing below New START limits toward the levels of Russian forces, which would be consistent with the results of the Nuclear Posture Review conducted by the Obama administration. Such reductions could improve the political landscape.

The Role of the USA & Russia

1. Russia and the United States should initiate talks on a New START follow-on agreement mandating additional significant and stabilizing cuts — for example, establishing limits of 500 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 1,000 deployed strategic warheads for each side.

2. In order to enhance prospects for achieving a follow-on agreement, the United States should accelerate New START-mandated reductions ahead of the 2018 implementation deadline; the United States and Russia could consider further independent, reciprocal force reductions below New START ceilings.

3. Russia and the United States should reinvigorate bilateral strategic stability talks with the goal of pursuing confidence-building initiatives that help to address concerns relating to missile defense, tactical nuclear weapons, conventional precision-guided weapons, and outer space weapons. They should at the same time engage other nuclear-weapon states and encourage them to improve transparency and eventually to freeze or reduce their arsenals, using any useful precedents from the U.S.-Russian experience.

The Role of Germany

1. Germany has a role in addressing European security issues. It is a responsible NATO ally and participates in the alliance’s nuclear sharing arrangement. Through these arrangements, Berlin is involved in discussions on the future of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe and the planned deployment of missile defense systems by NATO.

2. Germany is a reliable long-term cooperation partner of Russia and its second largest trading partner. Germany is also a champion of cooperative arms control in Europe.

3. The future of the OSCE and the CFE Treaty are important vertices of German foreign and security policy. Berlin has always been interested in a cooperative U.S.-Russian relationship. The benefits of cooperation have helped Germany, together with its allies and partners, to shape a peaceful Europe.

4. Germany has emerged as a vocal proponent of international disarmament. Under the frame-work of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative—a group of 12 middle powers—Berlin advances policies and concepts for multilateral nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Addressing Tactical Nuclear Weapons

1. The United States and Russia should reconfirm their mutual commitment to the 1991 and 1992 PNIs, undertaking confidence-building measures such as exchanging data on the total number of nuclear warheads destroyed over the past twenty years, and conducting site visits to former but now empty storage facilities.

2. The United States and Russia should resume the U.S.-Russian dialogue of nuclear experts in order to develop non-intrusive measures to provide for verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons. Germany should take the lead within NATO to formulate a coherent NATO policy on the role
of TNWs in Europe and terms for their withdrawal.

3. The CAI provides for a system of air-space monitoring between Norway and Russia, Poland and Russia, and between Turkey and Russia and concurrently connects (through data transmission) two coordination centers (one in Warsaw and one in Moscow) with data collection units. The CAI’s mandate and facilities could be expanded to include the BMD function as well.

4. In addition, the parties Russia and the United States should intensify efforts to make their BMD capabilities more transparent, considering the options of data exchanges on certain technical criteria and joint annual exercises on the tactical and theater BMD level. NATO should make more explicit the connection between Iran’s nuclear and missile threats and the pace and scope of NATO’s EPAA deployments.

5. NATO and Russia should initiate discussions about long-term options for a joint NATO-Russian BMD study center and/or a center for NATO-Russian surveillance and monitoring of missile threats and space objects, possibly building on the NATO-Russia Cooperative Air-space Initiative

Categories
Scottish Referendum

Scotland & NATO & Nuclear

Scotland, NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Lord John Robertson & Russia

Labour peer Robertson, (addressing the highly influential Brookings Institute in America) recently claimed a, “Yes” vote in the September independence referendum would destabilise the West leading to a breakdown of Western civilisation bringing with it, “cataclysmic” consequences for NATO. He reinforced his totally, “off the wall” comments giving voice that, “the UK’s enemies would “cheer loudest” and “the forces of darkness would simply love it”, further adding, for effect, “the dictators, the persecutors, the oppressors, the annexers, the aggressors and the adventurers around the planet” would view such a move as a victory.

His rant was totally at odds with his recent speech, in which he strongly advocated that Mr Putin and Russia be admitted to NATO ahead of Scotland saying it would reinforce the, “liberal values” of NATO. Seeking to justify his position he intimated recent troubles in Ukraine and Crimea should not be a bar against Russian membership.

A labour party spokesman distanced the party from Robertson saying, his his comments were, “total fantasy”.

Rejecting the critisism Robertson said that he envisioned an expanded NATO that was just as effective, while involving countries that at the moment do not want to be part of the transatlantic organisation. He went on saying, “there’s no security in Europe, unless there’s an eventual perspective of an organisation that says, “we stand for values, stand for liberal values, and that has to include Russia”.

Adding insult to injury, Robertson was then invited in December 2013 to write an article for the, Blether Together” campaign. In it he again attacked SNP plans for NATO membership. He wrote: “I have expressed my doubts about whether Scotland could eject nuclear weapons one day and expect to be welcomed into a nuclear alliance the next.” He went on, “Nato would be very worried about accepting Scotland on the terms the SNP have laid down.”

Compelled to intervene, NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen strongly censured Robertson stating, “linking Scotland with the, “Forces of Darkness, was rather far fetched” since SCOTLAND HAS BEEN AN INTEGRAL PART OF NATO SINCE IT’s FORMATION. An embarrassed UK government completely disassociated themselves from the remarks and refuse to comment.

Following up, a spokesperson for the Scottish government said, “Lord Robertson’s remarks are deeply offensive to every Scot”. he continued, “likening an independent Scotland to the, “Forces of Darkness” was simply idiotic and spiteful, from a man long known for his opposition to Scottish independence and well documented hatred of the SNP”. “His calls for Russia to be invited to join NATO whilst appearing to suggest his own country should be blocked will puzzle some observers given Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine and Scotland’s strategic location with regards the North Atlantic”.

NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. A reminder of his quote on the wild assertion’s of daft George.

“SCOTLAND HAS BEEN AN INTEGRAL PART OF NATO SINCE IT’S FORMATION.”

http://www.sodahead.com/living/labour-peer-lord-robertson-says-no-to-scotland-but-yes-to-russia-in-nato/question-4286539/

NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen – Former Prime Minister of Denmark – A brief outline of the man and his country

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Prime Minister of Denmark, (a NON-NUCLEAR country of identical population size as Scotland) is more right wing than George Bush Jnr. He won a second term in office due to his and Denmark’s firm support, (rarely the case of European countries nowaday’s) for all that is the policy of the USA.

Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, a political scientist at the University of Copenhagen, (not related to the prime minister) said, “. We actually trust the U.S. to do the right thing, and therefore if the U.S. president says it’s necessary to do something we support it.

A man in the street said, “Yes, it’s true, there are good feelings about America here. A lot of good things come from America.”

With their country occupied by the Nazis during World War II, threatened by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and thriving today in a free-trading global economy, the Danes are far more keen than many continental Europeans on a close friendship with the United States.

Niels Helveg Petersen, a former foreign minister and center-left member of parliament said, “History has taught Danes that America will look out for them better than the great powers of Europe”.

Denmark even commemorates America’s Independence Day, in the northern town of Rebild on the fourth of July annually for nearly a century.

“Historically, Denmark feels very attached to American values,” said Jacob Nielsen, political editor for the Copenhagen daily Politiken. He also noted that Denmark has close ties with its former colony on the North American island of Greenland, home to an important U.S. air base. He went on, “Denmark is a small country,” and just the idea of the American president dropping by here as the only stop before he goes to the G-8 summit confirms the government’s line that their foreign policy is giving Denmark a say in international politics.”

Summary

In his role as, “NATO Secretary General” his aggressive approach to negotiations with Russia in regard to the Ulraine is a cause of concern to President Obama and other NATO members, who would prefer a more conciliatory dialogue. Hope is on the horizon however, in the form of former Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg of Norway who will lead NATO starting on 1 Oct. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-independence-country-will-have-reapply-nato-says-general-secretary-1461856

Categories
Scottish Referendum Uncategorized

Lib/Dem & Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear and the inconsistency of the Lib Dem’s

For as long as I can remember the position of the Lib Dem’s and over half the parliamentary Labour party has been that Trident should be discarded, in favour of an expansion of conventional forces. They were also adamant that the UK would remain to be a full member of NATO. They said it was illogical for anyone to voice opinion that NATO would prefer the UK not to be in it since the geographical position occupied by the UK was of crucial importance to NATO.

But the Con/Dem government killed that position off in 2010. Trident is getting old and unstable and needs replacing. When it came to a vote, a deal was done in the dark corridors of Westminster and the Lib/Dem’s, (all of them) abstained from voting and those in favour of replacing Trident carried the day. The question asked but never answered is, “What will happen to the Lib/Dem’s in Scotland if the party simply echos the Westminster based elite”. Many Lib /Dem supporters in Scotland were very angry that MP’s they had sent to Westminster ignored the mandate they had been elected to support. Namely to vote against the retention of Nuclear weapons.

The 2014 Referendum, (independence for Scotland) provides the Lib/Dem’s with another chance to redeem the party by supporting a, “Yes” vote which would achieve the dream of a nuclear free Scotland. It is unfortunate that the Lib/Dem parliamentary party are turning their faces away from independence preferring to, “toe the party line” in support of the retention of nuclear weapons in Scotland. But all is not lost, from discussions I have had when out canvassing Lib/Dem voters are prepared to vote, “Yes” with conviction in spite of the official position of the party. I say, “well done” all you individuals who prefer to think of your children getting rid of these awful weapons from Scotland.

Categories
Scottish Referendum

New Nuclear Agreement Signed UK & USA

USA & UK Sign New Nuclear Agreement.

A new agreement critical to Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons system, was signed the other day by British and US officials. Whitehall was silent. We had to rely on the White House, and a message from Barack Obama to the US Congress, to tell us that the 1958 UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) had been updated.
However, the content of the new agreement will remain secret. To reveal them, Whitehall officials say, could “assist proliferation” of nuclear weapons. That is a curious comment given that both the US and UK insist the agreement does not in any way breach their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). The vast majority of Scot’s wish to see the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland. A view shared by all political parties in Scotland.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/29/nuclear-weapons-us-uk-cooperation

Categories
Scottish Referendum

No Nuclear for Scotland

An independent Scotland will not install or operate nuclear energy power stations. Vote, “Yes” in the referendum

EDF Energy has been forced to shut down two of its eight UK nuclear power stations amid safety fears, after discovering “unexpected cracking” in a boiler unit of one of its reactors in Lancashire. The French-owned energy giant said it had shut down its Heysham 1 and Hartlepool plants, each of which comprise two reactors, after confirming there was a “defect” in a boiler unit at Heysham 1 Reactor 1. Signs of a possible fault were first noticed in November 2013, leading to the “isolation” of one of the reactor’s eight boiler units. But it was only when the reactor was shut down in June for detailed inspections that EDF confirmed the defect.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation disclosed that EDF had found “unexpected cracking” in a “boiler spine”, a forged metal tube which supports the weight of boiler tubes coiled around it. “The spine supports the weight of an entire boiler and its failure could lead to water entering the reactor vessel,” the ONR said.

The pressure water reactor uses a primary cooling system of ordinary water under pressure to transport the reactor heat to the secondary cooling system also of ordinary water which is flashed off as steam which spins the turbines to generate electricity. EDF refused to explain what would happen if water entered the reactor vessel. But I will. See next paragraph. Plants of this design have a projected safe operational use life of 30 years. And these are over 40yo.

A sudden loss of pressure and the reactor goes super critical and lots of powerful moderator liquids have to be pumped into the reactor core very quickly to stop melt down. The whole event would put the reactor out of action for a long time while all the parts that developed cracks were replaced. An event like this would most certainly result in a major escape of radioactive products. That,s why EDF are shutting down now and doing the remedial work before a problem arises.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11026735/EDF-shuts-down-two-UK-nuclear-plants-amid-safety-fears.html

Categories
Scottish Referendum

UK Trident – Off the Shelf Lease of a Redundant Nuclear Weapons System That Does Not Deliver

 

 

Image result for trident faslane images

 

 

 

Trident Nuclear Deterrent Rent or Buy?

The much vaunted truly independent UK nuclear deterrent is in fact totally reliant upon American missiles (built by Lockheed Martin) and is administered by a private consortium which is two thirds controlled by American companies (Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering) to the cost of over £600 million a year to the British taxpayer, (plus vast cash injections for nuclear infrastructure and design programmes) is nothing short of a scandal.

How on Earth can it be considered an independent nuclear deterrent when the delivery system is an entirely American off-the-shelf missile system and the private company that is responsible for every aspect of the British nuclear programme, including the design of the warheads themselves is two thirds American? Take it away from Scotland

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/uk-nuclear-weapons-privatisation.html

 

 

Image result for trident faslane images

 

 

Categories
Scottish Referendum

NATO and the Nuclear Umbrella – A View

NATO and the Nuclear Umbrella – A View

“One of the ironies in the whole debate about nuclear weapons in the UK is that Scotland, who have them, don’t want them, and England who don’t have them, want Scotland, who don’t want them, to keep them”

George Robertson, other Unionist politicians and the, “Blether Together” campaign have been, spreading their usual gloom and doom lies making great play on the stated intention that an independent Scotland would require an early removal of Trident from the Clyde. Their, “cry’s of foul play” have added threats that Scotland is applying double standards, removing Trident then asking that membership of NATO and it’s “nuclear umbrella” be extended to Scotland. George Robertson and a few right-wing US politicians have issued grave warnings that Scotland would be denied NATO membership, if they followed through and forced removal of Trident. Dismantling the foregoing piffle is not difficult, since George and his pals have been at it before;

George Robertson, former Secretary General of NATO, (in 2010) criticized a German government proposal to withdraw all remaining American, (tactical) nuclear weapons from German territory as damaging not only to Germany, but to the NATO alliance as a whole. He said that the proposal was driven more by populist sentiment than any long-term strategic goal. In response critics of Mr Robertson stated that Robertson’s opinions were based on outdated perceptions.

Recent U.S. – Russia bilateral negotiations to reduce long-range weapons did not cover B-61s in Europe. There are an estimated 200 B-61 thermonuclear-gravity bombs, (tactical weapons) scattered across, Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Under a NATO agreement struck during the Cold War, the bombs, which are owned by the U.S., can be transferred to the control of a host nation’s air force in time of conflict. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war.

In 2001, when the Greek air force ordered a new fighter jet, it chose a model that could not carry the B-61, forcing the U.S. to withdraw its weapons there. The U.S. still stores weapons in Turkey, but some experts say the Turkish air force is no longer involved. Canada gave up it’s support of nuclear weapons many year’s ago. All three countries remain to be full members of NATO. Up your’s George !!!

Another spoiler. Forming part of a rolling replacement programme, to be completed before 2020 all Tornado jet fighters that are equipped to carry tactical nuclear weapons will be scrapped. The successor aircraft, The Eurofighter,(Typhoon) a joint European development, now in service in, The UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, throughout europe and sold worldwide in ever increasing volumes, is not capable of carrying nuclear bombs. Howszat George!! Not one of the countries concerned is threatened with expulsion from NATO.

Heather Conley of the Center for Strategic and International Studies stated, “we are allowing aircraft selection to determine our posture,”. “Given that Europe’s hidden nuclear arsenal is unpopular, potentially unsafe and a hindrance to global nonproliferation efforts, it’s time for it to go.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1943799,00.html
http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1818
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/nato-should-use-summit-address-us-tactical-nukes-europe-experts-say/

Categories
Scottish Referendum

Faslane – 52 Near Misses Each year – A Nuclear Disaster is Only a Matter of Time

 

 

Damaged nuclear submarine after hitting an obstacle at 535 depth travelling at 20 Knots

Image result for Submarine Nuclear Reactor Accidents

 

 

 

Faslane & Coulport – Are Our People Safe?

An internal UK Ministry of Defence report recently revealed there have been over 260 nuclear safety incidents at its naval facilities at Faslane and Coulport in the West of Scotland over the past five years. The report does not specify the exact nature of each incident, but does reveal the total number included radioactive contamination, small fires and human error and failures in system processes.

The ministry was quick to dismiss their own report, which blamed human error for three quarter of the incidents. “It is entirely misleading to focus only on the number of reports,” a ministry spokesman said. “Our comprehensive reporting system purposely captures even the most minor of incidents, which never pose a threat to the public or our personnel, to ensure all lessons are learned,” the ministry added.

Angus Robertson, a member of parliament and a spokesman on defence for the Scottish National Party (SNP), said the revelations would serve as a shock to the local community and the rest of Scotland. “Yet again safety at Faslane is an issue. To have more than 50 nuclear safety events every year is simply unacceptable,” Robertson said.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140421/189286068/Report-Reveals-Shocking-Safety-Failures-at-UKs-Nuclear-Weapons.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firefighters extinguished a massive fire aboard a docked nuclear submarine. Nine people were overcome by toxic smoke. Officials assured the public there was no radiation leak. Over 20 hours passed before the massive fire on board the submarine was finally put out.