 |
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.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Aventinian
1 Strike
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 5558
Location: Oh, I get about a bit.
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:53 am Post subject: Re: Trident |
 |
|
| mairead wrote: | | 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. |
Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Frankly the idea of them being used is ridiculous.
| Quote: | | 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. |
Yes, I'm sure in a nuclear war no-one would ever dream of bombing London... 
| Holebender wrote: | | Aventinian wrote: | | It's the responsibility of the state... to defend the realm |
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? |
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.
| Stevie wrote: | 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 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jamesieboy
Helping with the Count
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 327
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
1 Strike
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 5558
Location: Oh, I get about a bit.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jamesieboy wrote: | They have kept the peace for 60 years? Where?
|
Britain, Europe, the United States.
| Quote: | | I suggest you tell that to someone who has just lost their son in Afghanistan or Iraq (or even the Falklands in '82). |
Nothing in comparison to the wars of the past.
| Quote: | | They are a crazy obscenity and cost us, the taxpayers, a fortune that we can no longer afford |
Of course we can afford them - they're relatively cheap in terms of defence spending. Conventional forces are the expensive ones.
| Quote: | | We do have a conventional defence which is more than adequate |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamesieboy
Helping with the Count
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 327
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | jamesieboy wrote: | They have kept the peace for 60 years? Where?
|
Britain, Europe, the United States.
| Quote: | | I suggest you tell that to someone who has just lost their son in Afghanistan or Iraq (or even the Falklands in '82). |
Nothing in comparison to the wars of the past.
| Quote: | | They are a crazy obscenity and cost us, the taxpayers, a fortune that we can no longer afford |
Of course we can afford them - they're relatively cheap in terms of defence spending. Conventional forces are the expensive ones.
| Quote: | | We do have a conventional defence which is more than adequate |
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. |
Well, Av support nukes... shocking revelation.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu bràth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
1 Strike
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 5558
Location: Oh, I get about a bit.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie wrote: | | Well, Av support nukes... shocking revelation. |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu bràth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
