Greenpeace UK

Two bullets per person: the trillion dollar military spending club

Kumi Naidoo — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:57:04 +0000

Stop spending on war. We need to invest in a green peace.

Image caption: Stop spending on war. We need to invest in a green peace.

What would you do with $1,738 billion (US dollars)? If you were told you had to spend it this year on making people safer, what would you spend it on?

$1, 738bn is how much was spent on the world’s military last year, according to estimates by the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI).

With expenditure on military being one of the few areas not facing massive government cut backs we should ask: is our world becoming a safer place?

What consolation can be sought in the world’s awesome military might by the parents of the 7.6 million children under five who die each year, mostly in developing countries?

What consolation is it in a world where 925m people do not have enough to eat, 98 per cent of whom live in developing countries? What peace does it bring them?

In a world where millions are being displaced from their homes due to climate change related factors: droughts, shoreline erosion, coastal flooding and agricultural disruption, will the military provide them with new homes?

The hawks and their accountants would probably argue that this is an acceptable price to pay to maintain national and international security.

But, what do they mean by security? What is true security? The UN Development Programme said in 1994: ‘Human security is a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode in violence, a dissident who was not silenced. Human security is not a concern with weapons - it is a concern with human life and dignity.’ That is good enough for me.

In Greenpeace we have always worked for true security; it is at the heart of what we stand for. We believe that instead of spending vast amounts of money – and, perhaps worse, human ingenuity -- on the machinery of war, we need to direct our financial and intellectual resources towards true security. We need to tackle the unprecedented threat posed by climate change in increasing pressures on basic resources: food, water, energy and land. Pressures which are already triggering conflicts, war and suffering.

There is a lot of money being squandered in the name of security, few nations can be said to fully have their priorities right. But, lets look to those who spend the most. Lets look to those who are charged on behalf of the global community with keeping the peace. Lets look at the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: China, France, Russia, the UK and the US. Looking at the data provided by SIPRI, there are no big surprises there. The top five big spenders are the same five countries. The US is topping the list with nearly half of the total global spending. The other four lag considerably behind but when added they make up the five national trillion dollar military spending club!

Putting it into a little perspective: it’s a bit like a macho cliché from many war movies that somewhere there is a bullet out there with your name on it. Well, according to Oxfam there are actually two, or more. This year two bullets are being produced for every person in the world.

A lot of money is being spent on preparing for war, how much is being spent on preventing it? How much is being spent on mitigating the risks of climate change? Very little by comparison and nowhere near enough.

In 2009, at the Global Climate Conference in Copenhagen the heads of state of the developed countries pledged 30bn US dollars to the developing world for the period 2010-2012 for climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. They promised that would increase to an annual fund of US$100bn by 2020 which sounds like a lot until you make the comparison: 10bn a year is 1 per cent of the military budgets of the five permanent members of the Security Council, while 100bn is only 10 per cent. The US alone could meet the 100bn commitment and still be ahead of its nearest military spending competitor, China, by half a trillion dollars.

Changes wrought by climate change increase the threat of war and conflict and pose an unprecedented threat to true security. To secure true security we must tackle the climate threat and invest in green solutions.

For example, how about investing in ocean protection? Scientists estimate that conserving 20-30 per cent of our oceans would cost between $5bn and $19bn a year. In return a million new jobs would be created, sustainable fish catch worth $70-80bn a year promoted and further ecosystem services worth a gross value of $4.5-6.7tn a year!

How about saving our forests? The global economy is losing between $2tn and $5tn dollars each year due to deforestation. The cost of halving deforestation is estimated at $15bn a year.

And last, but certainty not least, how about an energy revolution in the power sector? Moving away from climate-destroying fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power, would require additional annual investments of some $280bn. These are investments that will more than pay back in the form of saved fuel costs and additional jobs created. And, it does not take a rocket scientist to know this would fundamentally reduce the threat of war by reducing our dependence of fossil fuels.

An extraordinary amount of money, imagination and human ingenuity goes into preparing for and fighting wars. Just imagine what could be achieved if the same energy, imagination and ingenuity was invested in peace, a green peace.

Iran nuclear crisis needs ‘disruptive diplomacy’, not shock and awe

Kumi Naidoo — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:33:36 +0000

Rainbow Warrior sails 20 miles from the port of Bushehr, Iran. 2007

Image caption: Rainbow Warrior sails 20 miles from the port of Bushehr, Iran. 2007

Kumi's blog was originally published by IPS, before the Istanbul summit took place.

Disruptive diplomacy may be the only way out of the Iran-Israel nuclear crisis, the only way to pierce the hegemony of hypocrisy dominating the power politics of nuclear weapons control, of those who have them, and of those who are accused of developing them.

Otherwise, this weekend's meeting on Iran's nuclear programme is likely to be yet another missed opportunity, yet another exercise in futility.

Who will meet in Istanbul this Saturday? Iran and the 'P5+1', the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the only 'legitimate' nuclear weapons states under the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – the United States, China, Russia, France and the UK, plus Germany.

Together, their collective history with Iran and Israel is one of complexity, pain and – so far as nuclear weapons are concerned – utter hypocrisy. There is no easy solution. What is needed is disruptive diplomacy in which both sides put forward something challenging, and in which everyone gives something up to win peace.

Only four countries sit outside the NPT: Israel, India and Pakistan never signed, and North Korea withdrew.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: by joining the NPT Israel can pierce the veil of its policy of "ambiguity", place its facilities under international safeguards, and begin to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. In this way, Israel can help end hypocrisy and build trust. Israel does not need nuclear weapons; these do not offer a safety net, instead they provide a destabilising influence throughout the entire region.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Iran could equally afford to dismantle its entire nuclear programme in favour of smart energy systems, efficient energy use and renewable energy sources. This is not cheap rhetoric. It could be done, and would benefit Iran's people.

In 2007 the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior embarked on a Nuclear Free Middle East tour to address the threat of nuclear weapons in the region and the threat of another "weapons of mass destruction" war.

Greenpeace commissioned a study showing that a combination of decentralised energy systems, renewable energy use and energy efficiency would allow Iran to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, end its nuclear programme and meet the development needs of its people.

At the same time, Greenpeace activists demonstrated outside Israel's parliament, the Knesset, arguing, "Nuclear developments and nuclear weapons in any country provoke proliferation and undermine security region-wide."

What about the so-called P5? The high-handed posturing of Iran's principle accusers requires some scrutiny. They are the permanent members of the UN Security Council. They are proof that nuclear weapons provide a seat at the top table of global security and thus power politics. Why else would Britain and France still have their own chairs? What right do any of them have to discuss illegal, so- called preventative attacks on a country?

Together they stand for over four decades of bad faith. Under the NPT they promised to disarm in return for all other signatories forgoing nuclear weapons. The P5 committed to negotiate away their deadly nuclear arsenals. They have not done so. Instead, they continue to invest; they continue to modernise their nuclear weapons and delivery mechanisms; they continue to undermine global nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Before accusing Iran of duplicity, the nuclear weapons nations need to stop and reflect. In reality, the grand bargain of the 'atoms for peace' pact at the heart of the NPT was always a dangerous lie. A diplomatic deceit promising to control the spread of nuclear weapons in return for support in developing nuclear power, an abundant power source that was supposed to be clean, safe and reliable, though it turned out to be dirty, dangerous, and expensive. A pact that Iran agreed to, but Israel has not.

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are the Janus faces of nuclear technology: you cannot have one without the other. No amount of agreement, treaties and inspection will ever remove the risk and temptation of a nuclear power state becoming a nuclear weapons state.

It can be made harder, but never impossible. Just as the risks of meltdowns are present at every reactor site, the risk of nuclear proliferation is attendant in every nuclear programme and the temptation to balance the possession by others of nuclear weapons is always there. The temptation to enter the arena of mutually assured destruction (MAD) is ever present.

The world does not need nuclear power. Greenpeace's Energy [R]evolution – developed over many years with leading scientists and engineers – shows how we can avert catastrophic climate change, phase out nuclear power and transition to a clean energy system based on smart, efficient use and renewable energy sources.

As the first anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear crisis passes, it is even more significant to note that this crisis was man-made, predicated on the inherent failures and risks of civil nuclear power. The earthquake and tsunami may have been natural in origin but the profit-before-safety ethos that pervades all industrial activity left the people of Japan and the world vulnerable to multiple nuclear meltdowns. For all its so-called reliability Japan is down to only one operating nuclear plant.

It is hard to see how any plan to bomb Iran into submission will do anything other than protract the problem and threaten to ignite a powder keg of conflict in the Middle East. As The Economist has noted, bombing Iran will not eliminate the nuclear threat.

In truth, only a world free of all nuclear technology will help to build a workable trust on which to build a lasting peace. In Istanbul, governments should dare to disrupt the endless cycle of hypocrisy, accusation and counter-accusation and take real steps towards peace.

If we are really concerned about human security, if we are really concerned about our children and grandchildren's peace and security, then we should be mustering all investments to move us in a direction of green, clean, renewable energy options. We must recognise that our quest for nuclear energy, the attendant threat of nuclear proliferation, and our reliance on fossil fuel-based energy have been the major drivers of conflict, war and flawed foreign policies.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: those from whom we borrow this world, for whom we keep it in trust and who are always caught up as collateral damage in foolish wars and sanctions – our children – deserve a clean, green future free of the threat of nuclear accidents and nuclear war.

Does Trident announcement mark a new Lib Dem broken promise?

louise — Wed, 18 May 2011 15:32:45 +0000

A while back I got a letter from the Lib Dems telling me "Trident will not be renewed this parliament - not on a Liberal Democrat watch”.

This ran though my mind today as I watched Defence Secretary Liam Fox stand up in parliament to pronounce ‘thunderbirds are go’ on the next phase of building a replacement for Trident.

It’s not the full replacement mind – just £3bn worth. Just some nuclear reactors, a bit of steel for the hull, the electrics, bits of the combat system…and only for three submarines…

And in the small print of today’s announcement the MoD admit that these submarines are going to cost not £11-14bn, but a stonking £25bn. (Download MoD pdf document, see section 6.1)

The government’s spin doctors are apparently at great pains to say this isn’t an increase in the actual cost of the project. It’s inflation. Yeees well back in 1960 you could probably get a lovely detached house for £5,000 but that is kind of irrelevant…its 2011 and given all the cutbacks we are all pretty interested in what things actually cost!

So did we see another Lib Dem commitment fall today?

The other main announcement was that there’s going to be an 18-month assessment into whether there are any alternatives to Trident replacement. Interestingly the study will report jointly to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. So looks like the real test of whether the Lib Dems really do have some influence on this issue is yet to happen. Will Nick Clegg yet intervene and ensure he keeps his election promise?

FOI documents reveal MoD plans to purchase "long lead" items for Trident

tracy.frauzel — Wed, 18 May 2011 12:00:42 +0000

Publication date: 18 May, 2011

A freedom of information request made by Greenpeace reveals that the MoD plans to purchase a whole series of “long lead” items for Trident replacement submarines in the next few years - estimated to cost billions. They include:

Steel for the submarine hull and hull ‘structural fittings’
Primary and secondary propulsion systems
Electrical generation, conversion, and distribution systems
Components of the combat systems

MoD starts purchasing Trident replacement without parliamentary OK - get your MP to act!

andrelotz — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:22:57 +0000

While cuts are being made to public services, why is money being spent on weapons we neither want or need?

At the mention of nuclear today our thoughts turn to the situation in Japan and all of those affected by the earthquakes, tsunami and nuclear emergency. I can only hope that the situation at Fukushima is soon contained and the risks minimised for everyone affected.

Here in the UK, there is another nuclear issue that is silently inching forward without parliamentary approval or public awareness – nuclear weapons replacement.

Last October, we were all told that the decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system had been put on hold. According to the Lib Dems and the coalition’s recent defence review, the decision to replace the submarines that carry UK’s Trident nuclear weapons has been delayed until 2016. This means that the next government is supposed to make the decision on replacing our nukes.

But, in reality, the first purchases of equipment for replacing Trident are already being made, casting major doubts on the promised two to four-year delay on the final decision.

Through a Freedom of Information request we’ve learned that the MoD plans to purchase what they call 'long-lead' items, like submarine hulls, propulsion systems, and various other parts of the combat systems. The first of these purchases - buying the steel for the hulls - may be authorised by the MoD in the next weeks. In short, this is such a shopping list that there'll be little left unspent on the Trident-wielding submarines by the time decisions are made in 2016.

In response, Greenpeace have sent a briefing to all UK MPs to inform them that it seems Trident are going ahead without their approval. Soon after, MPs acted, putting down a parliamentary early day motion (EDM 1477 – Trident Submarine Proposals) to protest this premature purchase of steel and to insist on more insight before the UK government are financially tied in to the purchase - just like the debacle with the aircraft carriers.

These MoD vanity projects are the last thing this country needs when we’re losing vital public services to spending cuts. So we urge you to please write to your MP and ask them to support the early day motion and condemn this premature purchase of steel before a formal decision has been made to replace Trident.

Please ask your local MP to sign EDM 1477 – Trident Submarine Proposals

You can find out who your MP is, and how to contact them, by entering your postcode at www.theyworkforyou.com
Then check to see if they’ve already signed EDM 1477. If so, please do email them anyway to thank them; if not please do ask them to sign.
Look at your MP’s personal website to find out how best to contact them. If in doubt please send a letter to them c/o House of Commons, Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA

Some points you can make in your letter:

Ask them to sign Early Day Motion 1477 – Trident Submarine Proposals. EDM’s serve as a valuable tool for MPs who want to foster debate and show government and their public where they stand on key issues. This EDM will stand as a rallying point for MPs who expect more oversight and debate about Trident before the money is spent.
Even though the defence review delayed the decision on Trident replacement until 2016, it looks as if most of the first subs are already being paid for by the MoD.
These purchases, like the purchase for steel, require more parliamentary oversight, as we don’t want to be financially tied into replacing Trident, as we were with the aircraft carriers
There has been a lack of transparency on Trident and the only recent review on it, the Value for Money Review, has been suppressed by the MoD. While many of us are paying the price for deep cuts, the government must answer why we need Trident and how much it’s going to cost.
The MoD’s inability to ensure value for money is legend.
This was recently highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee that reported this “cycle of failure” was continuing under the coalition government. And true to form, the MoD’s poor accounting has been proven once again with the defence review allowing another £4bn in funding gaps
Tell your MP how you personally feel about Britain renewing their nuclear weapon system.

Finally, please ask your MP for a reply to your letter, and when you do receive their response please post it as a comment on this blog post.

And if you'd like to help Greenpeace challenge the Trident renewal process in future, join our peace and disarmament group.

MoD have a Trident-sized hole in their budget

louise — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:49:03 +0000

Yesterday's headline in the FT shouted "MoD faces fresh crisis over funding". It turns out that the Ministry of Defence have checked over last October's defence review and found out that they actually need an extra £1 billion a year over the next four years to deliver it.

Something clearly has to give and, completely coincidentally, yesterday we mailed out our new briefing about the costs of Trident to MPs.

The briefing won't cheer up the accountants working at the MoD. It essentially challenges the idea that the Defence Review's so-called 'value for money' review of Trident will deliver the savings it claims.

Plus it highlights the rather large fact that, over the next four years – at exactly the time the military faces a shortfall – the MoD also plans to start ploughing money into ordering 'long lead items' for Trident replacement. That's contracts for little things like nuclear reactors, and submarine hulls. Contracts likely costing several billion pounds. Anyone else seeing a link here?

We are calling on MPs to demand transparency, to get answers about the real costs of replacing Trident, and to ensure that the MoD doesn't tie us into aircraft carrier style unbreakable contracts for Trident II.

As a start, we're asking them to call on Liam Fox to live up to his own words and release the Trident 'value for money' review in full.

Ahoy! A nuclear scandal ahead?

louise — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:09:46 +0000

Remember the defence review? The one that left us marvelling at the Alice in Wonderland world we inhabit - where we build two giant aircraft carriers we don’t actually want because building them is actually cheaper than cancelling them? The one that said we can’t actually afford to buy any planes to put on those carriers?

Yes, that was also the review that told us that the thorny issue of whether to build a new generation of nuclear weapons had been kicked into the long grass. The long grass of 2016.

It said the potentially coalition-busting vote on whether or not to replace Trident could be delayed until after the next election – since the existing armed subs can be kept going for an extra four years or so.

With that announcement, the Liberal Democrats sent round the message:

“Trident will not be renewed this parliament - not on a Liberal Democrat watch. Let us be clear, this is a significant victory for Liberal Democrat campaigners, and a fantastic example of what our ministers can and do achieve in government”

At the time I wasn’t so sure about this supposed delay – and now it seems those concerns were well founded.

It seemed strange to me that despite this four year delay, the next step in the replacement programme - excitingly known as ‘Initialgate’ - seems to be staying very much on track. David Cameron even made a point of stressing this in his defence review speech to parliament.

Then alarm bells got louder when I read upbeat newspaper interviews with the boss of the submarine arm of BaE Systems (who are set to build any new subs) about staff increasing over the next few years (video) thanks to assurances from the government about Trident replacement.

So I decided to dig a little deeper to try and find out exactly what was going on.

This involved putting down a raft of parliamentary questions and filing Freedom of Information requests to various government departments.

Finally, much paperwork later we got a reply from the MoD – it shows that their plan is to sign and seal a huge long list of contracts ahead of the 2016 vote, before parliament has decided whether we actually want to build new nuclear subs.

And this isn’t a short shopping list – according to the documents (see page three) they intend to buy things like the submarine hull, the nuclear reactor, generators, switchboards, and “various components of the combat systems”.

I’m no sub designer but it begs the question: what’s left to buy and how much is all of this going to cost?

The simple answer is we don’t know – our Freedom of Information request on this was denied and the MoD answered a parliamentary question by saying the relevant information was not held centrally.

What we do know is that on average 10-15 per cent of total project costs are spent during the assessment phases of military projects. This would make an estimated £1.1-£2.1bn, based on government estimates from 2006 that new submarines cost £11-14bn. However these estimates have been widely criticised and we believe submarine costs are likely to rise substantially.

It sounds like if we don’t watch out we’ll get to the 2016 vote only to find out that we’ve already bought a large part of the first submarine, we’re already tied into various contracts, and the familiar voices will be saying to us that it’s cheaper to go ahead with business as usual than scrap Trident.

Deja vu, anyone?

Moving to a nuclear weapons-free world

jossc — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:03:46 +0000

Today, nearly two decades after the Cold War ended, there are still 23,000 nuclear warheads in the world.

They are held by just nine countries: the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Worryingly, more than 2,000 of them are still on hair-trigger alert - ready to launch at short notice, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

But this is not the whole story. The majority of the world has already shown us the solution to the problem of nuclear weapons - by rejecting them. Many countries have gone down the nuclear weapons path then turned back, realising that they do not increase their security.

Since the end of the Cold War, South Africa has unilaterally dismantled its nuclear weapons, and Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan have all rejected the weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union. Sweden, Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan and Libya also decided to abandon their programmes to develop nuclear weapons.

Over the past 30 years we’ve reduced the number of nukes globally by 70 per cent. Today we have a real opportunity to create, step by step, a more peaceful world.

Defence and security experts from around the globe now agree that a ban on nuclear weapons is achievable and have put together a comprehensive roadmap for global disarmament. President Obama is backing the plan and as a first step is working with the Russians to drastically reduce the vast US and Russian nuclear arsenals.

The disarmament roadmap

Decades of research and negotiations have given us a clear roadmap to a world free the world of nuclear weapons. All the essential steps – from banning weapons materials to monitoring to ensure nations don't cheat the system – are clear. What's needed is concerted pressure on countries to start putting the roadmap into action. And pressure is now building on them to get their act together.

Global Zero

In 2008 100 leaders from around the world launched the Global Zero plan for the phased, verified elimination of nuclear weapons, right down to a global zero. The growing group includes former heads of state, former foreign ministers, former defence ministers, former national security advisors, and more than 20 former top military commanders. Explore the Global Zero animated map.

Nuclear Security Project

Similarly ex-Cold War warrior Henry Kissinger, and other former senior US ministers surprised the world when in 2007 they wrote a joint editorial in the Wall Street Journal calling for action to cut nuclear weapons. They have since launched the Nuclear Security Project to 'galvanize global support for and action on the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and the urgent steps needed to reach that goal'.

Watch the NSP's film: Nuclear Tipping Point.

Peace - where we are now

jossc — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:35:50 +0000

At the height of the Cold War in the 1960s it seemed almost inevitable that a terrifying nuclear arms race would spread to all corners of the globe, threatening the future of humanity. That’s why the international community got together and agreed to ban nuclear weapons.

Fifty years on, almost all nations reject the need for nuclear weapons. Today only nine countries still possess them – in clear contravention of international law.

Greenpeace believes that only by cutting our nuclear addiction can we place nuclear materials under strong controls – and ensure they don’t get into the hands of terrorists and dictators.

Spending endless billions on nuclear missiles is a costly diversion from tackling the real challenges we face today - replacing Britain's aging Trident system will cost at least £97bn. And what do we gain? Bombs capable of flattening continents clearly can’t deter suicide bombers, deal with cyber-terrorism or prevent civil wars.

It also diverts us away from dealing with our real security needs – the need for clean and accessible energy, water, and food. And ensuring we tackle the greatest security threat of all – climate change.

Today we have a real chance for change - with President Obama leading the charge for a world free of nuclear weapons on the international stage, the opportunity for real progress is brighter than anytime since the end of the Cold War.

The tired old myths about nuclear weapons are now being challenged. And people are realising that those few countries that are clinging onto nuclear arms are making the future more dangerous - for both their own citizens and the rest of the planet.

More and more security experts and senior military figures now agree that a nuclear weapons free world is both achievable and essential. And experts are producing detailed roadmaps to show how we can get there.

Most importantly the world's biggest super-power - global public opinion - is on our side.

Get involved and help make a nuclear weapons free world a reality:

Check out our video wall to find out what people are saying about why they don't want new nuclear weapons. Upload your own video and have your say!
Email your MP and tell them you don't want to waste £97bn on new nuclear weapons.

A win on Trident?

louise — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:55:03 +0000

Yesterday’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) gave us the welcome news that plans to replace Trident have been put on hold and reductions will be made to our existing nuclear weapons. "Five year delay" shouted the papers who widely interpreted the move as a compromise to keep the coalition government together.

The reality is that in the face of military cuts and a National Security Review (which concluded the threats we face are cyber crime, terrorism, a foreign crisis "drawing in Britain", and natural disasters) it’s hard to imagine how David Cameron could have ticked the yes box on spending £97bn replacing Trident. Particularly as there was already a joker in the SDSR pack in the shape of the aircraft carriers.

The carriers – what a farce! Politicians decided they didn’t need them, then looked at the contracts and realized whoops, canceling them costs more money than building them! So, now we get two aircraft carriers we don’t want. Then to top it off, instead of buying 150 F35 fighters, we can now only apparently afford 12 per ship – and that not for a decade.

"Who exactly signed these contracts - and were they drunk on complimentary arms industry champagne at the time?" Wow. Those "four acres of moveable sovereign airfield" (as the MoD used to like to describe the carriers) are going to be looking awfully empty...

This begs the question: "Who exactly signed these contracts, and were they drunk on complimentary arms industry champagne at the time?"

Could all this have been foreseen? Well yes. In fact we flagged it up in our 2009 report, In The Firing Line, which not only highlights the £38bn hole in MoD budgets, but also the ever increasing costs of both carriers and the F35 jets supposed to fly from them. In it, we quoted a navy commentator saying, "I sadly prophesise that if HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales ever carry more than 18 F35Bs, that is because a US marine corps squadron has been embarked for an exercise."

Which brings us to the question of Trident, and whether it really has been kicked into the long grass.

If you look at the details, what was announced yesterday is that we got a two-four year delay in making the final 'main gate' decision to go ahead with building submarines (kicking it until after the next election). In line with this we get a four year delay in those submarines being expected to go to sea. But the first tranche of contracts (signed after what's known as 'initial gate') will go ahead at the end of this year tying us into... who knows what?

On top of this, the Financial Times hinted of deals being done with BAE Systems, to 'assure' them that three Trident replacement submarines will be built.

It’s not hard to imagine flashing forward to 2016 and imagining the defence minister standing up and admitting that canceling Trident makes no sense as the majority of funds are already committed and that cancellation will cost rather than save money.

That’s why Greenpeace are pushing for a full review of our national nuclear policy – one that addresses the question famously posed by Field Marshal Lord Carver: “Trident – what the bloody hell is it for?”

Meantime, we will be interrogating our politicians on the detail of what was announced yesterday, and keeping a sharp eye on what arms deals are being signed – we'll keep you posted.

Like to learn effective political lobbying yourself? Join our network »