Wow!! This excellent article from our friends at Make Wars History is a real gem and an eye-opener. It is well worth a thorough read.
It exposes the role of internationaL financiers and banks such as RBS, Barclays and the infamous money-launderers, HSBC, in financing BOTH our and the Russians’ nuclear deterrents. It exposes too, the vested interest of many of our MPs in keeping the whole nuclear deterrent thing going. makes me wonder if further digging would uncover similar vested interests in the American nuclear deterrent.
So essentially the maintenance of a nuclear deterrent and “defensive” war machine by both “sides” is highly profitable to the bankster third party. Thus it would be highly unprofitable for that bankster third party if peace were to break out and we and the Russian people became chums as we have been threatening to do for quite some time.
Hence, the continual propagandizing about a “threat” from “Russian aggression” and no doubt in Russia continual banging on about the threat from NATO (the latter though admittedly a tad more tangible with NATO bases and troops moved threateningly right up to that country’s borders). We must be kept from becoming friends lest we throw a spanner in the works of profit-making on the part of certain, oh-so-respectable yet actually base criminal, elements.
Then, just in case we do not buy the made-up threat, there is the puerile argument that 30,000 jobs depend on our keeping Trident going. They probably do at the moment but is it really beyond the wit of man – or at least government – to administer our affairs wisely and turn all that productive enterprise to the production of something useful such as tractors or wind turbines or some such thing? Can we do no better in finding work for people than the production of things that have no use except wiping out all life on the planet?
The game is to get another Cold War or arms race going. The fall of Communism was a big un-planned set-back (stifling totalitarianisms do tend to crumple like a house of cards in a stiff draught – America please take heed) in that it inconveniently removed a profitable threat. So the banksters and their political proxies have been busy trying to cook up a new threat. Islam and post-Communist Russia got elected but somehow do not quite measure up.
Be that as it may, we human beings are not going to have any peace until we bring these crooks to justice, both here and in Russia. They, not the world’s honest citizens, are the true enemy. – Steve
The truth about Trident: the shocking fact that would turn us all against paying for nukes
As parliament debates the renewal of Trident, the UK’s “nuclear deterrent”
The arguments surrounding the controversial weapons system rage as fiercely as ever. But there’s one aspect which has been repeatedly overlooked. UK banks not only finance our nuclear deterrent, but also our supposed “enemy” Russia’s as well, and senior politicians enjoy a direct financial profit through keeping Trident.
The name Trident refers to the nuclear missiles that are carried on four Vanguard-Class submarines. Based out of Faslane, on the Clyde in Scotland, at any one time, there is one submarine on active patrol, another in service, another preparing to patrol and a final one on exercise.
Each submarine can carry 16 Trident missiles (but since 2010 this has been reduced to eight), and each missile can hold 40 warheads.
The cost of replacing the Trident system with “Successor” (which is what the parliamentary debate on Monday is about) is disputed. The official Ministry of Defence (MoD) line is £41 bn per submarine. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) says the true cost is around £205 bn for all four, when you included the cost of their upkeep.
The mainstream arguments for and against Trident are fairly clear cut.
Those in favour, like deputy Labour leader Tom Watson, argue that nearly 30,000 jobs rely on Trident. They also say that for security purposes we need nuclear weapons, as a deterrent against Russian aggression, and to ensure the UK’s standing in the world.
Those against, like CND, argue that the use of Trident would be illegal under international law, that the cost of replacing it is too great, and that it doesn’t reflect our current security threats, like terrorism and cyber attack (threats the government identified itself as those of the biggest concern in the 21st century).
However, there are two arguments that both sides fail to acknowledge – maybe because if they did, it would bring the whole military industry into question. The role of multinational banks and senior UK politicians.
All aboard the Westminster gravy train
The main companies involved in Trident are US multinational Lockheed Martin (who produce the missiles), BAE Systems, Babcock & Wilcox and Rolls-Royce – who are involved in the Successor programme – and also names like Bechtel, Honeywell,Raytheon and Serco who are contracted or subcontracted in relation to the current Trident system.
According to the House of Lords register of interests, around 15% of sitting members are directors of, or shareholders in, companies that are either directly contracted to the Trident programme or invest in it.
Prominent names include Lord Hollick, a Labour Peer who is a director of Honeywell. Lord (William) Hague, chair of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). RUSI, who are supposedly impartial US and UK government defence advisors, are sponsoredby Babcock, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Rolls-Royce.
But one of the most telling individuals is Labour’s Lord Hutton, defence secretary under Gordon Brown. He is an adviser to Bechtel, consultant for Lockheed Martin and chair of the Nuclear Industries Association (NIA). The revolving door (the phrase used to describe MP’s who, once finished in parliament, go into jobs related to their previous role) has never spun so quickly.
It may be no wonder then, that the majority of parliament (excluding the SNP and the Green party) are supportive of renewing Trident.
With reference to the role of multinational financial institutions, all the companies listed above, aside from being involved in Trident, share one other common denominator. They are all financed, or owned, by UK banks. Specifically Barclays and HSBC. A report byDon’t Bank on the Bomb details the involvement of major financial institutions in the western nuclear weapons industry.
What this report doesn’t cover, however, is these institutions involvement in Russia’s nuclear weapons industry.
Laughing all the way to the bank
Aside from financing state-owned Russian companies like Rostec State Corporation (heavily involved with the country’s military) via their funding of, and credit trading with, Rostec financiers Novikombank, these banks have directly financed the Trident equivalent in Russia.
The Dolgorukiy class submarine programme is Putin’s very own Trident. Made by a company called Sevmash, it’s financed by the state-owned Vnesheconombank (VEB) development bank. In turn, VEB bank is financed by a consortium of international banks. These include, of course, Barclays and HSBC.
Essentially, UK multinational banks are playing one big game of “Battleships”, funding both UK and Russian nuclear weapons programmes. Except no missiles will ever be fired, and a winner will never be declared – because that would be unprofitable.
But the most shocking aspect of this is one financial institution so far not mentioned: the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).
RBS are also financiers of the VEB bank who fund Russia’s nuclear submarines – and they also invest or part-own seven companies directly contracted to Trident. What is most deplorable about this is the fact that RBS is, of course, state-owned – we bought a 79% majority stake after the 2008 financial crash.
In layman’s terms? We, the public, pay for Trident directly via taxation. We also paid for RBS, directly through taxation. In turn, RBS directly fund (with UK taxpayer money) our “enemy’s” nuclear weapon systems.
Essentially, the UK taxpayer is paying for both sides in this perceived nuclear stand-off.
The whole nuclear weapons industry – every disturbed, finger-pointed warning about Russia, every argument about our “national security” – is one mammoth ruse.
We, the taxpayer, are duped into allowing complicit Governments to squander our money on an imaginary threat, which merely serves to make former MPs richer and multinational banks and their wealthy shareholders more money.
The most dangerous enemy facing us in 2016?
The lies we are told, under the premise of a threat which doesn’t actually exist.
Leave a Reply