greenpeaceuk's moblog

by greenpeace

user profile | dashboard | imagewall

« older newer »

Greenpeace is committed to exposing environmental problems with creative and non-violent direct action.

Previous events:
Orang-utans swing into action to stop Dove destroying rainforests for palm oil
Flashmob at Heathrow's Terminal 5
King coal at Kingsnorth
Trident: We Don't Buy It
Weapons inspectors are shut out of Aldermaston
All the fun of the Square with iCount
Closing Didcot power station
Ban illegal timber at Admiralty Arch

Find us elsewhere on the web:

Design provided by goode
href="" target="_blank">studio4scotland

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Search this moblog

Recent visitors

Joining the blockade

(viewed 2726 times)
Bookmark and Share
Greenpeace activists are currently blockading the nuclear weapons submarine base at Faslane in Scotland. Moves are afoot to replace Trident and we're there to say that the £76 billion it would cost (yes, you read that right) would be better spent on solving real problems such as climate change. Read more.

greenpeace says:

We have bigger, but the point is that the millitary won't endanger anyone's lives. Sounds like a contradication in terms, but they're not going to just plough through a bunch of civilians and capsize them.

23rd Feb 2007, 11:29

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't most of the Trident nuclear missiles fitted to submarines? Do you not think there might be a flaw in the plan with your little boats?

Do you think they might just slip underneath? Maybe?

Just a thought..

23rd Feb 2007, 12:58

greenpeace says:

Ah, but the port entrance is not deep enough for the submarines to dive. They have to remain above water as they leave.

23rd Feb 2007, 13:11

SWMBO says:

But what about all the people who would be out of work if we didn't have these defence systems in place.

As for military not endangering lives, ask the widow of the blue on blue incident for her opinion on this!

23rd Feb 2007, 13:45

mat says:

When your job is building and maintaining weapons of mass destruction, I'd suggest that a career change is probably a good thing. Justifying nuclear proliferation on the basis of a few hundred jobs is stretching it a bit..

23rd Feb 2007, 13:58

Go greenpeace.

Well thought out protest.

76 billion should be more than enough for some usefull job creation schemes in areas that we actually need. I mean who exactly are we thinking of nuking here?

Also seems a bit hypocritical having a go at Iran for doing exactly what we are doing, does it not.

As far as I can see we want to replace trident because the UK government has a collectively small winky.

23rd Feb 2007, 14:22

Steve says:

And it's not like any of the government have links to arms companies, they wouldn't be doing it for kick backs....

I believe that old nukes are still able to do a fair amount of damage.

23rd Feb 2007, 14:26

g says:

it would be nice if the 9/11 Truth Campaign had some of your budget and sponsors :(

23rd Feb 2007, 14:34

what did that program on BBC2 conclude last week about the so-called conspiracy of 9/11?

the goals of greenpeace actually make sense. hence the sponsors and funding

23rd Feb 2007, 14:35

Steve says:

Blah Blah Blah Blah

23rd Feb 2007, 14:36

Alfie says:

lay off G.

23rd Feb 2007, 14:44

g says:


23rd Feb 2007, 14:57

Steve says:

I don't know all of the facts but to my untrained eye that looks like a 3 legged bird! Why is no one talking about this? I best set up a web site to let others know about this conspiracy.

23rd Feb 2007, 15:01

g says:

bad vibes and i hate them. you got a problem with me thinking that the events of that day weren't carried out by 19 hijackers with boxcutters? get used to it. the twins and 7 were demolished.

23rd Feb 2007, 22:40

Steve says:

No I don't have a problem with what you believe, I find your negative leaps of faith a tad worrying though.

24th Feb 2007, 11:23

I also have trouble with you hijacking someone else's operation here with your own agenda.

The problem with nuclear weapons is that they have a shelf-life. That is, a half-life. Uranium and plutonium and their friends, over the years, turn into other elements and degrade the effectiveness of the weapon to the point that achieving critical mass is impossible.

Here in the USA, we have samples from every generation of weapon we've ever deployed, and periodically we just set one off to see how that batch is doing. It's called stockpile testing.

The answer to the Reagan era of nuclear proliferation is just ... waiting. If you'd rather not have your nuclear capability go sour, you have to replace the warheads at least. You'd probably want to replace the entire missile, because other components might have a shelf-life too. The expensive bits get recycled.

The upshot is that "clean(er)" nukes turn into fairly nasty dirty bombs when they sit on the shelf for too long. Not much of a blast yield if critical mass can't be achieved, but there's still a conventional burst to implode the fissionables together, and this generally happens a considerable distance aboveground.

Is what's going on here replacement for deployed missiles?


25th Feb 2007, 02:26

mat says:

Yup. We're getting a nice deal off some of your government's buddies, I think.

The point really is we don't need them. We can just take apart the old ones and y'know, not have any nukes. Loads of countries don't have a nuclear arsenal and do just fine. It's not like we couldn't knock some out pretty quick if the situation looked that bad - a full-on nuclear war isn't the kind of thing that creeps up on you.

25th Feb 2007, 02:49

Frankly, if the USA has nuclear weapons, I'd really prefer a good friend of ours had them too, just in case we went nuts and had to be taken down a peg.

Same theory as the original one behind our constitution's amendment which gives us the right to bear arms, which, under the thinking at the time, provided for the possibility of an armed revolution should the government get to be too corrupt to bear.

I mean, who would you hand a gun to and tell, "If I ever start acting like that guy over there, please shoot me?"


25th Feb 2007, 03:49

Pete says:

You have bigger boats, do you? Ones that are a mile stem to stern that could actually blockade rather than just amuse the mod-plod? No, I thought not.

Do they have more than one anchor as well? Ha, ha, ha..... no more brains than an endangered microbe.

28th Feb 2007, 00:39

Pharmc964(johnc502-at-aol-dot-com) says:

Hello! ffadgce interesting ffadgce site!

7th May 2010, 23:06

Pharme117(johne261-at-aol-dot-com) says:

Very nice site!

7th May 2010, 23:06

Pharma947(johna869-at-aol-dot-com) says:

Hello! fdegkae interesting fdegkae site!

20th May 2010, 00:41

Pharmb554(johnb301-at-aol-dot-com) says:

Very nice site!

20th May 2010, 00:41

Pharma862(johna756-at-aol-dot-com) says:

Hello! dddbfkg interesting dddbfkg site!

30th Jun 2010, 23:33

Pharma34(johna205-at-aol-dot-com) says:

Very nice site!

30th Jun 2010, 23:33

Add a comment

(P) what's this?

Track updates to this post with rssthis rss feed