“The Trident debate has been unnecessarily truncated, facts have been inadequately explained and MP’s are justifiably irritated at the government’s heavy-handed approach. The last thing we need is the Blair era bowing out with yet another decision forced through the Commons by the whips, a large-scale rebellion and the need to rely on Tory support.”
”The major security threat facing Britain is not an enemy state with a strategic nuclear deterrent … the main security threat facing Britain is terrorism. The money that the government plan to commit to the programme could be more usefully spent on conventional armed forces and on specialist anti-terrorism units, which could do something to make us safer against the most serious threat.”
"Nuclear war remains the greatest danger to the survival of the human race. To replace Trident would make it more difficult to get arms reduction and increase the risk. It would also be a complete waste of money because there are no circumstances in which we would use it independently."
“Nuclear missiles are the ultimate weapons of mass destruction and for me renewal is a moral question. As international law makes clear a nuclear strike cannot make distinctions between combatants and non combatants - so innocent civilians face death, irradiation, burns, cancers, destruction of their environment and fallout on neighbouring states - the whole vista is too terrible to contemplate. Instead of preparing for war we should prepare for peace and invest the billions in closing the gap between rich and poor.”
"Thirty-six years after Britain signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; it is incredible that the government is even considering spending £76 billion on a new generation of nuclear weapons. The Cold War is long over and, as Londoners know to their cost, nuclear missiles offer no protection against the modern threat of terrorism. The great challenge of the twenty first century will be to prevent catastrophic climate change. Rather than wasting tens of billions of pounds on new weapons of mass destruction, and giving the green light to other nations follow suit, Britain should demonstrate real world leadership by investing in a radical programme to cut carbon emissions."
“Nuclear bombs are not a deterrent. Are we seriously saying we would be prepared to inflict nuclear war on the already suffering people of the planet? Tony Blair doesn’t want to go down in history – he wants to go down with history. Will he listen? We can make him listen. It’s important for every single person to protest.”
“Why are we being pushed into an early decision? I see a Prime Minister who has been supportive of the defence establishment coming to the end of his term of office, and I see pressure being brought to bear on him by the industrial military establishment to get the decision through now.
"There is no military justification for a country like Britain to sustain a Trident nuclear arsenal. Britain should set a positive example of international responsibility in the post-Cold War world and invest instead in more pressing areas of economic, climate, military and civil security."
“If Britain is to take full advantage of the review conference on the Non-proliferation treaty in 2010, it makes sense to take a final decision on whether to replace Trident or not after we are aware about the outcome of that conference. Going into the talks Britain should signal that it will reduce its warhead stockpile and operational nuclear capability by 50%”
“A decision on replacing Trident does not need to be taken now. When young people consider the colossal amount of money at stake and where it could better deployed; anti-terror initiatives, health and most certainly education, I am certain they will question the motives for rushing this through parliament.”