This is another excellent short video I found on YouTube, this time of the SNP’s Mhairi Black arguing against Trident in parliament. She rebuts the claim that the SNP are against it for purely idealistic reasons. She instead argues that there’s no point to having Trident, as Britain has a policy of not being the first to use nuclear weapons. If Britain is not the first to use them, then it means that everyone’s dead anyway from the enemy’s strike against us. She states clearly that she isn’t worried about our weapons heading towards the enemy, but towards the missiles heading towards us. She also states that the three major threats to Britain, according to the security authorities, are: 1) international terrorism; 2) climate change, and 3) cybercrime. The video concludes with her asking what terrorist attacks our possession of nuclear weapons has deterred?
Tag: Trident
Secular Talk on Poor Americans Now Using Pet Antibiotics
This is a story from another side of the Pond, but it’s relevant because it shows the kind of horrific medical system that the Blairites and the Tories are introducing over here through the destruction of the NHS. In this piece from the atheist/ secularist news channel, Secular Talk, Kyle Kulinski comments on a story in Raw Story from a report from a respected medical journal, The Journal of Antibiotics. A survey was done of 400 people in Houston, Texas, asking them how they obtained their antibiotics. These were people, who needed the drug, not those who did not. Kulinski is very clear to dispel this possible misunderstanding, as the overprescription of antibiotics is a separate issue. It’s responsible for the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, which is a serious threat to health around the world.
This is about people, who genuinely need the drug. It investigated how people…
View original post 706 more words
Nuclear weapons have almost been launched accidentally 13 times – it’s time to stop believing in the fantasy that Trident keeps us safe : Independent.
Just who are we wishing to have a nuclear deterrent to safeguard us from. Is it Russia, China, or US if it is will our small capacity really make a difference. If there is a nuclear war it is more like to be between US and others, should we not be more worried whose finger could be on the button, especially with the election of a new US President.
But where do our dangers really come from, could be terrorism, if so will nuclear weapons be a deterrent, no because who could we aim them at and for some terrorists they do not appear to be concerned if they are killed.
I can not see the logic for having this deterrent, especially when we are told we are in austerity.
First it was £100 Billion, then it was don’t worry it’s only £150 Billion, now it’s £205 BILLION.
Is it not surprising billions can be found to fund something which will not be used, for it was there would be no UK. They say it is a deterent, but it would appear that the most serious cause of harm to the UK is so called Islamist terrorists, which our nuclear weapons will not be a dererent.
There are more urgent needs for extra funding to our health and social care services, but we are told the UK needs to make austerity cuts. So we can spend billions on some weaponary which is not to be used, but can not spend more to care for the poor, vulnerable and ill citizens of the UK.
Trident’s a relic of a bygone age. Will you join us on Saturday to march against it? | Caroline Lucas, Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood | Opinion | The Guardian
Trident Defence policy Nuclear weapons Military
61chrissterry 