| 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. |
| mairead |
TridentDid anyone see the early morning interview with Alex. Salmond. During it, Salmond said that there are plans at Westminster to spend £1000 million on upgrading Trident.£1000 million on weapons that we don't want, while people are losing homes and jobs, the NHS is under threat, education needs a boost and the country is in general decline. disgusting. That figure should be the headline in every newspaper in this country |
||||||||||
| Alasdair |
Yeah, I heard that. It's fairly mind-boggling to think that on the one hand health services should be cut, whilst upgrading your ability to carry out destruction on an incomprehensible scale. | ||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Re: Trident
"The country is in general decline" - dear Lord, I wasn't aware we had a Daily Mail journalist in our midst. That's a load of nonsense. We're in a recession, they happen from time to time, it's not a bloody disaster. But yes, the British public probably don't particularly support trident renewal. So what? It's the responsibility of the state, with the support of expert evidence and considered debate and consultation, to defend the realm; it is not the responsibility of some two-bit moron who happens to be phoned up by Yougov one afternoon and asked about his internet-based philosophy on how the world should be run. |
||||||||||
| Alasdair |
ouch! Bit harsh there Av.
Your argument may well have validity, but it's also valid to contend that the government is there to represent the wishes of the public, particularly where there is such strongly held feeling. |
||||||||||
| Aventinian |
But there isn't - at best, a little over half of the British public don't want nuclear weapons. Now, you can diddle the figures around and ask them if they want to spend [insert generic big sum of money] on it in the middle of a recession, but frankly that's just exposing the silliness of this particular form of pollsters democracy. People give vastly different answers depending on what you ask them; people are short-sighted in political matters; plenty of people are thick; only a tiny fraction actually have the level of understanding of the average MP and about one in 5 million have the same understanding of the issue as the Defence Secretary. The fact that there is a pretty large cross-party consensus on the issue in Parliament also helps. |
||||||||||
| landg |
we need and, trident must stay. even cutting the fleet by 1 concerns me.anyway, it is droll and pretty thick to suggest, ' get rid of wmd's and spend it on hospitals for cancer'. daily record readers page politics. | ||||||||||
| Stevie |
Sorry, I don't think the amount can be right. Maybe it's a hundred million £. | ||||||||||
| Aventinian |
£15-20 billion by MoD estimates. £76 billion by CND figures £95 billion by Greenpeace figures I rather wonder which orifice the latter two were pulled out of. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
As all the world knows where Trident and other missiles are stored, does anyone ever wonder what would happen to Scotland if these weapons were ever used? Where would the retaliation strike, Oh Yes, Scotland, where the missiles are stored. Bye Bye Scotland.
Or of course they could be kept down in the Thames area, come to think of it, why aren't they?. Not hard to figure. PS Aventinian, Is there a great difference between a recession and declne of prosperity.? Not from where I see it there isn't, so go pick your nose instead of picking up on trivia and trying to sound superior. |
||||||||||
| landg |
i know a bit about this, just a couple of quick reason's why the subs are in faslane and not the thames 1. deep waters. 2. quick access to the north atlantic just a couple of reasons to warm you up and help you along, research the rest yourself, it's not difficult. |
||||||||||
| Holebender |
Re: Trident
Over 95% of the world's states manage to defend themselves without nuclear weapons. How, exactly, would we defend ourselves with nuclear weapons? If we launch them at another nuclear power we will be vapourised by their relatiatory strike. If we launch them at a non-nuclear power it would be genocide - the very worst war crime. What is the point of Trident? |
||||||||||
| Alasdair |
1. The waters need to be regularly dredged to maintain the depth, the Gareloch is not as deep as you might like to think. Indeed, they need to be dredged more regularly after the last submarine upgrade. 2. Fair enough. The bases, Faslane and couplort aren't actually on the clyde ... it's a notion that's always bothered me. But they're just not. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
I think they are on the Firth of Clyde though. | ||||||||||
| mairead |
Holebender.
I completely agree with you and that is the most likely reason these weapons are up in Scotland. Ain't Scotland the place where the people are expendible anyway. |
||||||||||
| Alasdair |
Nope the Gareloch (where Faslane is) is a loch unto itself while the Coulport base is on Loch Long, both come out into the Firth of clyde. It's geographically inaccurate and misleading to suggest the bases are on the Clyde. http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/towns/townmap3657.html Sorry to be pedantic but I grew up with a view of the faslane base from my bedroom window and swam in the Gareloch, the firth of clyde, and Loch long as a child. |
||||||||||
| Stevie |
Stupid idiotic loonies want a bunch of nukes to defend themselves from... who?
Aren't there enough nukes pointed at the potential threats by the Americans already? The truth is it's a giant pissing contest and the aim is to show who has the biggest penis. Except, if we start pissing we destroy life on Earth (except apparently the cockroaches who seem to survive every apocalyptic horror). |
||||||||||
| landg |
good lord, you really have little or no knowledge on an increasing amount of subjects, yet still manage to conjure up tabloidesque posts about them. the editor of the daily record posts on here it seems now known as, 'stevie the vague'. |
||||||||||
| jamesieboy |
Langd - explain one thing.
Given the national debt (at record levels) and the fact that taxes will have to go up, swingeing public sector cuts will have to be made and in all sectors... how the hell can we afford Trident 2???????????????? |
||||||||||
| landg |
ehm, we can't. we cant't afford anything just now,but necessary things have to be paid for. trident is necessary. it's not about being able to pay for it, it's about paying for things we must have. nhs, education, defence (trident), police etc. etc. |
||||||||||
| magister ludi |
wrong question, i suggest. try "who benefits from trident2?" (with apologies and a hat-tip to monty python) now obviously there will be health benefits, employment, streets free from terrorists, peadophiles and drug barons not to mention better weather AND a reduction in green house gasses......but who benefits? |
||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Re: Trident
Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Frankly the idea of them being used is ridiculous.
Yes, I'm sure in a nuclear war no-one would ever dream of bombing London... 
We don't launch them, they are a deterrent, and indeed have kept the world largely at peace for 60 years. Moreover, the retaliatory strike thing is obvious nonsense: only a handful of nuclear states exist, and an even smaller number have the ability to launch a strike against the United Kingdom. It would not be genocide to launch them at a non-nuclear power (indeed, I wonder exactly why you think their not having nuclear weapons would be at all relevant to that). You clearly don't understand the terminology you are using. Yes, most states do not have nuclear weapons - indeed, are not allowed them - but in many cases the peace of other states is earned by coat-tailing their moral betters: in this case, the UK.
The absence of an immediate identifiable threat is not a reason to remove our ability to defend ourselves. As for the Americans question - no. They have shown themselves time and again, when push comes to shove, to prefer isolationism to getting involved in wars that other people start. I don't believe they really have the active interest in Europe that we do, nor do I believe that they would undoubtedly come to our aid in a hostile situation. In addition, our weapons systems complement those of our allies, they do not rival them. |
||||||||||
| jamesieboy |
They have kept the peace for 60 years? Where?
I suggest you tell that to someone who has just lost their son in Afghanistan or Iraq (or even the Falklands in '82). They are a crazy obscenity and cost us, the taxpayers, a fortune that we can no longer afford and to try and claim that we would be defenceless if we got rid of them is cloud-cuckoo thinking. We do have a conventional defence which is more than adequate, and we are members of the most powerful military/economic/technological alliance the world has ever seen. |
||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Britain, Europe, the United States.
Nothing in comparison to the wars of the past.
Of course we can afford them - they're relatively cheap in terms of defence spending. Conventional forces are the expensive ones.
Adequate for what? It is overstretched and under-resourced - and we aren't even involved in any significant conflicts! Are you seriously suggesting we could have put off an invasion of Western Europe by any significant power after the Second World War? Of course not. |
||||||||||
| jamesieboy |
So you're not counting the people who lost their lives in the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks.
If you lose a friend or a loved one then they might as well have been killed in a war. If yer deid, yer deid. Tell me, how did the nuclear deterrent deter those attacks? |
||||||||||
| Stevie |
Well, Av support nukes... shocking revelation. |
||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Well, supporting an inanimate object is a bit of an odd thing to be accused of. If you're suggesting I support violence, then of course I do not. Do I believe in multilateral disarmament? Maybe given the right time, I'm not entirely sure. |
||||||||||
| Stevie |
Ah, you're not entirely sure.
At last a lack of certainty in this world of change and mishap. Welcome to reality. It's nice to see and I respect that. Thus you are explaining your opinion and that you are entitled to as are we all. I do not claim to know everything either. Maybe, now you might state once and for all that it's possible the SNP are not just civic Nazis in disguise. |
||||||||||