Scottish CND

Order a "Star Wars" poster

Nuclear weapons are bombs which kill and destroy on a huge scale. The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (SCND) want them scrapped because:          • They threaten peace          • They risk the destruction of the world          • Mass murder of civilians is wrong          • Bullying and threatening mass murder is wrong          • Just having them increases the risk of war          • They are a waste of money          • They are a waste of resources          • They are a waste of human talent          • They cause damage to the environment          • There is a risk of accidents

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Surely nuclear weapons are no longer a threat? Unfortunately this is simply not true. The Cold War is over but there are still more than 30,000 nuclear warheads around the world - enough to destroy it many times over. Worse, in spite of recent treaties covering their spread and testing, the development of new weapons continues. Britain's new Trident submarine-launched missiles, for instance, have twice the range, are faster, more accurate and can hit more targets per missile than the earlier Polaris system. France and the United States are also developing new nuclear weapons. As this process continues, it becomes ever harder to persuade other countries not to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.

2. Don't we need nuclear weapons in case a fanatic gets hold of the bomb? Threatening to use our nuclear weapons won't protect us from a fanatic with a bomb. After the Twin Towers were attacked there was no country which could be regarded by the US as responsible. So a nuclear attack would have been irrational as well as wrong. Prevention is the only certain cure. To stop the spread of nuclear weapons, Britain must stop making and transporting plutonium around the world, stop selling other countries technology which can be used to make nuclear weapons and start fulfilling its disarmament commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

3. You can't disinvent nuclear weapons True. But you can get rid of them. Chemical weapons can't be disinvented either but they have been banned under the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention which includes strict checks to make sure no-one cheats. Inspection systems to monitor and police a nuclear disarmament treaty already exist. Even the signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty have committed themselves to nuclear disarmament.

4. Don't nuclear weapons prevent war? Britain's nuclear weapons didn't stop Argentina invading the Falklands and Israel's nuclear weapons didn't prevent Iraq launching missile attacks on Tel Aviv during the Gulf War in 1990. Despite the presence of nuclear weapons, over 25 million people have been killed in wars since World War II. They have no possible role in such conflicts as Bosnia, Somalia, or Rwanda. Using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons to deter aggressors is a high risk strategy - who can judge how an aggressor might respond? Any misjudgment could lead to the destruction of huge areas of the world.

5. Britain is a responsible nation, surely the problem is other countries getting the bomb? If we need nuclear weapons for our defence, then the same is surely true for everyone else. But common sense tells us the more countries that have them the greater the chance sooner or later someone will use them. And the more nuclear weapons in service, no matter who controls them, the greater the risk of accident or human error. Despite US-Russian disarmament agreements, Britain has not joined any negotiations on nuclear disarmament. Instead of setting a bad example that actually encourages others to get their own nuclear weapons Britain should take the lead by disarming. Approximately 40 states are believed to be capable of producing nuclear weapons. As William J Perry, former US Secretary of State said: "The most effective way to prevent proliferation is to dismantle the arsenals that already exist".

6. Won't nuclear defence cuts mean job cuts? Although the contracts for refitting Trident submarines provide some jobs in the short term, they do nothing to stop the long-term threat of redundancy for workers in the defence industry. It is now known that Trident has provided far fewer jobs than originally promised. Even when defence spending was increased in the 1980s, the number of defence jobs was decreasing. Britain urgently needs to invest in training and alternative employment for people in the defence industry. We also need skilled workers to ensure that existing nuclear weapons are safely dismantled. Research shows that we would have a stronger economy and less unemployment if military spending is reallocated into other areas.

7. CND isn't relevant any more. Aren't other issues such as global poverty, housing, and the environment more important nowadays? CND is needed as long as there are nuclear weapons. If we don't stop their spread soon, we might not have an environment left to worry about. The cost of nuclear weapons eats up resources which would be better used in education, health, and development.

Nuclear-free world or nuclear free-for-all? We can't go on with a world where Britain, together with the US, Russia, China, and France, claim the right to have nuclear weapons while saying the no-one else should have them. Nor can we go on producing nuclear materials and selling nuclear technology around the world, then complaining when yet another state aquires its own nuclear weapons. Nearly thirty years ago Britain signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under the NPT, Britain and the other nuclear weapons states agreed to begin the process of disarmament, the final aim being a treaty banning all nuclear weapons. For nearly thirty years Britain has ignored that commitment. Isn't it time - instead of frantically looking around for new enemies to justify keeping our nuclear weapons - to get rid of them and really begin to work for a nuclear free world?.