Trident "A disaster waiting to happen"

[Antlion]

What a load of bollocks.

Say you put Trident off the South Coast, you might piss off people in Portsmouth, but no one in Liverpool would care one way or the other.

Plenty of people from Glasgow have no issue with where trident is.

What about people from the borders who would be far closer to Trident if it was in Durham? How do they feel?

By your argument, many of them "wouldn't care one way or the other".

[Mr Bairn]

By your argument, many of them "wouldn't care one way or the other".

Exactly, so you aren't pissing off "53 million" people as you suggested.

[Antlion]

Exactly, so you aren't pissing off "53 million" people as you suggested.

Exactly how many of the 53 people million of England *would* be pissed off then?

[~~~]

Plenty of people from Glasgow have no issue with where trident is.

Plenty do, especially when you have the late night convos driving through the city to Faslane.

[Antiochas III]

So not up to date. Is Mother Russia still the reason why we need Trident despite 15 of 16 nations that have a land border and 1 of the 2 that share a Maritime border not having nukes?

[Mr Bairn]

Exactly how many of the 53 people million of England *would* be pissed off then?

Not all of them.

Plenty do, especially when you have the late night convos driving through the city to Faslane.

I know, but I'm just pointing out there is no universal opposition to Trident being "close to home"

[Antlion]

Not all of them.

But some of them, meaning kev's daft question was pretty much worthy of contempt. There would be some kind of opposition on the part of English people to having Trident relocated to English waters, presumably near one or more densely populated English cities.

[Ira Gaines]

People still read Mr Bairn's posts?

[Booker_d]

i agree with the point that Nuclear weapons are a moral abomination.

My 'do we just not want them in our backyard' wasn't to do with England. However, if Scotland were to become independent we still remain part of NATO which obviously has them. So basically we still want access to them, just don't keep them in our backyard?

Isn't that being done to us what we are complaining about here?

[Antiochas III]

What do you mean access to them? NATO members can't go to the US and ask to use a nuke or two.

The reason Scotland would become part of NATO is the fact for NATO Scottish Maritime Borders and what would be Military Airspace are strategically important. Without it there would a huge hole in the NATO Zone of Control

[Booker_d]

What do you mean access to them? NATO members can't go to the US and ask to use a nuke or two.

The reason Scotland would become part of NATO is the fact for NATO Scottish Maritime Borders and what would be Military Airspace are strategically important. Without it there would a huge hole in the NATO Zone of Control

We would still have membership of an organisation that has nuclear weapons.

Are we anti nuclear weapons or is it ok as long as they're not kept on our doorstep?

[Antiochas III]

We'd be members of the EU (likely) and UN too. Both have members that have WMDs.

Also NATO don't have nukes, 3 of its members do.

[Mr Rational]

​

I refer you once again to the great David Lange.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

We'd be members of the EU (likely) and UN too. Both have members that have WMDs.

Also NATO don't have nukes, 3 of its members do.

NATO, as per its own spiel is a 'nuclear alliance'. To be a member of NATO is to tacitly accept that nuclear weapons may (however unlikely this is in reality) be deployed on your behalf. The comment previously about Russia's neighbours not having them is because many of them operate under the (I think mistaken) belief that if they were truly threatened NATO would go to war for them. As it is, I can't see the USA and Europe risking the end of the World if Russia annexed Latvia.

You cannot be in favour of NATO membership and be against nuclear weapons. It's a ridiculous position. I'm not even sure what the coherent argument for NATO membership still is in this day and age.

[renton]

NATO, as per its own spiel is a 'nuclear alliance'. To be a member of NATO is to tacitly accept that nuclear weapons may (however unlikely this is in reality) be deployed on your behalf. The comment previously about Russia's neighbours not having them is because many of them operate under the (I think mistaken) belief that if they were truly threatened NATO would go to war for them. As it is, I can't see the USA and Europe risking the end of the World if Russia annexed Latvia.

You cannot be in favour of NATO membership and be against nuclear weapons. It's a ridiculous position. I'm not even sure what the coherent argument for NATO membership still is in this day and age.

It's not really. The alliance, even in it's original cold war configuration was also the basis for deterring conventional (or even unconventional, irregular) force incursions by Warsaw pact forces, not just the final nuclear sanction. In the (admittedly unlikely) event that a conflict between NATO and the Warsaw pact occured that did not go nuclear, then it's perfectly plausible for an anti nuclear country to wish to be in that alliance for it's own protection. Bare in mind that the vast nuclear arsenals held by both the US and Russia effectively renders other countries positions on nuclear weapons moot, pro or anti, in or out of the various alliances, a full scale nuclear exchange ends all life anyway.

edited to add: The rationale for continued NATO membership can be found in the alertness, training and competency levels of your own forces through constant structured excersizes with other national forces, as well as the sharing of various assets, such as radar coverage, signal intelligence, Comms links and the covering of various flanks by allied forces. Memberhsip probably also makes it much easier four defence companies to compete for NATO nation supply contracts....

[AUFC90]

We would still have membership of an organisation that has nuclear weapons.

Are we anti nuclear weapons or is it ok as long as they're not kept on our doorstep?

Having them on my doorstep and the cost are the 2 main reasons I want rid of it.

[Mr Rational]

Would you still object to them if they were based in Wales?

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

It's not really. The alliance, even in it's original cold war configuration was also the basis for deterring conventional (or even unconventional, irregular) force incursions by Warsaw pact forces, not just the final nuclear sanction. In the (admittedly unlikely) event that a conflict between NATO and the Warsaw pact occured that did not go nuclear, then it's perfectly plausible for an anti nuclear country to wish to be in that alliance for it's own protection. Bare in mind that the vast nuclear arsenals held by both the US and Russia effectively renders other countries positions on nuclear weapons moot, pro or anti, in or out of the various alliances, a full scale nuclear exchange ends all life anyway.

I can accept that from a Cold War standpoint countries might have seen membership as a necessity.

From a Scottish point of view, in the 21st century I just can't see an argument for NATO membership, particularly as two bones of contention for independence supporters are the UK's nuclear deterrent and our military adventurism. Why would you want to join an organisation that asks you to commit to defence spending that might not suit your needs, pressure you into contributing to foreign interventions, and may want to harbour nuclear weapons in your territory (whether your government publicly objects o them or not)?

[kevthedee]

Plenty do, especially when you have the late night convos driving through the city to Faslane.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

edited to add: The rationale for continued NATO membership can be found in the alertness, training and competency levels of your own forces through constant structured excersizes with other national forces, as well as the sharing of various assets, such as radar coverage, signal intelligence, Comms links and the covering of various flanks by allied forces. Memberhsip probably also makes it much easier four defence companies to compete for NATO nation supply contracts....

That's all fair enough, and things I hadn't really considered. Would many of those not be possible through a looser alliance?

It just seems that NATO has decided to take on an entirely different role post-Cold War, and I'm not sure how much this role fit in with those of a small nation like Scotland.