Saor Alba Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/trident-base-no-10-disowns-mod-faslane-sovereignty Absolute meltdown from the British nationalists today. . It certainly makes the nutters on the thread who spent much of their time arguing over the hypothesis look very foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 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. The simpleton didn't have to take your bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The simpleton didn't have to take your bait. It's not bait when you run along with the joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Nuclear powered subs are completely different from subs with nuclear warheads on them... I'm aware of that, but apparently from 2017 all the Attack submarines are supposed to be moving to Faslane. I wonder if that could possibly have something to do with all those radiation leaks they've been having? Anyway, after 2017 Devonport won't have any attack subs, just the amphibious flotilla and survey ships. MOD, eh? Also:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/04/mod-nuclear-submarines-scotland-plymouth It's clearly a political issue rather than a practical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I'm aware of that, but apparently from 2017 all the Attack submarines are supposed to be moving to Faslane. I wonder if that could possibly have something to do with all those radiation leaks they've been having? Anyway, after 2017 Devonport won't have any attack subs, just the amphibious flotilla and survey ships. MOD, eh? Also:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/04/mod-nuclear-submarines-scotland-plymouth It's clearly a political issue rather than a practical one. Not that straightforward or political. Read the SCND link above and then read the paper to which they refer. Population proximity conditions etc. were tightened considerably with the increased propulsion of more modern warheads. The blast radius is much wider and makes Devonport a much higher risk of a high scale of fatalities than Faslane-Coulport with Trident missiles than it would have been with, say, Polaris missiles, or the early Trident missiles, in the past. It's also logistically far from ideal, with a number of problems faced by Vanguards being serviced down in Devonport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 It's not bait when you run along with the joke... Ah right, so you consider bigotry and racist aspersions towards another nation to be funny. So long as it isn't directed at you it's ok hmm...very Liberal indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Judy Murray is keen to learn some more about the economics of independence before she eventually decides. In other words, she's a Yes. There is no doubt about it that certainly Andy (and probably most of his family) are/would be yes voters. Anybody who can't spot the faux and awkward union jack/British pish regarding Murray is clearly blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Ah right, so you consider bigotry and racist aspersions towards another nation to be funny. So long as it isn't directed at you it's ok hmm...very Liberal indeed. Bigotry? Please direct me to the bigotry. Racist aspersions? Please direct me to the race or the aspersions to which you claim they are subjected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Ah right, so you consider bigotry and racist aspersions towards another nation to be funny. So long as it isn't directed at you it's ok hmm...very Liberal indeed. You really have the wrong end of the stick and you should probably put it down and consider the important things that need to be discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 There is no doubt about it that certainly Andy (and probably most of his family) are/would be yes voters. Anybody who can't spot the faux and awkward union jack/British pish regarding Murray is clearly blind. The number of people born and bred in and around the region of Stirling who will be voting no in 2014 will be a very very insignificant tiny minority. That is certain. The history is all around them, they are fed on it from birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Let's be honest here. Who gives a f**k if there's no suitable ports for trident in the rest of the UK? As long as these evil weapons are out of our country I couldn't care less if the entire program has to be mothballed while the UK government and MoD chase their own tails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Not that straightforward or political. Read the SCND link above and then read the paper to which they refer. Population proximity conditions etc. were tightened considerably with the increased propulsion of more modern warheads. The blast radius is much wider and makes Devonport a much higher risk of a high scale of fatalities than Faslane-Coulport with Trident missiles than it would have been with, say, Polaris missiles, or the early Trident missiles, in the past. It's also logistically far from ideal, with a number of problems faced by Vanguards being serviced down in Devonport. The number of acceptable casualties in any nuclear incident is a completely political decision. As is the number of acceptable casualties I any war, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Let's be honest here. Who gives a f**k if there's no suitable ports for trident in the rest of the UK? As long as these evil weapons are out of our country I couldn't care less if the entire program has to be mothballed while the UK government and MoD chase their own tails. The vast majority of people around the UK will agree with you. The people who will most likely disagree with you are those both in the UK and abroad who have vested interests in keeping it going, people such as those employed within the Armaments Industry or MOD and people who have stocks/shares in the corporations within or allied to the Military Industrial Complex. Keep in mind that monarchies, global banksters, media tycoons, wealthy politicians, corporate executives, religious organisations including the Vatican and Church of England and many other entities have money invested in the Military Industrial Complex. You could probably add to the list many partners, children, parents and other persons who benefit financially through those who have vested interests. The world was warned about it over 50 years ago! Basically, nearly everyone who works within or makes money from the Military Industrial Complex today will disagree with you and so too will most members of their immediate families. "Money is at the root of all evil." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10 CC ICT Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I wasn't suggesting that. But of course the Faslane-Coulport operation is quicker. It's a three hour drive from Aldermaston to Devonport, and that's BEFORE you even start to prep the sub for sea readiness. AND it assumes that Devonport is suitable for arming Trident to Vanguard submarines, which for reasons of safety, is not presently the case. Of course. I thought health and safety legislation was under review under the coalition? Could just slip it in there. If planning permission is an issue I know a man that can help, if the price is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I thought health and safety legislation was under review under the coalition? Could just slip it in there. If planning permission is an issue I know a man that can help, if the price is right. Sorry, I'm not Donald Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 There are those who would say that Blair (or indeed the Conservatives) would not tolerate an English parliament because it would greatly reduce the power of the prime minister and Cabinet. Shuffling off unimportant matters to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast was one thing...who cared about them, but to lose power over the English health service, English education or indeed law and order, was unthinkable and would leave the UK prime minister with less authority than the English first minister. http://munguinsrepublic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/and-what-of-english-question.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Heaven forbid we might want to try to interpret what other people have said. 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. 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. 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 At no point have I said it is a like for like replacement. Your OP stated there is no location suitable in rUK. Yes there is as a temporary home till Milford Haven comes online. Read through what you have wrote if you are to apply that Faslane and Coulport are not suitable or capable sites either. They are only because they are deemed to be slightly less of a risk. Within a few miles of Coulport there is the main port for oil tankers supplying grangemouth ffs. Heres an analogy for you my wife has a lovely luxury car that she lets me drive. We get divorced because she says she wants her independence, this leaves me with my 10 year old hatchback. It will do though because it still gets me to my work and back. I'll use it till I get myself a lovely luxury car because it's suitable and capable. I have at no point said it would be easy, cheaper, ideal, or be permanent. It is capable and suitable though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The number of people born and bred in and around the region of Stirling who will be voting no in 2014 will be a very very insignificant tiny minority. That is certain. The history is all around them, they are fed on it from birth. Apart from the high percentage of Rangers fans here. They're fed 'Rule Britannia' from birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie guevara Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Is it safe to come back to this thread yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Scarestories.. http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesscotland/pages/1755/attachments/original/1373290492/YES_A4_Project_Fear_July13.pdf?1373290492 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.