Militaristic intervention should be the last option to be considered wherever we find injustice and nuclear assault against any nation should never be considered at all. So many of the wars being waged on countries are based on lies and false flag operations purely for the self serving interests of a powerful corporate owned few. The US government knew that Japan was about to surrender back in 1945, yet they loosed their A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why? To show off to the Russians and the rest of the world that they had the power and the political will to inflict such utter destruction and massive loss of life. It was and remains a monstrous act of tyranny and contempt for human life and in this era of economically driven survival, there are indeed many other options available. Quaddaffi, liberated half his country from poverty and delivered more sharing of the country’s wealth, brought in reforms for health and education, he refused to fall in line with Washington. The response: utter destruction of Libya and massive loss of life. Saddam Hussein, a monster to be sure, waged war on Kuwait because the Royal family there, were stealing Iraqi oil. We did not sanction, boycott and Divest when he would not ally himself to the west and Washington. The response: utter destruction of Iraq and massive loss of life. Dr. Bashar al Assad, actively promoting reforms to appease the many factions and succeeding in uniting 78% of them in his progressive approach to governance. He refused to accept the EU & Washington deal that would ensure their superiority in the region and instead accepted the Russian pipeline deal. The response: utter destruction of Syria and massive loss of life. The Ukraine people voted in Yanukovych with an overwhelming majority of support – 99% of the Donbass, but would not accept the Washington & EU asset based deal offered him and chose instead the Russian no strings attached deal. The response: Utter destruction of the Donbass and massive loss of life. NATO is so firmly entrenched in these conflicts that it is inevitable that conflicts will escalate and when faced with defeat in the arena of conventional warfare, especially if China weighs in on Russia’s side, what then? Phase 2, the nuclear option, indiscriminate mass slaughter with the use of nuclear “deterrents”? You need a socially vacuous conscience or an innate desire for thinly veiled eugenics to surrender responsibility for such a decision.
In response to BDTN Article:http://breakingdownthnews.blogspot.com/
POLL: Trident is useless, expensive, immoral and obscene. Should it go?
Editor BDTN Team at 18:06 Labels: Jeremy Corbyn, nuclear, SNP, Trident
Over the years the SNP, Corbyn and the wider peace movement have built what I regard as an overwhelming case against Trident on both moral and economic grounds. Since the election in May, I – along with my colleagues in the SNP Defence Group – have been building the military case against Trident.
It has been easier than we first thought because Trident – despite being such a massive drain on the UK defence budget – is not actually a military weapon. It is a political weapon which can never and will never be used.
A huge amount of money spent on weapons of mass destruction that could be redirected to allow the UK to do good, whether peacekeeping, reacting to emergencies like the Ebola crisis or act a great deal more decisively and effectively to alleviate humanitarian crises like the one we are experiencing across Europe, is being sacrificed on a collective military and political ego-trip.
Yet 35% of the defence procurement budget – the money set aside to keep the UK’s defence capabilities up to date – is instead being wasted simply to secure the UK a seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Now Labour’s Leader Jeremy Corbyn want’s to get rid of Trident and rightly so, even though hypocrite Tony Blair has called Corbyn dangerous for wanting to scrap the nuclear site and weapons.
In his memoirs, former Prime Minister, Tony Blair – by no stretch of the imagination a unilateralist – wrote of Trident: “The expense is huge and the utility, non-existent in terms of military use.”
And I believe that everything you need to know about Trident is contained in those two sentences where Blair admits that the UK’s obsession with having an independent nuclear deterrent is little more than a former imperial power indulging a desperate search for a better yesterday.
Of course the last thing the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent is – is ‘independent’. It’s American. It’s designed, manufactured, overhauled and even tested in the United States. We know it will be an American Commander-in-Chief whose finger will be on the button, not a UK Prime Minister. And in about 18 months, the finger could be that of President Donald Trump.
The threats we face are from the mass movement of people away from drought-stricken parts of world as they search for water and other natural resources. Indeed by 2045 it is projected that over 70% of the world’s population will be urban dwellers and many of the poorest will be concentrated into mega-cities in South America, Africa and Asia.
Yet the UK’s response is to spend £100 billion on a submarine based nuclear missile system. The simplest question to ask ourselves and the most difficult to answer is, in those circumstances, who will those Trident missiles be aimed at.
Soon Westminster will be asked to approve the ‘main gate‘ decision for renewal of Trident on a like-for-like basis – to be dumped on the Clyde for the next fifty years. It is an immoral obscene and redundant weapons system – the deadliest nuclear arsenal in history. The SNP and Corbyn will vote against it at every opportunity.