The Kintyre Forum

On Tuesday 13th March the UK parliament will have a vote on whether to replace the Trident nuclear missile system at a cost of £25 billion. The main argument being put forward is that we live in an uncertain world, and must prepare ourselves with a nuclear deterrent in readiness for the unknown. But surely the use of £25 billion on Trident upgrade is a bad investment? there are many better uses of £25 billion - tackling climate change, poverty, crime...etc..pretty much any other use, would be a better use.

This is an attempt to try and mobilise a group of up to 100 people to go along to Faslane on Tuesday 6th March, the week before the vote in the Commons. Since October there has been a network of different groups each protesting at the base for one or two days each (see faslane365.org). The purpose of the protest will be to provide a basis for attempting to influence Scottish Westminster MPs to vote against replacing Trident. For every one of the 100 who go along and protest, hopefully 20 of their friends/relations all over the country will be influenced to write to their MPs requesting they vote against Trident.

If you would like to come to Faslane on 6th March please record your support on here, or drop me a PM - a bus is being planned. If you think this a bad idea, and think the investment in Trident should go ahead, please also post on here, many people have been trying to find out why Trident is a good idea, and would be interested to know. One of the Faslane365.org organisers is hoping to come to Campbeltown at the end of next week, to answer questions, and talk about what’s involved. There is no need to get arrested, there is no need to break the law – but there is a need to create a story to support a letter to our MPs. The strength of the protest on 6th March will be that this group would not be professional seasoned campaigners, but would be a group of concerned ordinary people, who feel strongly enough to take a day out to travel to Faslane and try and make our voice heard. A group from South Lanarkshire is also arranging to go across to Faslane on the same day.

If you are unable to join the protest in person, you could choose instead to write to your MP (for those in Argyll & Bute, you may be aware that Alan Reid is likely to vote in favour of the upgrade), and also get your friends/relations outside Argyll & Bute to write to their MPs encouraging them to vote against Trident. It might just make a difference.

To find out the likely voting of Scottish Westminster MPs on 13 March, follow this link…. http://www.scotland4peace.org/Binthebom ... okupmp.htm

The main argument being put forward is that we live in an uncertain world, and must prepare ourselves with a nuclear deterrent in readiness for the unknown.
The argument appears to be one that contains a certain amount of rationality, in other words you can see where they are coming from and where they are going too. However if you Democratically extend the same said rational and it's justification to others, then you must accept, that these others would have equal rights in adopting the same said criteria. The nuclear weapon issue concerns every human being on the planet , and as such humans should expect the equal rights that are morally inherent in all.
If the above argument where to succeed on these grounds alone, then the Earth would become an even more dangerous place to live, which is the very logic used in attempting to justify it's very existence in the first instance.

I feel that the post fails to put forward the main argument against nuclear weapons, and as such fails not only to adequately address this challenge, it serves also to weaken the opposition to it.
There is a Moral contradiction to argue for/against a thing, merely on the grounds of economics. This type of proposition turns the principal aspects of the axis on there head, rendering them to a secondary level of importance. Why o why does the opposition to this threat, not have within it's main body of opinion makers- others- other than what appears on the surface, a few liberal middle class progressives.

ionnsaigh wrote:The main argument being put forward is that we live in an uncertain world, and must prepare ourselves with a nuclear deterrent in readiness for the unknown.
The argument appears to be one that contains a certain amount of rationality, in other words you can see where they are coming from and where they are going too. However if you Democratically extend the same said rational and it's justification to others, then you must accept, that these others would have equal rights in adopting the same said criteria. The nuclear weapon issue concerns every human being on the planet , and as such humans should expect the equal rights that are morally inherent in all.
If the above argument where to succeed on these grounds alone, then the Earth would become an even more dangerous place to live, which is the very logic used in attempting to justify it's very existence in the first instance.

I feel that the post fails to put forward the main argument against nuclear weapons, and as such fails not only to adequately address this challenge, it serves also to weaken the opposition to it.
There is a Moral contradiction to argue for/against a thing, merely on the grounds of economics. This type of proposition turns the principal aspects of the axis on there head, rendering them to a secondary level of importance. Why o why does the opposition to this threat, not have within it's main body of opinion makers- others- other than what appears on the surface, a few liberal middle class progressives.

Dear Ionnsaigh, have you completely lost the plot? You either want nuclear weapons or not. Stop jibbering, get off your arse and join in the protest. Maybe you should talk less and do more

Dear Friend of Dorothy,
Please allow my attempt to clarify , for what has- for some- become muddy water. In order to achieve this simplification. I will allegorise in order to alliterate my point.
If you take for example, the no smoking campaign, where essentially you have those for, and those opposed. Both camps have contradictory agendas. However they have also got to contend with differences within their own respective camps, on how best to achieve the common objective. Fortunately for the benefit of clarification we need only concern ourselves with one camp, in terms of the nuclear debate I belong in the ranks of those who are firmly opposed.
If the no smoking campaign shifted the focus, from one that highlights the heath dangers of smoking, and the huge mortality associated with smoking, to one that concentrated their campaign on the grounds of affordability, this then would become a weaker and morally corrupt position, for those that once shared common ground as they would realise that this course of action, would ultimately prove entirely ineffective in the fight against smoking. Why build your house on soft ground.
The campaign for nuclear disarmament has lost some of the vitality it enjoyed in the Sixties, why the question begs. Public apathy I hear them cry, well aye they are correct in a funny sort of way.
It's not that Joe public are generally apathetic about nuclear weapons, what produces and breeds this apathy is the total petit bourgeois dictatorship of the leadership. The liberal elements of this professional class have taken control of the ship, lock stock and barrel. Their hearts may be in the right place, however with them comes their luggage in the way of ill gotten values. By ill got I mean, that they lack a certain amount of life experience, their very middle class conditions shelters them from some of the more harsh realities of this life.
I'm not saying that is necessary a bad thing, however in today's economic climate it is factual and prevails.

As far as getting off my erse is concerned I have no wish to take part in the Grand Old Duke of York syndrome , of marching ten thousand to the top of the hill, to march them down again. Why play to the tune, and dance to their rules of engagement. Rules that ultimately are made by those who impose restrictions on our sovereign right to protest. A really wish people would stop playing the game. As the game itself is well and truly fixed.

might see you there.....I'll be on the other side of the fence though

Peace through superior fire power

Peace through superior fire power

yeh, that works.

Nuclear weapons are probaly he only weapons to prevent a war.
Not that i totally agree with the £25billion, give it to the infantry!

id rather live in a country that had it than didn't have it. even though i don't think anyone in britain would have the balls to launch anything. still well worth the deterant.

also ..no one really knows whats better.with or without nuclear weapons. but the way i feel about it is i woudn't want to be in predicament where we were stuck high and dry if there was a reason for it. fair enough people willl say by that point it will be too late . still a deterant but who knows.....no one knows

Nuclear weapons?

I'd rather have them inside the tent peeing out, than outside the tent peeing in!

Anyway £25,000,000,000 is a small price to pay for Roscoe to continue surfing

why thank you but evein if we abolished nuclear weapons i would still be employed by the RN but thank you for your concern

While Homo sapiens roam the earth they will always fight each other. The rattling spears have now turned into a Nuclear arsenal.

For some, mass firepower is the path to world domination and for the rest it it is justified by the old adage................ "To keep the peace, prepare for war"

bubbly