Greenpeace, until now an environmentalist organisation, occupied Menwith Hill, a British airbase, last week to protest against plans to develop the early-warning system for the US National Missile Defence (NMD) system.

You might have thought environmentalists would be pleased that a superpower was changing its policy from massive nuclear retaliation to self-defence. So, I was surprised to see not a single mention of the environmental consequences of the new policy on any of the Greenpeace websites. No mention of the possibility of moving away from a policy which risked plunging the world into global winter, nor of the effect of the new policy on the risk of accidental radiation leakage.

For example, Greenpeace asks "is Star Wars Necessary?" and replies;

"The US government justifies the expense and risks of Star Wars as a defence from missile attack by so-called ’states of concern', usually interpreted to be Iraq, Iran and North Korea. US defence officials argue these countries could, in five to ten years, develop missile technologies to attack the US with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Yet the present and future threat from these small nations is either non-existent or exaggerated. And even if it were technically possible, any nation launching such an attack on the US would be committing immediate mass suicide, given the US ability to retaliate with more than 12,000 nuclear warheads."

Really? Would Greenpeace prefer the US to retaliate to an attack by say Iraq by firing multiple nuclear warheads at Iraq, or by defending itself against the incoming weapons?

Instead of this sort of environmentalist discussion Greenpeace listed its "principled" objections to the Star Wars system as follows:

"The Star Wars system will provoke a new arms race because it will encourage other nuclear states like Russia and China to expand their arsenals to overwhelm the defence system."

"Star Wars is not about defence it is about offence and the way the US wields its power over other countries. At the same time Bush is continuing to plough billions of dollars into nuclear weapons development."

"The Star Wars system makes Yorkshire a target because any enemy of the USA will attempt to knock out the 'eyes and ears' of Star Wars as part of an offensive action."

Of course there are serious arguments about NMD on both sides, particularly whether it can be afforded, whether it works and whether it is needed. However, the above is just a pacifist diatribe. 

Nothing wrong with that you might say, but it shows us how Greenpeace continues to mutate from muddled environmentalism, to an openly anti-US, anti-capitalist, political organisation. Neutral observers will be taking their environmental pronouncements with a pinch of salt in future.