Media 61: Trident vote, news of American vested interests omitted and online leads vanish

An extensive search online has failed to find a workable link to the recently published letter by former US defence officials and senior military officers.

trident smallThe only references found were in a Russia Today report and a blog by Dr David Lowry, a member of the government’s Geological Disposal Implementation Board which oversees the programme to dispose of high-level radioactive waste.

Earlier pronouncements are readily available online

Over the years former defence chiefs have said that to “abandon” Britain’s four Trident submarines would be “an enormous gamble” which could threaten “the survival of our nation” and another set of retired military men, similarly qualified, have said that these systems are ‘completely useless’. These are still readily to be found online, so why is the link to this recent letter so hard to find? There appears to be nothing sensitive or unexpected in it.

Is it a response to Private Eye’s recent exposure of the financial vested interests of many of the signatories?

The magazine lists the affiliations of some of the signatories (below), though probably for legal reasons it does not name the individuals concerned:

  • Lockheed Martin
  • Babcock defence group,
  • Sandia
  • EADS
  • Scowcroft Group

american hubris2The magazine surmises that the Trident vote was a measure taken to reassure defence contractors, British and American that their investments would be safe and deals made would be honoured.

It commented that US companies stand to ‘make a mint’ out of the Trident Successor programme and that the British government is in no position to disappoint them.

In the interests of preservation – as websites crash and lose such data (especially in the chemical/pharmaceutical world) such material can live on in minor sites, the letter and signatories are posted here: https://nuclearindustries.wordpress.com/trident-vote-recently-published-letter-by-former-us-defence-officials-and-senior-military-officers/

 

 

Advertisements

Posted on July 25, 2016, in Arms trade, Conflict of interest, Corporate political nexus, Democracy undermined, Economy, Finance, Foreign policy, Government, Lobbying, Military matters, Public relations, Secret State, Taxpayers' money, Vested interests and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. I believe that a credible nuclear deterrent is a ‘necessary evil’, but why does it have to be (largely) built by American contractors? Relying so heavily on US technology may also undermine our ability as ‘ . . .a second centre of nuclear decision making’
    Private Eye is right. US companies stand to ‘make a mint’ If such an enormous amount of taxpayers money is to be spent on Tridents replacement then as much as feasibly possible should be invested in UK defence contractors. But then again I am naive

  2. Not naïve – realistic/pragmatic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: