Independence - how would you vote?

[Saor Alba]

"commies"

[sons superhero]

But it will be used if Faslane is compromised. Source for your not secure base please.

Edit forgot to say, why is Devonport listed along with Aldermaston and Burghfield in sect.12 of the Terrorism Act 2006, if it isn't suitable or capable.

[Saor Alba]

Yeah, because if the Russians ever felt they were in the position where a nuclear first strike attack on the UK was necessary, the number one thing on their list of priorities totally isn't going to be the implications of global destruction, rather whether they can balance their budget by launching just the one warhead rather than the two.

I had to back peddle to find that utter drivel due to your lack of response to my previous question.

Now,

1. Why are you referring to Russia today as "Commies"?

2. What has you believing that Russia would ever target the UK with a "first strike" nuclear attack?

[Ad Lib]

I had to back peddle to find that utter drivel due to your lack of response to my previous question.

Now,

1. Why are you referring to Russia today as "Commies"?

2. What has you believing that Russia would ever target the UK with a "first strike" nuclear attack?

1. I was simply repeating Baxter Parp's characterisation of Russia. Without endorsement.

2. I don't think they would. We were engaging in a hypothetical. I've already said it's not a threat relevant to modern day geopolitics. Hence I am against us having nuclear weapons.

[Ad Lib]

But it will be used if Faslane is compromised.

Source? Not, of course, that something that is fit to be an emergency base for extremely short periods of time means that it is fit to be a primary or semi-permanent base for the same purpose in the ordinary course of military operations. We used the trenches on the Somme because we had no other option but to fight there; not because it was plushier than Catterick.

Source for your not secure base please.

I said safe and secure. Note the conjunctive. And my source is, well, the MOD's public reasoning for using Faslane-Coulport instead.

[Saor Alba]

1. I was simply repeating Baxter Parp's characterisation of Russia. Without endorsement.

2. I don't think they would. We were engaging in a hypothetical. I've already said it's not a threat relevant to modern day geopolitics. Hence I am against us having nuclear weapons.

1. Sure you were.

2. Aye, hypothetical appears to be your forte going by the utter drivel contained in the vast majority of your posts on this thread.

[Atomic]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/trident-base-no-10-disowns-mod-faslane-sovereignty

Absolute meltdown from the British nationalists today.

[sons superhero]

Source? Not, of course, that something that is fit to be an emergency base for extremely short periods of time means that it is fit to be a primary or semi-permanent base for the same purpose in the ordinary course of military operations. We used the trenches on the Somme because we had no other option but to fight there; not because it was plushier than Catterick.

I said safe and secure. Note the conjunctive. And my source is, well, the MOD's public reasoning for using Faslane-Coulport instead.

You are trying to interpet the MOD's reasoning. That is why you cannot provide a source and so you provide a poor analogy. Fact Devonport is a fully operational Naval Base, a listed designated site under sect. 12 Terrorism Act 2006, it has the capability and suitability to be used (your original comment is therefore wrong) and will be used in the event of Faslane being compromised. If wasn't suitable and capable it wouldn't be a second base.

[archie guevara]

Judy Murray is keen to learn some more about the economics of independence before she eventually decides. In other words, she's a Yes.

[xbl]

You are trying to interpet the MOD's reasoning. That is why you cannot provide a source and so you provide a poor analogy. Fact Devonport is a fully operational Naval Base, a listed designated site under sect. 12 Terrorism Act 2006, it has the capability and suitability to be used (your original comment is therefore wrong) and will be used in the event of Faslane being compromised. If wasn't suitable and capable it wouldn't be a second base.

I'm beginning to see Ad Lib as some kind of Donald Findlay type character. There is nobody so shady that Ad Lib won't stand shoulder to shoulder with them to defend the indefensible.

[Ad Lib]

You are trying to interpet the MOD's reasoning.

Heaven forbid we might want to try to interpret what other people have said.

That is why you cannot provide a source and so you provide a poor analogy.

Jesus Christ. A quick Google can direct you to countless news and journal articles detailing the reasons Devonport is not satisfactory for a port in which to arm Vanguard submarines. The vicinity is too densely populated, it occupies shipping lanes that are already very congested, and whereas once it was once considered safe, the rules about safe distances and proximity to population centres have had to tighten with more powerful propellent of missiles etc.

Fact Devonport is a fully operational Naval Base, a listed designated site under sect. 12 Terrorism Act 2006, it has the capability and suitability to be used (your original comment is therefore wrong) and will be used in the event of Faslane being compromised.

Except this is untrue. The mere fact of being a designated site under s12 TA 2006 doesn't mean that it's a site suitable for the arming of Vanguard submarines in accordance with the UK's defence requirements. It originally became such a relevant site before the Terrorism Act legislation (it merely cross refers to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, which covers everything from civil power production and fuel storage to sites which manufacture nuclear weapons to those which enrich uranium, to those where warheads are armed. Being a designated site under that Act can even amount to suitability for Polaris missiles or a different class of submarine.

Steps may be taken to ignore or override the current safety standards that prevent Devonport being treated as a like-for-like replacement of Faslane with satisfactory safety provision (which was what I referred to all along), but under current laws and needs, it isn't up to scratch. That's the reality of the situation.

If wasn't suitable and capable it wouldn't be a second base.

It isn't a second base. It has the potential to be treated as a base to host the Vanguard subs for similar purposes in the event something catastrophic happens at Faslane-Coulport, but it would not be as anything other than an extremely temporary stopgap as preferable to having them all at sea or at a foreign port.

If you want some evidence pointing to the inadequacy of Devonport, particularly regarding the positioning of the port and why they've encountered problems even as it is just servicing Vanguard submarines (unarmed) there, take a look at this written submission to Parliament by SCND

[Ad Lib]

1. Sure you were.

2. Aye, hypothetical appears to be your forte going by the utter drivel contained in the vast majority of your posts on this thread.

1. Yes. I was. Read the thread. Don't be a simpleton.

2. It was Baxter Parp that raised the scenario with the "dastardly russki soviets" (observe he was the first to make any leftist references to them). I merely pointed out that in the event the Russians felt the need to attack us with their nukes on a first strike basis, they'd probably use more than one warhead. Because, like, the military budget is a secondary concern to implementing thermonuclear world war.

[Baxter Parp]

What commies on earth are you referring to Ad Lib, what nation/country, be specific?

Oooh, you should pay attention a bit more.

[Baxter Parp]

1. Sure you were.

Yes he was, it was a bit of cold war fun on my part, secure in the knowledge that Russia has no intention of using nukes. Possibly can't anymore, given the state of the country.

[Davi3j]

If one sub needs, for whatever (potentially an emergency) reason, to dock at port, or is rendered unable to perform its duties, you need to know you can get another one out at minimal notice and the minimum of cost. Having to fetch some missiles costs more and is less efficient from a time perspective at sending that second sub out.

sorry but im just catching up on this thread so im a bit behind, but its a bit audatious to talk about minimum cost and trident in the same sentence ffs.

[Kejan]

Tom Harris, Iain MacGilli, Jackson Carlaw all linking up a poll from MORI poll from May on their Twitter for some reason in the last 1hr. Maybe they all went out on the lash and decided to do it for a laugh, or another one is due soon?

[Baxter Parp]

Steps may be taken to ignore or override the current safety standards that prevent Devonport being treated as a like-for-like replacement of Faslane with satisfactory safety provision (which was what I referred to all along), but under current laws and needs, it isn't up to scratch.

No reason why it couldn't be, apart from the politics of course. Apparently it's the sole nuclear power maintenance and refuelling base in the RN. Bit silly not to have nuclear powered subs there, frankly.

I can't understand why you're so determined to question everything that comes out of the Yes campaign yet so eager to take what the MOD says at face value. Bit odd, that.

[Trussells]

Tom Harris, Iain MacGilli, Jackson Carlaw all linking up a poll from MORI poll from May on their Twitter for some reason in the last 1hr. Maybe they all went out on the lash and decided to do it for a laugh, or another one is due soon?

Certainly a poll of some sorts is due.

[Ad Lib]

No reason why it couldn't be, apart from the politics of course. Apparently it's the sole nuclear power maintenance and refuelling base in the RN. Bit silly not to have nuclear powered subs there, frankly.

I can't understand why you're so determined to question everything that comes out of the Yes campaign yet so eager to take what the MOD says at face value. Bit odd, that.

Nuclear powered subs are completely different from subs with nuclear warheads on them...

I'm not taking what the MOD says at face value. I'm saying they've said it's not an acceptable base. Their CND opponents agree with them and their analysis. Why do you insist on disagreeing with the consensus of the defence community and their opponents!

[Ad Lib]

sorry but im just catching up on this thread so im a bit behind, but its a bit audatious to talk about minimum cost and trident in the same sentence ffs.

I don't support Trident. I'm merely pointing out cost is increasingly proving a political problem for its continued use.