‘Are we safe, if nuclear weapons are here?': trepidation in Norfolk village over new jets
The genteel west Norfolk village of Marham does not seem to be at the forefront of Britain's military might. A dance class is about to start in the village hall, a game of crown green bowls is under way and swallows are swooping around the medieval church tower as wood pigeons coo.
'It's a lovely, quiet little village,' says Nona Bourne as she watches another end of bowls in a match between Marham and nearby Massingham.
Like many, Bourne is troubled by the news that this week thrust Marham to the frontline of UK's nuclear arsenal, in the biggest expansion of the programme for a generation.
Without consultation, RAF Marham is to be equipped with new F-35A jets capable of carrying warheads with three times the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Bourne said: 'When they spread it all over the news that these planes are going to come here from America with these bombs, it makes you think we're going to be targeted. My bungalow is five minutes from the base.'
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is planning a protest in Marham on Saturday. Bourne, whose son-in-law used to work at the base, is tempted to take part. 'I might join in,' she says. 'My daughter says we've always been a target here, but I am concerned. If I was younger I'd think about moving, but I'm 83, I'm not going anywhere.'
Sisters Becky, 29, and Katherine Blakie, 31, are heading to a friend's house for a plunge in their hot tub. 'I read about the weapons on Facebook,' says Becky. 'It's strange to think they'll be here in little old Marham.'
Becky, who works in fundraising, is annoyed that the village was not consulted about the decision. She says: 'Marham and the RAF base are intertwined so we should definitely have had a say.'
Katherine, a medical student, says: 'It makes you think, 'Are we safe, if people know nuclear weapons are here?''
At this stage it is unclear where the nuclear warheads will be housed, but new jets to be based at Marham have the capacity to drop them. Wherever they are stored, the fear Marham will be a target is widespread in the village.
'Look what happened at Pearl Harbor,' says Patricia Gordon after finishing her bowls match. 'We'd be obliterated here.'
She adds: 'And with Donald Trump's finger on the button, does it matter that we've got nuclear weapons or not?'
But her partner, Bruce Townsend, 77, a retired lorry driver, thinks the nuclear deterrent works. He says: 'You can't give up nuclear weapons. Iran, and those countries, know damn well that if they start anything, they'll just get wiped out.'
He adds: 'I feel the same about the protest as I did about people who tried to ban the bomb. It's stupid. They can't change it.'
It is the men in Marham who seem more relaxed about the prospect of nuclear-armed planes on their doorstep. Chris Joice, a carer who used to work at the base, says: 'We've had F-35s for so many years, and having the next model isn't going to make much difference.'
Joice is out walking a friend's dog, Millie, who has an RAF roundel pendant strapped to her collar. He is concerned about the lack of consultation: 'I'm just annoyed that all these decisions go ahead and the common man doesn't have a single word in.'
He adds: 'No one needs that kind of firepower. I'd rather people rolled dice to settle their beefs.'
Others are more full-throated in their support. Jim Smith, 79, a retired construction worker, remembers nuclear weapons at the base in the 1950s. 'They had them up there in 1958 or 59 when they had the V bombers. It stopped a world war then. And it's no different now.'
A man on a bike who would only give his name as John recently retired as a grounds maintenance worker at the base. He says: 'They're never going to attack us. It would be Armageddon if it comes to that. So it doesn't make a shite's worth of difference worrying about it.'
He adds: 'I don't mind protest, I'm a biker so I'm all about freedom, but I've got better things to do. People protesting here don't live in the real world, they should worry instead about people sleeping on the streets in King's Lynn.'
Colin Callaby, 64, is out picking cherries from a tree in the middle of the village. The cherries, which he plans to turn into wine, are the sweetest he has ever known.
'We're right in the firing line,' he says, 'but if there's going to be a nuclear bomb we're all done for so I'd rather be right underneath it and die instantly than be 50 miles away and take weeks to die from radiation.'
He adds: 'It's very sad that mankind has got to spend billions of pounds on mass destruction and we can't do something better with that money. But what can you do?'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
6 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
Hitting out at critics who argued the UK should ignore a legal ruling to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, Lord McDonald of Salford argued this was what 'the powerful and unprincipled do', such as Russia. The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.' Foreign minister Lord Collins of Highbury said the agreement secured the future of the military base and had the support of key allies. He told the chamber: 'This deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations, making sure that the United Kingdom retains the unique, important capabilities we need to deal with a range of threats in the months and years ahead.' Peers rejected by 205 votes to 185, majority 20, a Tory attempt to get the House to oppose the treaty's ratification, which would have forced the Government to make a statement on why the deal should still be approved.
South Wales Guardian
6 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
Hitting out at critics who argued the UK should ignore a legal ruling to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, Lord McDonald of Salford argued this was what 'the powerful and unprincipled do', such as Russia. The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.' Foreign minister Lord Collins of Highbury said the agreement secured the future of the military base and had the support of key allies. He told the chamber: 'This deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations, making sure that the United Kingdom retains the unique, important capabilities we need to deal with a range of threats in the months and years ahead.' Peers rejected by 205 votes to 185, majority 20, a Tory attempt to get the House to oppose the treaty's ratification, which would have forced the Government to make a statement on why the deal should still be approved.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
Britain is paying the 'going rate as a tenant for… the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean', a former Foreign Office chief has said as he backed the Chagos Islands deal that is set to cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. Hitting out at critics who argued the UK should ignore a legal ruling to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, Lord McDonald of Salford argued this was what 'the powerful and unprincipled do', such as Russia. The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.' Foreign minister Lord Collins of Highbury said the agreement secured the future of the military base and had the support of key allies. He told the chamber: 'This deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations, making sure that the United Kingdom retains the unique, important capabilities we need to deal with a range of threats in the months and years ahead.' Peers rejected by 205 votes to 185, majority 20, a Tory attempt to get the House to oppose the treaty's ratification, which would have forced the Government to make a statement on why the deal should still be approved.
