Build new Trident now - Theresa May

[Antlion]

32 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

This is about two things, one real and one perceived:

The industrial military complex is a major and very real player in Westminster politics. There will have been severe lobbying in favour of this and I'd like to see the links between ministers and the corporations who will benefit.

The other is the perceived notion of Britain as a major player on the world stage. That's the really embarrassing bit but lots of folk lap it up.
 

This is my suspicion. And I'd like/expect those who object to this farrago actually raise it as an issue. Why aren't Corbyn and the SNP trying to lay bare the potential vested interests of politicians who wax lyrical about a "deterrent" without a shred of evidence that anything is being deterred by it. The moral objections and objections based on cost and location are valid, but they are "softly softly" stuff. Parliament is meant to be a place of privileged speech. I'd like to see some of the pro-nuclear lobbyists exposed (hold the Kenny Williams pic - I mean for their links to arms lobbyists).

[pandarilla]

This is my suspicion. And I'd like/expect those who object to this farrago actually raise it as an issue. Why aren't Corbyn and the SNP trying to lay bare the potential vested interests of politicians who wax lyrical about a "deterrent" without a shred of evidence that anything is being deterred by it. The moral objections and objections based on cost and location are valid, but they are "softly softly" stuff. Parliament is meant to be a place of privileged speech. I'd like to see some of the pro-nuclear lobbyists exposed (hold the Kenny Williams pic - I mean for their links to arms lobbyists).

They're not daft so there will be no paper trail at the moment.

The pay off will come later.

[cyderspaceman]

These Islamic terrorists aren't deterred by anything as they believe everything in the afterlife will be hunky dory.  It's a big leap but if an Islamic state had nookyleer weapons and wanted to use them, how could they be deterred?

And I've read several times that the UK can't launch one of these things unless  Uncle Sam gives the OK.   I don't know if that's true or how to find out.

[williemillersmoustache]

53 minutes ago, Antlion said:

This is my suspicion. And I'd like/expect those who object to this farrago actually raise it as an issue. Why aren't Corbyn and the SNP trying to lay bare the potential vested interests of politicians who wax lyrical about a "deterrent" without a shred of evidence that anything is being deterred by it. The moral objections and objections based on cost and location are valid, but they are "softly softly" stuff. Parliament is meant to be a place of privileged speech. I'd like to see some of the pro-nuclear lobbyists exposed (hold the Kenny Williams pic - I mean for their links to arms lobbyists).

Any mention of the military industrial complex and the government benches would start making tin foil hats and laugh you out of town. I'm inclined to agree but we have to stick to factual arguments. Like one of the main arguments yesterday is we don't know what threats we might face in the future. This is nonsensical, Trident is designed to counter or deter a specific type of threat, not one as yet to enter our imagination.  

I have to say the best argument (except the cost) would be the redefinition of Britain on the world stage, if we scrapped a CASD/Trident. I would be much more inclined to stay in the Union if the British government acknowledged that the days of empire were done and we can still have a positive and influential status without the need to blow our cash on the ultimate penis enlargement. If anything this grasping need to assert ourselves as more powerful and influential is totally self-defeating, it makes us look weak, arrogant and reckless.

[Wee Willie]

2 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Any mention of the military industrial complex and the government benches would start making tin foil hats and laugh you out of town. I'm inclined to agree but we have to stick to factual arguments. Like one of the main arguments yesterday is we don't know what threats we might face in the future. This is nonsensical, Trident is designed to counter or deter a specific type of threat, not one as yet to enter our imagination.  

I have to say the best argument (except the cost) would be the redefinition of Britain on the world stage, if we scrapped a CASD/Trident. I would be much more inclined to stay in the Union if the British government acknowledged that the days of empire were done and we can still have a positive and influential status without the need to blow our cash on the ultimate penis enlargement. If anything this grasping need to assert ourselves as more powerful and influential is totally self-defeating, it makes us look weak, arrogant and reckless.

C'mon Willie, if that were the case then Scotland would still be the coo's erse - a wee country going where a bigger country tells us tae go.

 

[Wee Willie]

2 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

I've just given Rob a greenie for probably the first time, as he has this one dead right. 

I'm not sure you're correct, though, Willie. There's plenty of opposition to these WMD down here, as well. Especially as whether they're in Scotland, Ulster or Cornwall they render the whole country at risk. This isn't about Faslane (although the SG and others will make it so) - it's about getting totally rid of an immoral, expensive and unnecessary method of killing. 

Unfortunately, Trident is one of the few things which allow a lot of (mainly English, imo) our fellow citizens to believe they live in a country which is relevant in the 21st century. While the rest of the globe gets smaller and nations become more interdependent, while our young people think nothing of upping sticks and relocating thousands of miles away, there are simply too many people who look back wistfully (through a selective lens) at a time when the sun never set on the empire - and too many who listen to them. 

I've nae doubt there is plenty of opposition to WMD in England but there were 472 English votes for and 117 votes against.
Take away the Scottish MPs against votes (58?) and your left with only 60 English votes.
While the Tory and Labour parties are still warmongering c**ts that like tae bang the big drum and rattle their sabres there is no chance that anything will change.

2 hours ago, RedRob72 said:

Sorry Willie, it's still not an overriding argument for independence for me, moving Faslane down to Plymouth just ain't gonna happen though, but I'll concede it is another example of WM going against the majority of Scottish voters. I can't defend that.

Fair do's Rob but remember that in the few seconds you've got to live when there's a nuclear explosion in Glasgow.

[williemillersmoustache]

1 minute ago, Wee Willie said:

C'mon Willie, if that were the case then Scotland would still be the coo's erse - a wee country going where a bigger country tells us tae go.

 

The argument for me has never been can Scotland go it alone, demonstrably it can. It has always been what does the union represent, what does it stand for, what are its values and what is our place in it.  If I thought that we could create a genuine federal liberal democracy here, I'd be delighted to be a part of that union. But that's not fucking happening, nor will it ever be allowed to happen.

I would also say that if anything the Brexit vote has made what the post indy UK set up would look like all the harder to define. After the epic, GIRFUY-athon I would engage in post-Yes (2 weeks or so should do it) I'd want as strong as possible ties with rUK, The EU would have been the ideal platform for that relationship.

In short, I wouldn't mind being the cows arse if it's head wasn't such a complete c**t.

[Mark Connolly]

5 hours ago, Antlion said:

Unless you can prove it has definitely deterred attacks, then never. Something isn't a deterrent just because you call it that. It has to actually have deterred things that would otherwise have happened.

 

[Wee Willie]

16 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

The argument for me has never been can Scotland go it alone, demonstrably it can. It has always been what does the union represent, what does it stand for, what are its values and what is our place in it.  If I thought that we could create a genuine federal liberal democracy here, I'd be delighted to be a part of that union. But that's not fucking happening, nor will it ever be allowed to happen.

I would also say that if anything the Brexit vote has made what the post indy UK set up would look like all the harder to define. After the epic, GIRFUY-athon I would engage in post-Yes (2 weeks or so should do it) I'd want as strong as possible ties with rUK, The EU would have been the ideal platform for that relationship.

In short, I wouldn't mind being the cows arse if it's head wasn't such a complete c**t.

I toyed with that idea 50 years ago but I soon came to the conclusion that no matter the federalism or the liberalism or the democracy it would still be a wee bit like it is now.
We are allowed tae govern ourselves (within limits) but the big, international decisions would be taken by England by virtue of its size in comparison to Scotland, Wales & N.Iron.
In other words we would still be subject to another country's wishes whether we liked it or no.
Independence was and still is the only answer.

[welshbairn]

And I've read several times that the UK can't launch one of these things unless  Uncle Sam gives the OK.   I don't know if that's true or how to find out.

I thought that each sub had a Yank officer with his own key, and dual keys were needed to launch a nuke, but apparently that's bollocks. Someone on here with direct knowledge said there's no mechanism whereby the US could prevent a launch, though they'd probably have a fair idea where our sub was so might be able to blow it out of the water.

[williemillersmoustache]

27 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I thought that each sub had a Yank officer with his own key, and dual keys were needed to launch a nuke, but apparently that's bollocks. Someone on here with direct knowledge said there's no mechanism whereby the US could prevent a launch, though they'd probably have a fair idea where our sub was so might be able to blow it out of the water.

We need their satellite network to tell it where to go.  We could launch but not send it anywhere in particular.

[GordonD]

2 hours ago, Wee Willie said:

Fair do's Rob but remember that in the few seconds you've got to live when there's a nuclear explosion in Glasgow.

Would anybody else notice?

[Ira Gaines]

6 hours ago, Wee Willie said:

 

Fair do's Rob but remember that in the few seconds you've got to live if there's a nuclear explosion in Glasgow.

FTFY

[THE KING]

19 hours ago, Mark Connolly said:

Did anyone see James Cartlidge's speech during the debate? A bizarre rant about the holocaust essentially being the reason why we need nuclear weapons.

Unsurprisingly, he is a Tory.

Aye, that deterrent worked a treat in Cambodia and the Rwanda genocides.

I'm against nukes , but if we democratically opt for them then we must have a leader who will use them, and I thought May missed a trick when she replied yes to killing squillions of innocent civilians.

Her comeback should have been directed at Corbyn and flipped it asking , in the event of an attack, would YOU press the button or let squillions of innocent BRITTISH civilians die?

[FlyerTon]

Some interesting reading here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

 

[Fide]

"Think of all the job losses if we shut down the Death Star"

[welshbairn]

10 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:

If someone is on here and they're direct knowledge of how it works and they're posting it on the Internet then they are either extremely stupid or a liar. People employed in that area have to have various levels of enhanced security clearance far beyond the type of enhanced disclosure and background intelligence checks that even police officers get upon entering the police service.
If anyone employed in that industry was discussing publicly the logistics of their industry they would be instantly sacked.

 

10 hours ago, kilbowie2002 said:

 

For once i agree with CK, there is no way anyone with that level of clearance on that subject matter would ever post about it on here, theyd be for the jail if they did. Complete breach of the OSA.
However it doesnt take a nuclear weapons specialist to suggest that a US owned, maintained and constructed weapons system may be able to be intercepted given it uses US satellites, you cant blame them for doing it either. As far as i know the launch mechanism is a simple trigger, im not sure if it requires two officers to arm it etc but I think the ability to override it would come post launch. Its possible to destroy missles in flight, thats where my money is for US intervention!

 

Not everything about what goes on in a Nuclear Submarine is an official secret. 

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/handling-uks-nuclear-weapons-honour-burden/

 

[Wee Willie]

16 hours ago, Wee Willie said:

IFair do's Rob but remember that in the few seconds you've got to live when there's a nuclear explosion in Glasgow.

 

9 hours ago, Randy Giles said:

Fair do's Rob but remember that in the few seconds you've got to live if there's a nuclear explosion in Glasgow.

FTFY

Some say potato, some say potahto...

[doulikefish]

12 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:

According to recent polls 43% of Scots support keeping the nuclear deterrent. 100% of SNP MPs oppose it. SNP views do not represent Scotland's people.

Who does?

[mjw]

According to recent polls 43% of Scots support keeping the nuclear deterrent. 100% of SNP MPs oppose it. SNP views do not represent Scotland's people.

Well they'll be fucked at the next election then,won't they?