Drobe writer in nuke protest arrest - RISC OS News, Software and Information

Drobe writer in nuke protest arrest

Published: 24th Nov 2006, 02:52:42GMT Source: drobe.co.uk
By the Drobe news desk

Page 1 of 1

This is what we do in our spare time

A Drobe reporter was among a group of anti-nuclear protesters arrested outside a Scottish submarine base earlier this month. Ian Chamberlain was arrested by Strathclyde police for allegedly breaching the peace after he and others blockaded the entrance to the naval base with signs. The base is home to four Trident nuclear submarines, which form the backbone of the UK's nuclear defence platform.

Lancaster University religious studies student Ian, a Drobe newsdesk and features writer, has exhibited at RISC OS shows selling products on behalf of third party developers. He was held in custody for 23 hours before he was released with a caution, and warned he faces criminal charges if he returns to protest again at the Faslane base.

The group were protesting against the government's plans to replace the UK's nuclear weapons system, arguing that there will be little parliamentary and public debate on the cost, and whether or not the UK should dismantle its nuclear weapon systems as part of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Ian said: "We went because a decision to renew Trident, a shared UK-US nuclear defence system, is about to be made, and will cost taxpayers around £25 billion, although experts believe the actual cost could be as much as £75 billion. It is likely that the decision will be made undemocratically. i.e. parliament won't be given the opportunity to properly debate the issue.

"We want there to be a debate, and for all to be engaged with this debate. Renewing Trident is arguably illegal because it contravenes the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which the UK signed after the cold-war. It is also immoral, how can the UK complain of Iran's nuclear developments while redeveloping its own?"

Meanwhile the Cabinet are reportedly backing the more expensive route of replacing Trident, although parliament will be allowed to discuss the issue for the next three months before taking a vote early in 2007. Leader of the Commons Jack Straw said MPs would pressed to vote in line with the government.

He said: "We have a responsibility not to cop out of this but to come to a decision and we shall. We're talking about defence of the nation here, not the Shop Act or fox hunting."

Supporters of the government's stance say the UK is not required to completely dismantle its weapons, and argue that a "minimum nuclear deterrent" must be kept up-to-date.

Links
Arrested say no to nuclear weapons from Morecambe Today
Trident replacement FAQ from BBC Online

This article has been linked to, or is available in the following formats:

[Printable] [Digg this] [Blog search]

nex 24/11/06 9:34AM	I always knew ian was a trouble maker
jc (+3.4) 24/11/06 9:45AM	We need some sorts of trouble makers.
arenaman (-0.6) 24/11/06 10:05AM	Left wing nutcase. A debate has been promised. A parliamentary vote has been promised. Nuclear proliferation means new countries getting weapons, not existing powers replacing existing weapons. Finally, although I thoroughly agree that all nuclear weapons should be scrapped by everyone, there is a difference between the UK and Iran. For example, the UK is not threatening to wipe out an entire nation (Israel). Nor, North Korea style, are we lobbing missiles over our neighbours.
SimonC (+1.6) 24/11/06 10:22AM	The problem with scrapping them all is that you can't scrap the knowledge of them, and if they all go it's most likely to be the most looney country that'll get the next one, only now with no deterrent against using it.
druck (+0.1) 24/11/06 10:39AM	I am fully for maintaining this countries independent nuclear deterrent, either via extending the life of Trident or a new delivery platform. Like it or not, its one of the few things that keeps us on the top table of international politics, and barring the anathema of the current government, that usually makes the world a better place.
druck (+4.2) 24/11/06 11:49AM	RISC OS
mrtd 24/11/06 12:14PM	I hadn't realised that Drobe had become a political discussion forum! This opens up whole new areas of discussion that I hadn't realised were within Drobe's remit. Now, where shall we start.. Iraq? Afghanistan? Government health and education policy?
Walks (+1.0) 24/11/06 12:26PM	I wouldn't say it was really a left wing issue, as I know left wingers who have no problem with nuclear detterent. I think what it comes down to is ignorance of the facts, a rather naïve view of the world, and simply that some people protest just for the sake of it. Often when you question these people you find they don't really have a strong argument for doing it. There have been a number of so called 'green' protests in recent years that have afterwards been proved to be based on (and to be promoting) false information. For example, when Greenpeace representatives chained themselves to the Brent Spar oil platform in protest of it being collapsed into the North Sea. A couple of years later it was revealed that leading environmental scientists had recommended the collapsing of the platform because it would result in the creation of a reef that would provide a habitat for sea life. Greenpeace's proposals would have actually caused more damage to the environment.
guestx (+1.0) 24/11/06 1:43PM	"I am fully for maintaining this community's independent development deterrent, either via extending the life of Select or a new delivery platform. Like it or not, its one of the few things that keeps us on the side table of operating systems development, and thanks to the anathema of the current custodians, that usually makes the platform a better place." - Royston Narrows Q.C. (With apologies to druck for repurposing his comment to bring the debate back into true Drobe territory.)
thesnark (+1.0) 24/11/06 2:59PM	Good for Ian! This is a subject that I have some interest in, since my sister (yes, that one), grandmother, mother and cousin are all involved in CND. I would not describe them as "left wing nutcases". As for me, I don't have the courage of my convictions, but having been brought up on Doctor Who, I find our government's manufacture and possession of such weapons to be obscene. Hypocrisy seems to be the order of the day in international politics. In reply to druck: The UK's nuclear deterrent is not truly independent (compare it with France's); our dependence on the US is partly what ties us to their foreign policy. The fact that it is seen to be "one of the few things that keeps us on the top table of international politics" is precisely why the non-proliferation treaty has failed. Other countries that aspire to power and influence know that this is only obtainable by having nuclear weapons. Those countries that never had any intention of fulfilling their commitment to disarm (like us) have only themselves to blame for nuclear proliferation.
Loris (+5.2) 24/11/06 3:05PM	I had to laugh when I heard the government spokesman (whooever it was) on Radio 4 yesterday morning. He said we had to keep a nuclear deterrent in case terrorists decided to nuke the UK. How Britain having nukes would deter terrorists wasn't explained.
thesnark (+2.0) 24/11/06 3:25PM	As if more proof was needed of my family's left wing nutcase tendencies, I found this on the BBC News web site: [Link: news.bbc.co.uk]
fylfot (+3.2) 24/11/06 4:22PM	*In reply to arenaman:* "Left wing nutcase." If being sincerely interested in the debate makes me a left-wing nutcase, then so be it. It's encouraging to see a range of reasonably thoughtful views here and I have no reason to doubt that everyone who has commented has peace as their end goal. How we reduce conflict is a very complex issue, which is why the debate is essential. I'm not sure name-calling encourages sincere, intelligent debate.
bluenose (+1.0) 24/11/06 4:41PM	In reply to WALKs I remember a local environmental group who had a wood burning stove to keep themselves warm..arguement was it was renewable but conviently forgot the CO2 element. There are always 2 ways to look at things, 100,000 anti war protestors is a major challange to government policy in someones eyes , yet 51.9 million staying away and not bothering to turn up could be in some one elses and thats the good thing about being in a democracy like ours..or is it. Not much different to RISCOS is it!
highlandcattle (+1.0) 24/11/06 4:42PM	While an interesting debate, I wonder if this is the right site for it
em2ac (-1.0) 24/11/06 4:47PM	*In reply to mrtd:* Patricia Hewitt and her closing our hospital down here! :@P www.savehemel.com
Cogs (-1.0) 24/11/06 5:54PM	*In reply to bluenose:* Wood is not a fossil fuel.
arenaman (+1.0) 24/11/06 6:27PM	*In reply to fylfot:* "If being sincerely interested in the debate makes me a left-wing nutcase, then so be it." If you say so. I didn't say so. My comment referred to the protest and the comments attributed to the protester. "How we reduce conflict is a very complex issue, which is why the debate is essential." LOL, and you really think that if we have an intelligent debate HM Government will pay any attention and alter their policies accordingly? Enough intelligent people decided that the war in Iraw was not a good idea, but that didn't seem to deter Tony and his cronies. "I'm not sure name-calling encourages sincere, intelligent debate." Personally, I find it quite revealing that you and some others focussed on my first three words and conveniently paid no attention to the rest of my post, which happened to be serious argument.
TonyStill (+1.0) 24/11/06 8:50PM	Still, I suppose it's safer for the Trident missiles to be on RISC OS than Windows. But I won't make any BSOD jokes because that would be tasteless.
JGZimmerle 24/11/06 9:52PM	I see now why so many non-British people think that the British simply have no idea about anything to do with preserving the ecological environment. Just to set the worst comment staight: Yes, when wood is burnt in a stove, then CO2 is set free. However the same amount of CO2 is bound again by the tree growing in the place where the tree now burning in the stove once stood. This is the reason why wood and many other organic materials like straw are considered a zero-emissions energy source, as long as they are re-grown (wich is generally the case in Europe).
bluenose (-1.0) 24/11/06 10:54PM	Oh yes thats the arguement I got that wood and straw are OK. Nothing to do with the belching smoke then and nothing to do with the reason they stopped the burning of fields in the autumn after crops where done. Carry on planting a tree to make yourself feel by all means but don't be selective with answers as any CO2 no matter where it's from can be absorbed by a tree or the ocean it's just that some people think it's trendy to have a wood burner and forget things like the added smoke etc just like some people thought that Radium lamps were good for you too. Also it would be a better arguement if for every log burnt there was a tree planted but it doesn't work out like that. Lets face it everything we do has consequence and there has to be a balance and everything has it's place. At the moment the environmentalists lobby have the upper hand in the arguements but just as debate has been good for cleaning up our air and rivers it is in danger of going the otherway and any challange to the environmental line is shouted down. Again bit like the RISCOS market.
AW (+1.0) 24/11/06 11:14PM	Snark -our government's manufacture and maintenance of these systems helped to maintain a detente in Europe for many, many years and was an investment that returned the special relationship with the United States that wasn't anything like certain following the second world war. Personally I would make use of BRitish technology and capacity that would ensure independent access to space and a non-nuclear ultimate deterrent as a bonus. As we see bewaild here as in so many other government undertakings any call for independent space policy is buried: [Link: www.publications.parliament.uk] And people say that the UK is tied to the US.
adrianl (+3.2) 24/11/06 11:51PM	*In reply to bluenose:* burning wood releases CO2 that was recently absorbed from the atmosphere. burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that was absorbed millions of years ago from an atmosphere with a much higher concentration of CO2 that would not support human life. That is why fuels such as wood and biodiesel are considered carbon-neutral.
knutson (+1.0) 25/11/06 3:23AM	RISC OS would be an ideal OS for use on Trident Missile systems. Each Trident can have upto 10 independently targetted warheads, each warhead requires a guidance system. If this happened one submarine (armed with 16 missiles) alone could double the number of RISC OS licenses sold
JGZimmerle (+3.2) 25/11/06 4:56AM	@bluenose: Of course it would be better to avoid burning wood and straw, as that way the CO2 bound in the plants would end up in the earth, resulting in a reduction of the CO2 in the atmosphere. However people need heating, and the regenerative energy sources like wood and straw can provide heat without putting any additional CO2 in the atmosphere. As for the smoke: Modern wood-based heating systems produce very little smoke by optimising the burning-process and in some cases even filtering the exhaust gases. Surely this is preferable to burning coal and oil or poisening our environment with highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. Although I certainly prefer having a storage facility full of radioactive waste over putting more CO2 in the atmosphere, simply because the former is easier to keep under control. And it currently looks like, we will need the nuclear power plants to bridge the energy gap until fusion power plants become available in about 45 years. I just hope that we can avoid as much nuclear waste as possible by making full use of all the renewable energy we can get.
ROHC (+1.0) 25/11/06 8:40AM	*In reply to knutson:* Ah thats where the embedded RISC OS market is then?
Cogs (-1.0) 25/11/06 3:36PM	*In reply to bluenose:* If wood is burnt hot enough it will release very little smoke. Smoke comes from smoldering, not from efficient burning. Even then, although wood smoke is unhealthy to breath in high concentrations, it is not harmful to the environment. When it comes to disposing of wood from my own garden trees, I'd rather it was burnt on a bonfire than generating methane on landfill which is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 by volume. My local council will take away garden waste for composting, but only twiggy stuff not chunks of wood. So any branches of more than 1" diameter I burn. If I had a woodburning fire in the house I could use this to reduce my consumption of natural gas and thus reduce CO2 emissions. http://www.woodheat.org/environment/smoke.htm
2 comment(s) are below your moderation threshold. Login to view them.