Press Releases & Updates 2003

Sue Brackenbury (27), from Faslane Peace Camp in Scotland, and Matt Bury (48), from Taunton, issued a statement before their action in which they said they had “ jointly undertaken to disarm the nuclear weapons submarine HMS Vanguard at present undergoing refit in Devonport Dockyard.” They are currently being held in Charles Cross police station on suspicion of having committed criminal damage.

In her statement Sue said: “Early last year I signed a pledge to prevent a Nuclear crime and this is the reason why I am back here in Plymouth. I was stood on the Hoe when HMS Vanguard went past in February 2001. It was a horrible day and the sorrow has never left me. I just can’t believe we are allowing the re-fit to happen.”

Matt said: “I have undertaken this direct action against Britain’s nuclear weapons as a British citizen who recognises the greater weight of international law over British law. I am also aware that, despite being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 (NPT), Britain has failed to take any steps towards nuclear disarmament and is working on a new nuclear weapons programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston.”

Last November two Trident Ploughshares activists got on board HMS Vanguard and were able to inspect it for some time before ringing the alarm bell themselves to attract the attention of security. Last night’s intrusion comes just 10 days before the Trident Ploughshares Disarmament Camp at Devonport, which begins on the 2nd October and ends with a blockade of the dockyard on Monday 6th October.

Full version of Matt and Sue’s statements follow:

On 27th May 2002 I signed the Trident Ploughshares pledge. This pledge declares that all nuclear weapons are contrary to international law and that everybody has a duty to “carefully, safely and peacefully” disarm these weapons.

In fulfilment of my pledge I have undertaken this direct action against Britain’s nuclear weapons as a British citizen who recognises the greater weight of international law over British law. I am also aware that, despite being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 (NPT), Britain has failed to take any steps towards nuclear disarmament and is working on a new nuclear weapons programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston. Since the signing of the NPT three more states, India, Israel and Pakistan, have been shown to possess nuclear weapons.

This year Britain went to war against Iraq - ostensibly on the issue of the possessing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The next war to be fought by Britain and its senior partner, the USA, will be against Iran over the issue of nuclear proliferation. The preliminary moves - disquiet by the International Atomic Energy Authority over finding enriched nuclear matter and a belligerent stance by the USA - have already happened. We must all ask ourselves a number of questions:

Why does the Republic of Iran feel it needs nuclear weapons?

Why do we object to this proliferation?

Where does this put Britain’s nuclear programme?

What can we do to prevent other countries from developing nuclear aspirations?

Any serious thought given to these questions will show the double-standards and flawed logic behind Britain’s “nuclear deterrent”. Nuclear weapons do not make the world a safer place. The longer nuclear weapons exist and the more countries that possess them inevitably increase the chances of their use and on a scale that would dwarf the horrendous employment against Japan in 1945.

The USA is developing a new class of “small scale, battlefield,usable” (God help us) nukes. The UK may well be following suit. I cannot stand idly by and permit this lunacy to continue and call on all those who object to nuclear weapons to protest in whatever way they feel best fits their circumstances and abilities.

Matt Bury

This weekend I travelled from Scotland to arrive here in Plymouth. As a full time activist against Trident, early last year I signed a pledge to prevent a Nuclear crime.

So this is the reason why I am back here in Plymouth. I was stood on the Hoe when HMS Vanguard went past in February 2001. It was a horrible day and the sorrow has never left me. I just can’t believe we are allowing the re-fit to happen.

I am also aware on the 8th July 1996, the President of International Court of Justice (which is the highest legal body of the United Nations), Mohammad Bedjaoui, stated, “ the Nuclear Weapon is the ultimate evil, destabilises Humanitarian Law which is the law of the lesser evil.”

I believe that the Trident Nuclear Weapons System is illegal, dangerous, unjust, polluting, a terrible waste of resources, and deeply immoral. I think Trident Possess a threat rather than a defence.

I can’t believe the National Audit Office report estimated costs of the refit of Trident by the end of completion in 2004 at £933 million imagine how much better the health service, more affordable homes. What is the future for our young children? Is it really a safe place to bring a child into?

I personally don’t want to see any more Hiroshimas or Nagasakis.

Sue Brackenbury

Printer friendly version

Home | Top