Forest of Dean & Wye Valley

Posts Tagged ‘Nuclear War’

TRIDENT: Not fit for purpose

In A.Graham, C.Spiby on April 27, 2017 at 12:31 pm

We offer no apologies for returning to the topic of the Trident missile system – and its questionable role in our so-called defence system.

It seems that technically it is no longer fit for purpose. It has outlived its effectiveness (if it ever had any), and should now either be scrapped or at the very least phased out.

According to the latest issue of The Spokesman (the quarterly journal of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation),  the Trident system has now completed 26 years of deployment, and has now  “reached its original design life goal” – as the US Department of Defence puts it.

HUSHED UP:

The failed test highlighted in the last issue of the Clarion was hushed up by the Americans, though Theresa May was informed. She chose not to pass on the news to Parliament. It was only revealed through a US press leak.

WHAT ABOUT “DE-COMMISSIONING”?

There are other concerns about the Trident system, apart from the effectiveness of this ageing system. How do we get rid of nuclear submarines when we no longer need them?  The Spokesman reports that HMS Tireless has now joined eighteen other nuclear submarines awaiting dismantling.  “With Dreadnought rusting in Rosyth since 1980, the cost of maintaining them is rising and space running out as the Ministry of Defence struggles to find an environmentally safe and cost effective means of disposal. “

As Laurel and Hardy may well have said, “A fine mess you’ve got us into!”  Yes, Trident should be phased out. As “a defence system” it was never fit for purpose. But even if we do scrap this over-priced system our worries are far from over.  How do we safely and securely scrap our redundant nuclear submarines?  It could be a problem that remains with us for decades – if not longer.

Below is web-only edition of the Clarion bonus material…


 

THE HISTORY OF ‘PROTECT AND SURVIVE’

Professor John Preston will be hosting a discussion on the infamous 1970’s pif ‘Protect and Survive’ on June 29th at the University of East London. Click here for more details on the FREE event (limited numbers so you will need to book).

In Prof. Preston’s own words:

In this workshop we will consider the origins, nature, reception and fate of the 1980s UK government civil defence campagn “Protect and Survive”. We will discuss the following issues:-

  • What were the origins of Protect and Survive? How did the original plans arise and how were they realised? How exactly did it arrive in the public domain?
  • What was the nature of Protect and Survive? Was it a campaign / public information ‘package’? How would it have been used in practice? What types of media would it have used?
  • How was Protect and Survive recieved? How was it portrayed in the media, popular culture, government and internationally?
  • What happened to Protect and Survive? Did it become ‘civil protection’? Does it still exist in some form?

This is a workshop rather than an academic seminar. The format will be to spend one hour (approx.) on each of the four issues (with a tea break at some point) and for perhaps one person to ‘lead’ each area (if anyone would like to volunteer to lead a particular area that woudl be great) by giving a five minute introduction to that topic.

The conference is open to anyone: academics, historians, collectors, policy makers, practitioners and anyone who is interested in “Protect and Survive”

Lunch is not included but you will get a cup of tea / coffee and a biscuit or two. At the end of the workshop you are welcome to join us for a drink.

Incidentally, a seminal BBC Panorama has found its way on to YouTube (available at the time of this posting, at least), which looks into the role of Civil Defence in Britain in 1980, at a time when ‘Protect and Survive’ was still secret and intended for viewing only in the event of impending nuclear war.

Watching this again (I remember seeing it when I was only 9 years old first time around) – this programme has lost none of its potency. If anything it acts as an important reminder of the futility of nuclear war – no less relevant today – but also just how far we’ve come in terms of documentary film-making. An hour long and in-depth this is a far cry from today’s glossy but often light handling of topic on mainstream tv. Panorama on BBC used to occupy the 8pm or 9.25pm slot on BBC1 (just after the 9 o’clock News with Angela Rippon or Kenneth Baker!)

END

DANGER: NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE

In A.Graham on April 24, 2017 at 11:51 am

According to the latest newsletter from “STAND” (Severnside Together Against Nuclear Development) the threat from nuclear waste being stored at the old Berkeley Nuclear plant is increasing ominously.

After the plant ceased producing power it remained operational as a nuclear waste storage facility. The original planning application was for a “Low Level” waste store, confined simply to waste from the Berkeley plant itself. But now, according to STAND, it holds the far more dangerous “intermediate level” waste from such nuclear power plants as Oldbury, Sizewell and Dungeness – as well as Berkeley itself.

This is despite the fact that those who live in the vicinity were assured that it would never happen!

2007_fire at Oldbury nuke power station

Across the Severn – and on fire.

 

Initially the nuclear waste was stored using ductile cast iron containers – but these are now to be replaced by concrete, on the grounds of cost. How safe this will be in the long term remains to be seen. Concrete, of course, does corrode over time (as of course does cast iron).

All this is at present “work in progress” and may not be complete until well into 2018. Meanwhile, Coun. James Greenwood has been asking whether there would be any public consultation on the plans.  He was told that there was “no need” (after all, it would only frighten the natives!).

THREATS:

It might be that local inhabitants have good reason to be apprehensive.  Back in 2005 the Government’s own nuclear watchdog, Nirex, produced an official report which stated that the Berkeley site was unsuitable for nuclear waste storage. The dangers posed by this site on the Severn included tidal flooding and the threat of storm surges.

Meanwhile it has taken five years to remove waste from the bottom of the chambers on the site. We’re talking about highly radioactive sludge here.

The danger of accidents at nuclear power plants is of course an ever-present threat. It may not seem many, but there have been four critical disasters since the nuclear age began – and that’s four too many. The problem of storing radioactive nuclear waste is more of a long-term threat. It’s like a ticking time bomb.

WHAT ABOUT OLDBURY?

Meanwhile, what’s happening on the Oldbury site?  There has been no news from the developers, Horizon, for some time, despite attempts by STAND to contact them.

According to the latest STAND newsletter, the questions that need answering include:  How many cooling towers will be included in the plans?  Do they still intend to build up a base seven metres above the river level before they begin work on the plant?  How will they bring all the concrete in before the work starts?

And, last but not least, when do they expect to start producing electricity?

To date there has been no response to these questions. Meanwhile for further details, go to STAND’s website: www.standagainstoldbury.org


NUCLEAR ENDPIECE: MAY’S TRIDENT COVER UP

Towards the end of January (as this issue of the Clarion was being prepared), the media dropped a bombshell. In the summer of 2016, just before the crucial vote of whether to renew our Trident system, a missile had gone off course and ended up off the Florida coast.

Theresa May chose to bury the news. She said nothing about it during that heated debate in the Commons. The Labour Party split on the vote to renew our fleet of Trident nuclear submarines and the decision to renew the fleet was passed overwhelmingly.

If it had been known then that a test missile had been fired and gone careering  off in the wrong direction, ending up near the coast of the USA, maybe, just maybe, the result of the vote might have been different. But that, of course, is now water under the bridge.

Incidentally, the Trident nuclear warheads are supplied by the USA and are effectively under American control. The missile that went astray was not actually armed with a nuclear warhead – but it does say something about the fallibility of the missile delivery system.

BURYING BAD NEWS:

More important was the cover-up that followed the vote in the Commons. News of the rogue missile was only revealed in January. The source was the Sunday Times, backed up shortly afterwards by American television.  But even then May’s cover-up continued.

When she appeared on the BBC Andrew Marr show, she was asked no less than four times whether she’d known about the stray missile. Four times she failed to answer.

CND general secretary Kate Hudson described the incident as “a very serious failure,” and added, “why has the Government knowingly committed us to spending £205 billion on this demonstrably unreliable technology?”

A Government spokesman, however said, “we have absolute confidence in our independent (sic) nuclear deterrent.”

bomb_tree

TRIDENT: What use is it?

In A.Graham, Uncategorized on October 4, 2016 at 12:20 pm
Once again, on July 18th, we  witnessed the Commons in full cry, debating whether we should renew our (small but no doubt beautifully formed) fleet of Trident nuclear submarines.
bomb_tree
We’ve watched the same old arguments trotted out – this time, though, by the new Tory Prime Minister, Theresa May. We also witnessed the un-edifying sight of serried ranks of Labour MPs all doing their best to show that they didn’t support Jeremy Corbyn on this issue (or, indeed, much else).  What were they trying to prove, I wonder? And we also watched Theresa May trying to do a Cameron by slapping down Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas as she spoke against Trident.  It wasn’t a pretty sight, and we can do without it in any serious debate. Carolyn Lucas by the way was making the point that the logic of renewing Trident was that “every other country must seek to acquire nuclear weapons.”  After all,  If we had to have Trident, why shouldn’t they? Renewing our own nuclear submarine fleet  Is hardly a move towards preventing proliferation!
When it comes to who supports what, Trident presents us with a tangle of opinion. The SNP don’t want it in their back yard – understandably. On the other hand, Unite the union (particularly its members in the Barrow shipyards) want the Trident project to go ahead. After all, their jobs are at stake. Having said that, wouldn’t it provide more security if marine “jobs for peace” could be guaranteed at Britain’s remaining shipyards? There are plenty of naval vessels that need building.
In effect, what we got from supporters of Trident in the debate were cliches that steered clear of the reality of the situation. For a start it’s not “our” independent nuclear deterrent.  And it would hardly be of any use against any of the opponents who we face in those conflicts we’ve got ourselves involved in. We may have built our fleet of Trident subs ourselves but the nuclear warheads are a different matter altogether. The missiles are American, and no way could we take unilateral action without seeking consent. From the USA.  Basically, our Trident subs tie us firmly into US nuclear/military strategy.
CAMPAIGNING:
I have to confess that I’m something of a veteran peace campaigner – and well remember one particularly fraught action which saw us on the march to Holy Loch  where our nuclear missile system squatted like a giant toad on the waters of the loch. In those days we relied on the Polaris nuclear submarine, to provide our deterrent. It was to be replaced by Trident in the 1990s without  firing a single missile in anger.
Most of our attempts to get to the loch and board the submarine were thwarted. We were dragged away by sweating, disgruntled policemen, and we ended up in the Glssgow central police cells.  But we believed then that we’d won a moral victory.
Nowadays, older and maybe wiser, I believe that moral victories are not enough. The “Cold War”, as it was then, is no longer with us, but we still live in a very dangerous world, even if the dangers are more fragmented. And it’s because of this fragmentation that old theories based on “mutually assured destruction” no longer have the same validity.
IRRELEVANCE:
Our nuclear missiles were completely irrelevant when it came to the Iraq War, spearheaded by Bush and Blair. They are even more irrelevant in the trouble zones of the Middle East today, or in the campaigns to contain and overcome the outrages committed by self-styled jihadists in Europe.
The list goes on. But meanwhile we’re determined to spend billions of pounds so that we can be seen to be playing with the big boys.