This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/29/protesting-trident-replacement-aldermaston

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why I'll be protesting against a Trident replacement at Aldermaston Why I'll be protesting against a Trident replacement at Aldermaston
(6 months later)
On Easter Monday – or April Fools' Day, depending on your preference – I am joining people from all areas of Britain to protest against one of the coalition's greatest potential follies. Thousands of people, including Green party MEP Keith Taylor, members of CND and I, will be at Aldermaston for a protest rally against the Trident nuclear weapons system and its suggested replacement.On Easter Monday – or April Fools' Day, depending on your preference – I am joining people from all areas of Britain to protest against one of the coalition's greatest potential follies. Thousands of people, including Green party MEP Keith Taylor, members of CND and I, will be at Aldermaston for a protest rally against the Trident nuclear weapons system and its suggested replacement.
We'll be at AWE Aldermaston, where the nuclear bombs are made, to make the case that Trident is not only utterly immoral, militarily outmoded and massively expensive, but to highlight the fact that in a time when the government is making the worst spending cuts in our history, it is also proposing to shell out almost £115bn over the next 30 years for its proposed replacement. That's £115bn on a hideous weapon of mass destruction. Even regardless of the cost, this is something that we simply should not be doing.We'll be at AWE Aldermaston, where the nuclear bombs are made, to make the case that Trident is not only utterly immoral, militarily outmoded and massively expensive, but to highlight the fact that in a time when the government is making the worst spending cuts in our history, it is also proposing to shell out almost £115bn over the next 30 years for its proposed replacement. That's £115bn on a hideous weapon of mass destruction. Even regardless of the cost, this is something that we simply should not be doing.
That point has to be made first is that I cannot imagine a situation in which a British prime minister would fire one of these weapons – and our ownership of them only helps to support their continued presence elsewhere in the world. Nonetheless, there is the cost factor, which deserves to be strongly highlighted and can win the campaign allies from places many of us would not expect.That point has to be made first is that I cannot imagine a situation in which a British prime minister would fire one of these weapons – and our ownership of them only helps to support their continued presence elsewhere in the world. Nonetheless, there is the cost factor, which deserves to be strongly highlighted and can win the campaign allies from places many of us would not expect.
Late last week, I appeared on Question Time, where the issue of Trident and its replacement was raised. It's hardly surprising, given that yet another coalition budget of cuts – and incongruous tax cuts – had been announced the day before, and as CND has pointed out, the cost of replacing Trident could pay for fee-free university places for the next 30 years. What was a little more surprising was that the broadcast's "extra guest", Daily Telegraph commentator Dan Hodges, tweeted that Trident's replacement is no more than a "vanity project" for the government. But at the most basic financial level, it's pretty clear: the Ministry of Defence says that it will cost £20bn-£25bn to replace Trident, and then £3bn per year for the next 30 years to maintain the new system.Late last week, I appeared on Question Time, where the issue of Trident and its replacement was raised. It's hardly surprising, given that yet another coalition budget of cuts – and incongruous tax cuts – had been announced the day before, and as CND has pointed out, the cost of replacing Trident could pay for fee-free university places for the next 30 years. What was a little more surprising was that the broadcast's "extra guest", Daily Telegraph commentator Dan Hodges, tweeted that Trident's replacement is no more than a "vanity project" for the government. But at the most basic financial level, it's pretty clear: the Ministry of Defence says that it will cost £20bn-£25bn to replace Trident, and then £3bn per year for the next 30 years to maintain the new system.
It will also cost an estimated £25bn to decommission, and that's without factoring in inflation. So even the £115bn figure mentioned above seems a very "conservative" estimate: with a small or a large "c". The Lib Dems and Labour have called for – and offered to lead – a Trident Alternatives Review, but all three major parties have said they are committed to a nuclear weapons system owned by the UK and stationed on our soil.It will also cost an estimated £25bn to decommission, and that's without factoring in inflation. So even the £115bn figure mentioned above seems a very "conservative" estimate: with a small or a large "c". The Lib Dems and Labour have called for – and offered to lead – a Trident Alternatives Review, but all three major parties have said they are committed to a nuclear weapons system owned by the UK and stationed on our soil.
We disagree. And in disagreeing, we are joined by the CND and many other campaign groups, including Action AWE – which is now almost four months into a year-long grassroots action campaign at AWE Aldermaston – as well as commentators, military experts, economists and journalists like Dan Hodges, from across the political spectrum.We disagree. And in disagreeing, we are joined by the CND and many other campaign groups, including Action AWE – which is now almost four months into a year-long grassroots action campaign at AWE Aldermaston – as well as commentators, military experts, economists and journalists like Dan Hodges, from across the political spectrum.
The case for a Trident replacement is that Trident is obsolete, and in need of replacement. We accept that it is obsolete, but believe a replacement is a dangerous, unnecessary toy, which will cost us billions we cannot afford and should not be spending on weapons of mass destruction.The case for a Trident replacement is that Trident is obsolete, and in need of replacement. We accept that it is obsolete, but believe a replacement is a dangerous, unnecessary toy, which will cost us billions we cannot afford and should not be spending on weapons of mass destruction.
A responsible, mature state would take the chance presented by the obsolescence of its unnecessary and dangerous nuclear missile system to step away from weapons designed to kill tens of thousands of civilians and smash cities to the ground – and encourage others to follow its lead.A responsible, mature state would take the chance presented by the obsolescence of its unnecessary and dangerous nuclear missile system to step away from weapons designed to kill tens of thousands of civilians and smash cities to the ground – and encourage others to follow its lead.
It would take the billions of pounds it had earmarked for its latest toy and choose instead to spend it on green job creation, helping to make itself into an international leader and improving the lives of its citizens in the process. Only the captains of a ship of fools would insist on spending up to £140bn on an extraordinarily dangerous and immoral status symbol.It would take the billions of pounds it had earmarked for its latest toy and choose instead to spend it on green job creation, helping to make itself into an international leader and improving the lives of its citizens in the process. Only the captains of a ship of fools would insist on spending up to £140bn on an extraordinarily dangerous and immoral status symbol.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.