Nuclear weapons in the UK and another referendum

If we get into nuclear war with Russia the whole world is doomed. It would be mutually assured destruction with no winners, just a smouldering planet left of losers

a reply to: grainofsand

This is purely about the Scottish referendum of the future e.g. bribery in short.

Queenie is desperate not to loose her scottish palaces and the huge donation the scots make to her annual spending gift from the tax payers of this country - whether we want her and her brood ensuring the next 4 generations of rich but still living off the state can continue their elite lifestyle.

Also I suspect you will find that the USA bases here hold considerably more nuclear weapons than are kept at any time on or off our subs wherever they currently are. I do object to being used as a shield to protect the USA - that is more than being a good ally its us who will be targeted and hit first were someone to decide to attempt to nuke the USA.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Hey Solo, slightly off topic, but not at the same time....as it's part of my argument for the UK staying together.

This is a photo I took on Monday from here in West Cumbria on the North West coast of England....that's your bonny country in the background, over the Solway Firth.




I love Scotland (especially my Scottish half)

ETA: The red line on this map is to give a rough indication where I was and the direction of the photo...to give an idea of distance.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Actually I don't regard Russia as the enemy of the UK but I do fear other countries with nuclear capacity as many of them either have powerful groups within them of fanatics and extremists or are run by that ilk of people, especially in the ME. Although we have the pleasant face of trading China, she also has another side and the old saying 'Let sleeping dogs lie' actually comes to mind there.

Although I would like to see nuclear weapons banned from the world - even if they were, the war mongers would only change to chemical or biological or maybe even some technology we know nothing about. If you really hate a country and want to damage it long-term then the vicious uranium tipped weapons are already here. - so what is the answer - who knows?

a reply to: woogleuk

Now I get it, you are simply terrified that if Scotland gains independence, where you live will be overrun by Scottish refugees seeking asylum in England and they will all be camping on your door step. Shame on your

a reply to: Shiloh7

Too late for that you can't move in Carlisle for them, they're everywhere....they come here, take our jobs, steal our women and leave little ginger hairs wherever they sit.......

They say there is an old law which states if you see 2 or more Scots roaming the streets after 6pm, you have to shoot them in the knee with a crossbow as it's classed as an invasion.....

They aint the UK's Weapons, They are US Weapons of mass destruction, we need permission from the USA, Co-ordinates etc to fire one...

Oh well, I'm sure by the time we get the permission slip, whoever decides to launch an attack on us will already have succeeded in melting Scotland before we even get a fish out of the water.

And as for those who believe us having them will stop Terrorist....yer Nuts!!!!.

A waste of money, a insult to our intelligence if you believe they keep us safe or give us leverage of some sort at the big boys table .

They are morally wrong and no money, no matter how much or who's getting what, cant ever make it morally right.

We hear figures bandied about of 6000 jobs, 12000 jobs, as someone said here 12.500, it's BS...Coulport and Faslane employs at it's peak less than a thousand people and that includes Babcock Marine and Lockheed Martin UK, these figure can drop to less than 500 even less when the MOD staff set sail or whatever the Submariner alternative is.

The people of Gairlochhead, businesses included, will tell you the loss of Faslane naval base will have very little impact on the area. In fact most believe it might even begin to attract tourist again.

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: Shiloh7

...

They say there is an old law which states if you see 2 or more Scots roaming the streets after 6pm, you have to shoot them in the knee with a crossbow as it's classed as an invasion.....

I thought it was the Buttocks, but only on a Sunday, or does that law only apply to Welshmen.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
They aint the UK's Weapons, They are US Weapons of mass destruction, we need permission from the USA, Co-ordinates etc to fire one...

Sorry, that's an urban myth.

an independent centre of nuclear decision-making enhances the overall deterrent effect of allied nuclear forces: separately controlled but mutually supporting nuclear forces create an enhanced overall deterrent effect; the UK deterrent is operationally independent, and the UK does not require US or NATO authorisation to use its deterrent - UK nuclear weapons remain under political control at all times; only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of UK nuclear weapons

Source

Most advanced Western nations can develop nukes. The science is well known and understood. The point with the deterrent is that no one will know what will happen in the future, so you many as well have the capability. After all, the cost of the nuclear deterrent is miniscule in the great scheme of things.

However, in an idea world nukes and weapons would not exist.

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: Soloprotocol

They are designed, built and maintained at Burghfield / Aldermaston in England....

The ones up with you lot have already passed the test, so I wouldn't worry too much about them.

If anything is going to go wrong, it's the residents of Burghfield that should be worried.

I'm not worried about one going off accidentally, i'm worried about one of the other nations launching accidentally or intentionally.

Us Having them paints a big target on our backs. WE ARE A FIRST STRIKE TARGET!!!!

How many Nuclear warheads has Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Brazil, Uruguay, Finland, Spain, Portugal got trained on them, not a lot, if any at all... I could go on naming countries who are not first strike targets and never will be second or third...

So far we have Russia, Pakistan China, India, probably all pointed at Scotland, Israel, who knows, The US, wouldn't trust them not to. The French, ye never know with the Frenchies, and as for NK, they would need to ship them here by parcel post.

What irks me the most is that we have them here in the first place. We invaded a country not so long ago on the premise that that said Country Iraq had WMD's. The hypocrisy is astounding.

IF Al Qaeda, IS or some other new rogue terrorists/bogeyman group decided to sneak a Nuke into the UK and detonate it, where would we strike back.

Say like 9/11 most of the Terrorist were from Saudi or like 7/7 from the UK, where would our deterrent be used....?

Anyone????

Nukes are Penis extension. Nothing more nothing less.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
They aint the UK's Weapons, They are US Weapons of mass destruction, we need permission from the USA, Co-ordinates etc to fire one...

Sorry, that's an urban myth.

an independent centre of nuclear decision-making enhances the overall deterrent effect of allied nuclear forces: separately controlled but mutually supporting nuclear forces create an enhanced overall deterrent effect; the UK deterrent is operationally independent, and the UK does not require US or NATO authorisation to use its deterrent - UK nuclear weapons remain under political control at all times; only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of UK nuclear weapons

Source

Nonsense, If Cameron decided to launch a Nuclear weapon by pushing the button all that would happen is Obama's phone would ring.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
or like 7/7 from the UK, where would our deterrent be used....?

Anyone????

On London? Would solve a lot of this countries problems.

I share your worries on first strike, Sellafield isn't too far from me and I can imagine that will be on the primaries, they hit that and it will cause global problems the likes of which Fukushima and Chernobyl could only have dreamed about.

I'd love to have them at our place plenty of jobs and investment problem is we couldn't get them up the Manchester ship canal and not a lot of room at Salford quays

a reply to: Soloprotocol

And yet my post was correct and yours was not. The UK deterrent is independent.

In an attempt to be less parochial. The question is not whether the nuclear submarines that carry the nukes should be housed in Scotland, it is whether they should be housed in the UK. In other words, should the UK have a deterrent?

It is an interesting but baseless premise (to have a referendum on the issue).

Quite simply, there are some things that Governments do not let the public vote on as the public can be rather stupid at times. Nuclear weapons being one of these issues. Unfortunately for Sturgeon and the SNP, possesing and retaining nuclear capability has massive cross party support and will sail through Parliament, regardless of whether all SNP MP's vote against it or not.

Nuclear weapons in of themselves are an abhorent weapon. However, the cat was out of the bag 70 odd years ago so the fact is they are out there.

Whilst i hear what you are saying about invading countries for possesing (allegedly) WMD's, i would rather we have them than didn't. None of the countries you listed have any real global power (Brazil, Spain, etc). In an ideal world that wouldn't matter - but we all know we live a very long way from an ideal world. In the real world, the UK would sink quickly without global power and reach. You may not care about that (or you may, no judgement either way) but i do not want my kids to grow in a country that is sinking fast. I want my kids to grow and live in a prosperous nation. Part of that propserity is down to being able to defend ourselves from any enemy - bite us and we bite back twice as hard. That may not quite be the reality but if the illusion holds sway, that does for me and for my family and friends.

If we ever use them I'd rather not be around for the aftermath, which for me personally makes them redundant. I'm yet to be convinced otherwise.

a reply to: Flavian
However having global power in the form of nuclear weapons does not make us a prosperous nation. Since ww2 and the end of empire successive governments have wasted billions trying to make us punch above our weight (why should we want to???) at the expense of investment in infrastructure, education and industry.

a reply to: paraphi
Yes and no. While use of nuclear weapons by the UK does not require US approval our delivery system is built and maintained by the US. In the absence of any alternative we are only a nuclear power in real terms as long as the US agrees we are.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
They aint the UK's Weapons, They are US Weapons of mass destruction, we need permission from the USA, Co-ordinates etc to fire one...

Sorry, that's an urban myth.

an independent centre of nuclear decision-making enhances the overall deterrent effect of allied nuclear forces: separately controlled but mutually supporting nuclear forces create an enhanced overall deterrent effect; the UK deterrent is operationally independent, and the UK does not require US or NATO authorisation to use its deterrent - UK nuclear weapons remain under political control at all times; only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of UK nuclear weapons

Source

Nonsense, If Cameron decided to launch a Nuclear weapon by pushing the button all that would happen is Obama's phone would ring.

Actually the problem with our tridents is the other way round. Theoretically the senior officers of a vanguard could launch the missiles with no government approval.
Better hope royal navy psychological screening is up to scratch....

Look at it from this point of view. Gang warfare..

On one side we have the Jets, aka the US with say 2700 warheads, on the other you have the Sharks aka the Russians with 2500 warheads, meanwhile we have the Turds The UK with 270 warheads.. in the grand scheme of things would the Turds be missed if the Jets and the Sharks squared up..?

We are what we are, A small fish in a very large pond filled with Gansters and Bullies.

Christ, South Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons yet the UK is more worried about North Korea (who's delivery system is suspect at least) than the South Koreans are.

Spare me.