FlyerTon Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 The Tories could move the work to England when a big news story is on. Edit to add: I hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarusQPFC Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 On 4/22/2016 at 16:52, Fide said: Yup. GMB backed the No camp on the back of assurances jobs wouldn't be lost. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of Labour and Tory types grinning away on Clydeside in the run up to indyref, assuring us that a No vote was the only way to safeguard jobs... Best friend works in those shipyards, the fear of losing their jobs was drilled into them if they didn't vote no. Just yet another broken promise from Westminster, not the first, certainly not the last. Anyone who is still a no vote after all of this is a fucking moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob the tank Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Its ok chaps they just havent finished "the designs" yet Yes they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Best friend works in those shipyards, the fear of losing their jobs was drilled into them if they didn't vote no. Just yet another broken promise from Westminster, not the first, certainly not the last. Anyone who is still a no vote after all of this is a fucking moron If they did vote no on the pretence their job was safe, then I've no sympathy whatsoever towards them for believing it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarusQPFC Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 18 minutes ago, MONKMAN said: If they did vote no on the pretence their job was safe, then I've no sympathy whatsoever towards them for believing it in the first place. I disagreed with his vote, but I respected that he felt at the time it was in his own best interests. I haven't spoken to him about this development, but I'm interested in his thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob the tank Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Headline today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 I know somebody who voted NO because he was afraid to lost his job in Argos...... yep, ****ing Argos! A job he left weeks later anyway because he didn't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarusQPFC Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Defense is important, I'd much rather see more ships on the docks being built than WMD's. Last time a Russian Patrol was close to Scottish Waters they had to dispatch a ship from the south of England to meet it. Those nukes did f**k all in that situation. No point in keeping a weapon you can never use at the expense of the people who it is meant to protect. "It's okay we won't get nuked by the Russians, let's head down the food bank and get some dinner for the kids" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted July 21, 2016 Author Share Posted July 21, 2016 Any attempts at Project Fear in Indyref 2 should be a giggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Any attempts at Project Fear in Indyref 2 should be a giggle. I'd say anyone thick enough to believe it the first time round, will be inclined to listen to any nonsense they have to say again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 7 hours ago, Fide said: Any attempts at Project Fear in Indyref 2 should be a giggle. They were a giggle the first time around. Still enough to fool the clowns though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Hope the new ones have better steering and radar, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36852365 UK nuclear submarine collides with merchant vessel off Gibraltar 3 hours ago From the sectionUK 508comments Share Image copyrightAFP/DM PARODY Image captionDamage to HMS Ambush's conning tower could be seen as it arrived in Gibraltar on Tuesday evening One of the UK's newest nuclear-powered submarines has docked in Gibraltar after a collision with a merchant vessel during a training exercise. The Royal Navy said it has launched an immediate investigation after HMS Ambush was involved in the "glancing collision" while submerged off the coast of the British territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erskjne Bridge Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Yes they have. The flagship of the Scottish Navy. The Vital Spark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted July 21, 2016 Author Share Posted July 21, 2016 8 minutes ago, Erskjne Bridge said: The flagship of the Scottish Navy. The Vital Spark? ^^^ Scottish cringe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisal Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Even if you do agree we need a nuclear deterrent, why do we need to spent so much on it. We're told it's a deterrent so it will never be used, or if it is we're all fucked anyway.You could put anything in those subs and send them out to sea for 5 years and no one would be any the wiser. Spend the money on welfare. Get the local taxi firms accountant to do the governments books and before you know it, it looks like the Uk is running a national surplus and are still spending on a nuclear deterrent. If the Russians say "I don't think you have the ability to retaliate that you say you have." we just say "well fucking come ahead and find out" Because basically that's all we're doing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Sometimes I wonder if any of these nuclear weapons actually work. Or if there is a huge government money laundering scandal going on. You just never really know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 43 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said: Why if they are so adamant that we need nukes dont they get air to surface bombs that can be fitted onto conventional aircraft, keep them in a bunker that is nuke proof for a far smaller cost that the subs? It's the never ending search for the inviolable retaliatory deterrent. Aircraft, airbases, ships and bunkers can all be intercepted or destroyed in or following a first strike. The point of the Continuous At Sea Deterrent is you can't find the things and the likelihood of taking them out first is low, so you can massacre as many of us as you like but we'll bitchslap you shortly thereafter. This has been the strategic thinking for about 45 years now and if defies credibility that the invulnerability of ballistic missile submarines is still the case. A distributed network of capabilities, as you get from being part of an alliance like NATO with various different methods of delivery would seem the most sensible thing to do. Let the US have a CASD with France and the UK can fulfill its treaty obligations in a natty line of nuclear armed pigeons or better, tactical nuclear tipped cruise weapons launched from the astute class. Wouldn't have as long a range or provide as big a yield but only a few mad scientist and megalomaniacs have ever said "that nuclear explosion wasn't big enough." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 It does seem kind of obvious unless it has hee-haw to do with deterrence and far more to do with pride/vested financial interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 44 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said: It's the never ending search for the inviolable retaliatory deterrent. Aircraft, airbases, ships and bunkers can all be intercepted or destroyed in or following a first strike. The point of the Continuous At Sea Deterrent is you can't find the things and the likelihood of taking them out first is low, so you can massacre as many of us as you like but we'll bitchslap you shortly thereafter. This has been the strategic thinking for about 45 years now and if defies credibility that the invulnerability of ballistic missile submarines is still the case. A distributed network of capabilities, as you get from being part of an alliance like NATO with various different methods of delivery would seem the most sensible thing to do. Let the US have a CASD with France and the UK can fulfill its treaty obligations in a natty line of nuclear armed pigeons or better, tactical nuclear tipped cruise weapons launched from the astute class. Wouldn't have as long a range or provide as big a yield but only a few mad scientist and megalomaniacs have ever said "that nuclear explosion wasn't big enough." In fairness, you can't use cruise missiles as a strategic deterrent. It's not the size of the bang but the guarentee of reaching the target that's the issue. trying to stop a MIRV'ed SLBM is orders of magnitude harder than stopping a subsonic cruise missile.It's not an effective deterrent if the other side thinks it has a reasonable chance of stopping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, renton said: In fairness, you can't use cruise missiles as a strategic deterrent. It's not the size of the bang but the guarentee of reaching the target that's the issue. trying to stop a MIRV'ed SLBM is orders of magnitude harder than stopping a subsonic cruise missile.It's not an effective deterrent if the other side thinks it has a reasonable chance of stopping it. I don't disagree with you but the point is a distributed capability. You'd only ever had 1 Vanguard or Successor at sea fulfilling the role, if someone finds it and trails it then removes it, you have no ability to retaliate. It's a shoogly peg or at least as shoogly as a multi-platform cruise option IMO. And one of those shoogly pegs is so expensive it can only be expressed through the medium of dance or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.