Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
skip

trident renewal

its good that the lib dems have changed from the wait 'n' see approach.
i take issue with the statement that he's the "most senior politician" to oppose!!  

still pleased to see that both in scotland and at westminster there is growing opposition to trident 2.  but of a worry that he may still back some alternatvie deterrent? hmmm

From the beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8104238.stm

Quote:
Clegg says no to Trident renewal  

Nick Clegg has called for the Trident nuclear deterrent to be scrapped, saying it is too expensive and no longer meets the UK's defence needs.

The Lib Dem leader is the most senior politician to say Trident should not be renewed when it expires in 2024.

The UK still needed a deterrent, he told the BBC, but a "like for like" replacement was out of the question.
mac

Agreed, don't renew and get them out of Scotland - if any govt insists on keeping them in Scotland, charge them a rental. Cool
tubalcain

Trident Renewal

Our friend from the US advises us to get rid of nuclear weapons.
If we follow his advise,what will happen if a rouge state launches an attack on the UK/Scotland? How will we defend ourselves?
Alasdair

Re: Trident Renewal

tubalcain wrote:
Our friend from the US advises us to get rid of nuclear weapons.
If we follow his advise,what will happen if a rouge state launches an attack on the UK/Scotland? How will we defend ourselves?


Nuclear weapons aren't about 'defence' they're about revenge and escalation.
landg

Re: Trident Renewal

Alasdair wrote:
tubalcain wrote:
Our friend from the US advises us to get rid of nuclear weapons.
If we follow his advise,what will happen if a rouge state launches an attack on the UK/Scotland? How will we defend ourselves?


Nuclear weapons aren't about 'defence' they're about revenge and escalation.


no, they are about defence and they are a deterrent.
voiceofourown

A 'ROUGE' state? Like Pantomimia or Dragistan perhaps?
tubalcain

Trident

For rogue states read the papers.
Corby Boy

Is China a 'Rouge' state due to its ponchance for red?
Dave Coull

voiceofourown wrote:
A 'ROUGE' state? Like Pantomimia or Dragistan perhaps?
Laughing
tubalcain

Trident replacement

Rather trying to define a rogue state why don't you respond to the question asked which I will repeat

"if the Trident system is scraped how will the UK/Scotland defend itself from an attack by a rogue state"
landg

Re: Trident replacement

tubalcain wrote:
Rather trying to define a rogue state why don't you respond to the question asked which I will repeat

"if the Trident system is scraped how will the UK/Scotland defend itself from an attack by a rogue state"


well, answer the man. i'd like to know as well.
Holebender

How would you expect the 200-odd non-nuclear armed states on the planet to defend themselves if attacked? What would poor old Switzerland do?
mac

I'm against nuclear weapons in Scotland.

Agreed, HB, let's get rid of Trident and use the money to create jobs and look after our citizens, instead of becoming a chicken little country, always thinking  "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" nonsense. This money would easily fund the Pentland Firth project.

Again, if they must be parked in Scotland, let the country demand a reasonable rent for the use of it's property - if some don't like it, then move them somewhere that welcomes them. Cool
Aventinian

Re: I'm against nuclear weapons in Scotland.

mac wrote:
Again, if they must be parked in Scotland, let the country demand a reasonable rent for the use of it's property - if some don't like it, then move them somewhere that welcomes them. Cool


What the hell has 'Scotland' got to do with any of this? The land that HMNB Clyde is on is owned by the Crown - it doesn't need to be rented. If there were any issues of planning, then that should be the responsibility of Dunbartonshire and local people, not some Nats in Edinburgh who seem to assume that everything that goes on in Scotland is done by their Grace.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
How would you expect the 200-odd non-nuclear armed states on the planet to defend themselves if attacked? What would poor old Switzerland do?


Nuclear states are not just responsible for themselves, but part of an integrated defensive system. Defence is about more than defending your own territory, as two world wars - and a Cold War for that matter - have rather ably demonstrated.
Holebender

Ah... so we would use our missiles to defend, say, Sierra Leon?
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Ah... so we would use our missiles to defend, say, Sierra Leon?


No, and indeed I don't believe we would use them at all, but they can be used to deter attacks on our European and NATO allies.
Holebender

How would they deter an attacker who believes, as you do, that the UK would never use its missiles?
landg

Holebender wrote:
How would they deter an attacker who believes, as you do, that the UK would never use its missiles?


i don't believe my mate would phone the cops if i stole his porn stash but i'm not taking the chance.
Rinty

I have tiger-repellent sprayed in my garden as a deterrent to tigers.  It only lasts for a year and I need to renew it.  There have been no tigers in my garden so it must work Smile
Alasdair

Rinty wrote:
I have tiger-repellent sprayed in my garden as a deterrent to tigers.  It only lasts for a year and I need to renew it.  There have been no tigers in my garden so it must work Smile


Ah!  but are there any tigers capable of wandering into your garden from their usual territory in order to say, consume your pet rabbit (whome we shall name bright eyes)?

If however, you live within the territorial range of a siberian tiger you may find that having your garden sprayed with tiger repellent may be the most sensible course of action, bright eyes might appreciatte it under these circumstances ...

... I'm just saying, those tigers can be pesky beasts.
Rinty

look, my neighbours claim that they dont get tigers in their garden and dont use the spray, but I'm sure that it is my tiger repellent that also protects them by insinuating the possibility of a friend sharing his tiger-repellent.
Alasdair

but your freinds don't necessarily have tigers with a territorial range that includes their garden either!  I suggest you get some tigers of your own and train them to defend your own property (and that of your neighbours as well if you like) just in case.

Don't let your other neighbours get any though, I hear they are a direputable lot and may well use them to devour your nice neighbours on the other side as well as poor Bright Eyes.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
How would they deter an attacker who believes, as you do, that the UK would never use its missiles?


Because an attacker would always have an element of double. I have said rather forthrightly that I don't believe the UK would use its nuclear arsenal - at least not in wars similar to the ones of the past - but if I was faced with my destruction and death, I might be a little less certain of that judgement.

Rinty wrote:
I have tiger-repellent sprayed in my garden as a deterrent to tigers.  It only lasts for a year and I need to renew it.  There have been no tigers in my garden so it must work Smile


I assure you, Europe had a hell of a lot of tigers in its backyard prior to 1952.
Holebender

Aventinian wrote:
Holebender wrote:
How would they deter an attacker who believes, as you do, that the UK would never use its missiles?


Because an attacker would always have an element of double.

If we ply our enemies with enough doubles we will never need to nuke them. Good thinking!
landg

my pro-trident standpoint has always been strengthened by how israel is a free, peace loving and democratic nation despite the many,many threats it has made against it.
other than hamas throwing donkeys and extra-large fireworks at them they remain safe and secure.
any mad dictator or rogue nation will always think twice about attacking a nation with nuclear capabilities.
norway must be ripe for attack, they can only defend themselves with turbines and good quality thermal jackets.
Rinty

Israel are not part of the international Nuclear community as they refuse to comply with UN inspectors or any international agreements.  

This position leads to the western govts casting threats and possibly even military attacks so Israels "safety" is more to do with being treated as a special case by the other nuclear powers than people being afraid to invade because of nukes.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
If we ply our enemies with enough doubles we will never need to nuke them. Good thinking!


My apologies, my mind must have been wandering to rather finer matters - it was intended to read 'doubt'.
Aventinian

Rinty wrote:
Israel are not part of the international Nuclear community as they refuse to comply with UN inspectors or any international agreements.  


Interestingly, the only states on earth which did not sign up to those agreements with Israel, India and Pakistan. The latter two didn't get much bother when they went nuclear, why should Israel?
Rinty

On the contrary,  Both India and Pakistan faced sanctions from IAEA and Un until we did a deal with the friendly dictator Musharaf in recent years.  Pakistan were banned from receiving any economic and military assistance from USA from 1979.  Both India and Pakistan faced sanctions after tests in 98.  

By citing Israel as a good example of protection by having nukes landg is advocating nuclear rogue states as the way forward.

Israel's illegal nukes are a different issue from whether or not the UK renew their trident programme.
landg

Rinty wrote:
On the contrary,  Both India and Pakistan faced sanctions from IAEA and Un until we did a deal with the friendly dictator Musharaf in recent years.  Pakistan were banned from receiving any economic and military assistance from USA from 1979.  Both India and Pakistan faced sanctions after tests in 98.  

By citing Israel as a good example of protection by having nukes landg is advocating nuclear rogue states as the way forward.

Israel's illegal nukes are a different issue from whether or not the UK renew their trident programme.


israel is a nuclear rogue state?#
i beg to differ.
Alasdair

landg wrote:
Rinty wrote:
On the contrary,  Both India and Pakistan faced sanctions from IAEA and Un until we did a deal with the friendly dictator Musharaf in recent years.  Pakistan were banned from receiving any economic and military assistance from USA from 1979.  Both India and Pakistan faced sanctions after tests in 98.  

By citing Israel as a good example of protection by having nukes landg is advocating nuclear rogue states as the way forward.

Israel's illegal nukes are a different issue from whether or not the UK renew their trident programme.


israel is a nuclear rogue state?#
i beg to differ.


Can you elaborate on that landg?
landg

north korea is a rogue state. israel does not conduct itself in such a way. israel is not a rogue state nor a nuclear rogue state.
mac

A parcel of rogue nation states

That is what we're talking about - sounds familiar, for some reason.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics