Loondave1 Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 This is a fair point. In the unlikely event that Russia did decide to invade Scotland, 100% of our annual budget poured into defence would be like attacking an Apache attack helicopter with a rolled up newspaper.If Japan had just one fully deployable nuclear weapon would the USA have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki ??My guess is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 If Japan had just one fully deployable nuclear weapon would the USA have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?? My guess is no. And your point ? It hasn't happened since. Why has China never threatened Japan with nukes even though they hate each other ? Is Japan always in a state of panic about getting obliterated by its neighbour ? No one fires nukes because as soon as one does they all do and the politicians cushy existence goes with it. Russia and the US have enough to kill everyone ten times over. The rest are just playing at it and are totally irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 If Japan had just one fully deployable nuclear weapon would the USA have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?? My guess is no. If Japan had a fully deployable nuke then the US could not have dropped the nukes as it would have meant The Empire of Japan would have had control of the Pacific. Now, if you asked if Japan had a nuclear bomb at their disposal would if the position of the powers been as they were (Japan surrounded on all sides) would the US still have dropped the bomb, then the answer is yes as Japan had no way to retaliate. Did the US need to, well that's a whole different discussion. Nukes do not, and will not keep nations safe from wars, never have, never will. They are, on the budget of the UK a waste of resources that if the UK was guaranteed not to have their position as a full time UNSC member questioned if we removed them would see us remove them as soon as it was physically possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Building a nuclear weapon is the easy part. Designing an intercontinental missiles to deploy it. That's the hard part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 just give every c**t a gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Auld man always says best defence we ever had was miller and McLeish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 If Japan had a fully deployable nuke then the US could not have dropped the nukes as it would have meant The Empire of Japan would have had control of the Pacific. Now, if you asked if Japan had a nuclear bomb at their disposal would if the position of the powers been as they were (Japan surrounded on all sides) would the US still have dropped the bomb, then the answer is yes as Japan had no way to retaliate. Did the US need to, well that's a whole different discussion. Nukes do not, and will not keep nations safe from wars, never have, never will. They are, on the budget of the UK a waste of resources that if the UK was guaranteed not to have their position as a full time UNSC member questioned if we removed them would see us remove them as soon as it was physically possible. With regards to a permanent seat at the UN. How do you remove a permanent member if they can just veto it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I don't think you can, but it could put the UK in a difficult position. They're already laughed at by Russia and China and while France are meh to them. Only the US continues to allow the small voice of the UK because the US know it's always best to have a bitch who'll nod like a good dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 just give every c**t a gun Is that not basically what the Swiss do and they've been "neutral" for 200 years come 20 November this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Who actually gives a f**k how many service personnel are stationed in Scotland? Asides the risible excuse for communities that leech off military bases to justify keeping their corner shops open, that is. The criterion for resource allocation in defence should be motivated by what bases best and least expensively fulfil the requirements for the range of functions the armed forces are required to fulfil. Since this isn't 1939 or the age of the Vikings the risk of a land invasion on British soil is negligible. The notion that Scotland is in any meaningful sense less defended because of its troop numbers falling has no basis in reality. This is a niche issue that only Angus Robertson *actually* cares about because he has voters in Lossiemouth and Kinloss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 With regards to a permanent seat at the UN. How do you remove a permanent member if they can just veto it ? It's (sort of) happened before. See the decision to cease to recognise the Republic of China. The UNSC is all realpolitik and very little truly legal structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 For Scotland defence spending should be zero percent. We face absolutely no tangible threat whatsoever. Conducing fewer illegal invasions will likely mean people will be less annoyed at us too. If, in the future, Russia or someone decides to invade Scotland - fine. In that case it wouldn't matter if the budget was 0% or 100% the outcome would be the same. Our defence spending isn't about defending ourselves against invasion. It's about taking our share of the responsibility for global security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 By way of this post i am offering a square go to all service personnel in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Who actually gives a f**k how many service personnel are stationed in Scotland? Asides the risible excuse for communities that leech off military bases to justify keeping their corner shops open, that is. The criterion for resource allocation in defence should be motivated by what bases best and least expensively fulfil the requirements for the range of functions the armed forces are required to fulfil. Since this isn't 1939 or the age of the Vikings the risk of a land invasion on British soil is negligible. The notion that Scotland is in any meaningful sense less defended because of its troop numbers falling has no basis in reality. This is a niche issue that only Angus Robertson *actually* cares about because he has voters in Lossiemouth and Kinloss. According to Ruth Davidson, Putin is on the way. Best to keep some bases up here open, to put Putin off and keep local corner shops going. Must be cheaper to have bases here than in some expensive areas in the South of England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Personally, I'd just buy everyone an AK47 and some ammo. Maybe give the local councils a few RPGs. This seemed to work for the Taliban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Our defence spending isn't about defending ourselves against invasion. It's about taking our share of the responsibility for global security. Well that would depend on your country's strategic imperative, wouldn't it? The wasting away of defence infrastructure in Scotland points to a state that has forgotten about its basic geographical challenges, or that as climate change takes hold, the Arctic is likely to become a major strategic theatre. The lack of MPA aircraft in the face of a resurgent Russia is criminal. The loss of Leuchars simply makes it harder for RAF fighters to cover the GIUK gap. Because Britain has no real foreign policy it's been bounced into building it's armed forces into a particular configuration, based around a few big air hubs in the south of England and too few major naval units to cover it's own back yard. The strategic defence reviews are almost always based on what money there is going to be available, a necessary limit, but never seems to include any kind of joined up thinking as to what the real threats and challenges it's likely to face are. It's a farce, every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Who actually gives a f**k how many service personnel are stationed in Scotland? Asides the risible excuse for communities that leech off military bases to justify keeping their corner shops open, that is. The criterion for resource allocation in defence should be motivated by what bases best and least expensively fulfil the requirements for the range of functions the armed forces are required to fulfil. Since this isn't 1939 or the age of the Vikings the risk of a land invasion on British soil is negligible. The notion that Scotland is in any meaningful sense less defended because of its troop numbers falling has no basis in reality. This is a niche issue that only Angus Robertson *actually* cares about because he has voters in Lossiemouth and Kinloss. What a mess you have turned into. I presume that you have some evidence to support that the current make up of the defence resource allocation is the most cost effective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Our defence spending isn't about defending ourselves against invasion. It's about taking our share of the responsibility for global security. What exactly do you/they mean by "global security"? If you mean NATO contributions, then that would be more honest than trying to hide behind some vague term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Personally, I'd just buy everyone an AK47 and some ammo. Maybe give the local councils a few RPGs. This seemed to work for the Taliban. Bit like Switzerland. Except I'm not sure if it would work here after an OF derby should they happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Who actually gives a f**k how many service personnel are stationed in Scotland? Asides the risible excuse for communities that leech off military bases to justify keeping their corner shops open, that is. The criterion for resource allocation in defence should be motivated by what bases best and least expensively fulfil the requirements for the range of functions the armed forces are required to fulfil. Since this isn't 1939 or the age of the Vikings the risk of a land invasion on British soil is negligible. The notion that Scotland is in any meaningful sense less defended because of its troop numbers falling has no basis in reality. This is a niche issue that only Angus Robertson *actually* cares about because he has voters in Lossiemouth and Kinloss. Given that the likely conflict zones are so far away that location does not confer strategic advantage it seems fair that military expenditure is spent fairly evenly around the UK, given the secondary economic benefits to local communities. Although shifting the Faslane resources down south would remove a massive X from Scotland's map and perhaps be a price worth paying in terms of jobs and trade etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.