View Full Version : The Nuclear Case.
piratelassie
22-Jan-13, 22:33
The U.K. government plans to spend £100 billion on new nuclear weapons in the years ahead, we can choose to use our £8 billion share of this money more wisely. Visit- www.yesscotland.net/the (http://www.yesscotland.net/the)- benefits
The U.K. government plans to spend £100 billion on new nuclear weapons in the years ahead, we can choose to use our £8 billion share of this money more wisely. Visit- www.yesscotland.net/the (http://www.yesscotland.net/the)- benefits
Erm, I thought the energy companies need to put up the cash, I thought there were no public subsidies for nuclear? :roll:
Erm, I thought the energy companies need to put up the cash, I thought there were no public subsidies for nuclear? :roll:
I believe that the OP said Nuclear Weapons, (ie Bombs etc), and nothing about Nuclear Energy.
OK, just for giggles I'll bite.
So we get rid of Nuclear defence in Scotland and have the boats evicted from Faslane (potentially). This renders Scotland without any significant defence and rUK without nuclear deterrent for quite a long time as it will not have suitable facility.
The Russians / Putin, just to do some willy waving at the sceptics send a few nuke subs backed up with a small armada of boaty things and park 'em in the Minch, Moray, Oil fields and a few other select areas whilst ramping up their air incursions with heavy bombers into Scottish airspace.
What will be the response, a strongly worded letter?
Do you think wee Scotland could take on Russia on our tod regardless?
It'd be a hell of a drinking competition!
piratelassie
23-Jan-13, 00:28
We are referring to weapons not energy production.
Erm, I thought the energy companies need to put up the cash, I thought there were no public subsidies for nuclear?
:roll:
piratelassie
23-Jan-13, 00:31
Do you think wee UK could take on Russia on our tod regardless.
Do you think wee Scotland could take on Russia on our tod regardless?
macadamia
23-Jan-13, 00:36
Regarding the Russians, I seem to remember that from 1945 - 1994 three Battalions of British Infantry and a tank squadron - oh yes, and an RAF presence consisting of 1 Cessna at RAF Gatow, managed (with a little help from the American and French garrisons of about equal size) to hold off 22 Soviet Army divisions within 24 hours drive from "The Divided City" (or "West Berlin", as we Brits more prosaically called it). I was one of these "Cold War Warriors", even though I was an unarmed child at the time, my presence counted as a deterrent. After 49 years of Cold War, the Soviets finally packed up their tents and left in the night. They had run out of cash, out of communism, and out of luck.
And we held them off simply by sitting poolside at the Olympic Stadium or the Officers' Club, sipping beer, eating fairy cakes, and developing West Berlin into the most requested British Forces' posting after Hong Kong.
There WAS something to be said for the nuclear deterrent. Of course, it might also have been for the fact that Bill Speakman, VC was occasionally in Berlin, as were many fine Scottish regiments over the decades......
They had run out of cashNow we have ran out of cash. :confused
And if our economy is in such dire straits ..we might even run out of fairy cakes for infantry..!
What else is to be rationed the way things are going?...sugar? Flour etc...?
So we get rid of Nuclear defence in Scotland and have the boats evicted from Faslane (potentially). This renders Scotland without any significant defence and rUK without nuclear deterrent for quite a long time as it will not have suitable facility.
So.... We could have another £8 Billion in our coffers & if the rUK really want nuclear weapons we could charge them for use of our facilities until they can build some of their own, generating a few more Billion (totally random guess, I have no idea what the going rate for provision of such facilities are) for our coffers....
I'd use the nuclear deterrent money to purchase weapons from Russia. In turn I'd use the weapons on Salmond and all his sheep-like followers who are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
We can be Scottish and proud of being Scottish without an expensive and ridiculous split from Great Britain. Did our fathers, grandfathers etc fight in two World Wars for an independent Scotland? No, they fought as Brits for Great Britain. Could Scotland have fought off Hitler alone? I think not and rest my case.
Do you think wee UK could take on Russia on our tod regardless.No, and your point is?
Kasper King
23-Jan-13, 12:29
Wait a mo, if Scotland becomes independant what makes you think the UK government will be handing over any money from the nuclear deterant budget!
In the 1980's Manchester and several other large Liebore controlled cities spent millions of pounds on neclear free zones and proudly boasted that because of this no nuclear missiles would be aimed or land on them! Guess what? Russian plans tell us that it was to be taken out in the first wave as they had plenty of missile.
So dream on about not being a target!
Russian plans tell us that it was to be taken out in the first wave as they had plenty of missile.
I find it very comforting that we have a member in .org that is fully conversant with the Plans of the Russian Politburo Standing Committee.
Green_not_greed
23-Jan-13, 13:38
So.... We could have another £8 Billion in our coffers & if the rUK really want nuclear weapons we could charge them for use of our facilities until they can build some of their own, generating a few more Billion (totally random guess, I have no idea what the going rate for provision of such facilities are) for our coffers....
I'd bet Wee Eck could build a great big wall for £8bn to keep the English out........ And I'd bet his party and followers would think it was a great idea.
http://www.yesscotland.net/the-benefits = "
The page you were looking for was not found." How apt.
Kasper King
23-Jan-13, 16:20
The plans were leaked during the Yeltsin years, along with the names of the TUC and Union leaders who reported directly to Moscow, people who had spied for them in various counties e.g Blunt, the east european lorry drivers that were GRU or simila who where checking out the best roads to use in an invasion and all this was during the good old days of comrade Harold.
So a bit less of the sarcasm!
The plans were leaked during the Yeltsin years, along with the names of the TUC and Union leaders who reported directly to Moscow, people who had spied for them in various counties e.g Blunt, the east european lorry drivers that were GRU or simila who where checking out the best roads to use in an invasion and all this was during the good old days of comrade Harold.
So a bit less of the sarcasm!
So all up to date information and because it was leaked it must be accurate. I Don't Think So.
Hang on you said it was in the 1980's and now you say it was during the days of Harold Wilson. That is two different decades as Harold Wilson's last term in office was in 1976.
Me be Sarcastic, nah! not me. :Razz
So.... We could have another £8 Billion in our coffers & if the rUK really want nuclear weapons we could charge them for use of our facilities until they can build some of their own, generating a few more Billion (totally random guess, I have no idea what the going rate for provision of such facilities are) for our coffers....
Aaahhh, now your thinking. The potential £8billion I would guess is a bit of a white elephant but it sounds a good number to spin.
The problem is Salmond et al want nuclear out, regardless and don't want the deterrent so why would they then Let out Faslane??
In the 1980's Manchester and several other large Liebore controlled cities spent millions of pounds on neclear free zones and proudly boasted that because of this no nuclear missiles would be aimed or land on them!Errm I think that was just a load of cobblers that sounded good to hippy voters. By refusing to allow the city of Manchester to be used as a launch facility for a Nuclear weapon is about as pointless a statement as any politico could make.
....Did our fathers, grandfathers etc fight in two World Wars for an independent Scotland? No, they fought as Brits for Great Britain. Could Scotland have fought off Hitler alone? I think not and rest my case.
That is a totally silly argument....
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, India, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, United States, USSR, Yugoslavia and others all fought with us, does that mean that they should all be part of the UK?
Stop basing arguments both for & against independence on ancient (albeit important) history.... stick to the here, now & future...
Aaahhh, now your thinking. The potential £8billion I would guess is a bit of a white elephant but it sounds a good number to spin.
The problem is Salmond et al want nuclear out, regardless and don't want the deterrent so why would they then Let out Faslane??
Because money talks & I'm sure they could put up with them for a few more years for the right price....
Beside... Such a decision would be made by the first Government of an Independent Scotland, not as a result of a Yes vote in the Independence referendum.
The 8 billion we'd save wouldn't even get close to paying off our share of national debt, a debt we'd have to service at a much higher interest rate than currently due to Britains high credit rating.
There's lots of reasons to argue against nuclear weapons, but I don't think it's a reason for independence. In fact, removing nuclear weapons whilst wishing to stay part of, and benefit from, NATO, stinks of hypocrisy to me.
Stop basing arguments both for & against independence on ancient (albeit important) history.... stick to the here, now & future...Ancient history.....try telling that to the remaining World War Two veterans - they provided us with a future.
....In fact, removing nuclear weapons whilst wishing to stay part of, and benefit from, NATO, stinks of hypocrisy to me.
I thought that one of the main reasons for being part of an alliance was to pool resources.... The US has more than enough Nuclear weapons to destroy the planet many times over & will never give them up totally so why does every other member have to have them as well?
Ancient history.....try telling that to the remaining World War Two veterans - they provided us with a future.
No disrespect to them but it was 70 odd years ago & I'm sure they wouldn't have refused to fight the Nazi regime if Scotland had been (or was to become) independent. The 2 World Wars where nothing to do with that issue.
billmoseley
23-Jan-13, 19:57
I thought that one of the main reasons for being part of an alliance was to pool resources.... The US has more than enough Nuclear weapons to destroy the planet many times over & will never give them up totally so why does every other member have to have them as well? Yes the yanks have vast numbers of nuclear weapons but who is to say we will always be on their side? i for one thing we have more in common with the Russians. As for our nuclear weapons well i can assure you if we launched all ours against any enemy then they would suffer severe destruction. i don't think people realise just what damage we could do.
Yes the yanks have vast numbers of nuclear weapons but who is to say we will always be on their side?
So... If we can't trust our allies in NATO should we withdraw?
...i for one thing we have more in common with the Russians....
I certainly hope not, corruption & state control is bad enough at the moment in the West but it pales into insignificance when compared to Russia.
As for our nuclear weapons well i can assure you if we launched all ours against any enemy then they would suffer severe destruction. i don't think people realise just what damage we could do.
I'm sure we could also do a fair amount of damage if we put this hypothetical £8 billion into conventional weapons with less danger of pushing the world into all out nuclear Armageddon.
That is a totally silly argument....
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, India, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, United States, USSR, Yugoslavia and others all fought with us, does that mean that they should all be part of the UK?
Stop basing arguments both for & against independence on ancient (albeit important) history.... stick to the here, now & future...
Now that is a silly argument and a bit of a straw man.
That is a totally silly argument....
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, India, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, United States, USSR, Yugoslavia and others all fought with us, does that mean that they should all be part of the UK?
Stop basing arguments both for & against independence on ancient (albeit important) history.... stick to the here, now & future...
Get some of your facts correct, Belgium, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia,Greece, Norway, Yugoslavia & the Netherlands were all under German occupation. Latvia, Lithuania, were under Russian occupation. Brazil was neutral.
Get some of your facts correct, Belgium, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia,Greece, Norway, Yugoslavia & the Netherlands were all under German occupation. Latvia, Lithuania, were under Russian occupation. Brazil was neutral.
OK, so I relied on a quick Google search, wasn't going for accuracy, just trying to illustrate my point that sovereignty shouldn't be based purely on who fought with who in a historical war.
Although... having said that.... From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II#Brazil)....
Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil) was under the dictatorship of Getúlio Vargas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getúlio_Vargas) and maintained its neutrality until August 1942. There were several German submarine attacks against Brazilian ships between February and August that year in the Atlantic Ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean) reaching 1,079 casualties. In response, the Brazilian government, pressured by a population sided with the Allies, declared war against Germany and Italy on 22 August 1942.
OK, so I relied on a quick Google search, wasn't going for accuracy, just trying to illustrate my point that sovereignty shouldn't be based purely on who fought with who in a historical war.
Although... having said that.... From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II#Brazil)....
So did I lie, Brazil was neutral until 1942
So did I lie, Brazil was neutral until 1942
Not getting into an argument over semantics here, I still stand by the original point I was trying to make.
piratelassie
24-Jan-13, 01:24
What was your point?
No, and your point is?
What was your point?I was referring to phils post about Scotland being toothless should we get rid of our nuclear defences.Basically stating that with or without nukes Scotland would be destroyed by Russia (or pretty much any other larger nation) should we need to defend ourselves on our own.
What was your point?
I was referring to phils post about Scotland being toothless should we get rid of our nuclear defences.Basically stating that with or without nukes Scotland would be destroyed by Russia (or pretty much any other larger nation) should we need to defend ourselves on our own.
What was your point?
I'm sure only Scottish weapons would be permitted post secession. So dig out your bowis and dorlochis.
Seems a lot of people want to make lots of different points, so here is my Point.
http://i.imgur.com/yWg8wr3.jpg (http://imgur.com/yWg8wr3)
Seems a lot of people want to make lots of different points, so here is my Point.
http://i.imgur.com/yWg8wr3.jpg (http://imgur.com/yWg8wr3)
I cant see what the point is!!!!
C3.
weezer 316
24-Jan-13, 14:33
Did anyone bother to look the £100bn figure up? By my understanding its £97bn over the lifetime for the project - 40 years.
So £8bn over 40 years = £200m a year
Wont even pay for he council tax freeze!!
Whilst that £97bn is lifetime costs it is estimated it will have procurement costs of £25bn and design costs of £350 million. All this when many experts say the risk of nuclear attack is low. There are also many members of NATO that dont host nuclear wepons so why would it be odd for an Independent Scotland to be in Nato without Nuclear weapons?
All this when many experts say the risk of nuclear attack is low.
China is building its military, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, India is doing similar. We are not seeing eye to eye so it will be foolish to let our guard down in an uncertain world. A lot can change in a decade and it will take a decade to build the next trident fleet.
weezer 316
24-Jan-13, 20:39
China. yes they are a real threat. Their unbelievably belligerent and imperialst attitude through the ages really stands out........
China. yes they are a real threat. Their unbelievably belligerent and imperialst attitude through the ages really stands out........
Get a grip weezer.
When you cut to the chase the whole Nuclear deterrent / threat v nuclear attack is posturing and sabre waving. Whilst a very expensive 'mine is bigger than yours' situation it is just that.
It is MAD in both senses, Mutually Assured Destruction and just plain bonkers, the risk of nuclear attack is very minimal (from another state in a 'professional' sense).
It is however a deterrent against conventional weapons.
....It is however a deterrent against conventional weapons.
True maybe.... But.... If you spent the money on conventional weapons it would increase the deterence factor of your armed forces & they might just come in handy for use in a conventional war, something that seems to be happening more & more these days....
Unless we are seriously considering nuking the Taliban & any rogue dictator we take a disliking to it seems to me to be a bit of a pointless exercise having them.
China is building its military, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, India is doing similar. We are not seeing eye to eye so it will be foolish to let our guard down in an uncertain world. A lot can change in a decade and it will take a decade to build the next trident fleet.
There are some that might say the UK does not see eye to eye with China and India - an Independent Scotland may form its own diplomatic relationships. Also if China and India are such threats how come all the nato countries without nuclear weapons are not running out to get their own nuclear weapons in case China makes a pre emptive strike?
Also if China and India are such threats how come all the nato countries without nuclear weapons are not running out to get their own nuclear weapons in case China makes a pre emptive strike?
Because they rely on those with weapons for the deterrent.
So........ Why would an Independent Scotland need nuclear weapons?
So........ Why would an Independent Scotland need nuclear weapons?
I would have thought that the answer to that question has its roots in whether Scotland would be a target in an enemy's eyes. It doesn't matter who holds the gun. Throwing a gun away might make you more of a target. If Scotland is tied into a power base that is greater than itself then it could be a target.
Throwing a gun away can also make you less of a target. An Independent Scotland does not NEED nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction are morally indefensible ( hats my own view) and the money they cost would be better spent elsewhere. I dont believe Scotland will be an agressor and any terrorist war will not be won by setting off a nuclear attack.
Throwing a gun away can also make you less of a target. An Independent Scotland does not NEED nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction are morally indefensible ( hats my own view) and the money they cost would be better spent elsewhere. I dont believe Scotland will be an agressor and any terrorist war will not be won by setting off a nuclear attack.
yes but that view is irrelevent, an enemy is not interested if you do not wish to be a target. We in Scotland thought we wouldn't be hit by Islamic terrism but we were. I wouldn't like to play fast and loose with the security of Scotland on the basis of wishful thinking.
So lol, you can vote for a party which aims to keep the nuclear deterrent at Faslane and I wont - thats how it works. I hope that we get rid of the abhorrent things. I hope that the UK has nowhere to put them either so that they arent anywhere in the UK regardless of whether we are united or independent. They arent a deterrent - arguing thaty they are is as sensible as arguing that the death penalty is a deterrent and we know that isnt true either. I would be glad to see the back of them!
They arent a deterrent - arguing thaty they are is as sensible as arguing that the death penalty is a deterrent and we know that isnt true either. I would be glad to see the back of them!
Comparing murder and the death penalty with a possibilty of nuclear attack and a nuclear deterrent is silly. It shows you haven't thought it through or listened to history.
True maybe.... But.... If you spent the money on conventional weapons it would increase the deterence factor of your armed forces & they might just come in handy for use in a conventional war, something that seems to be happening more & more these days....As has been pointed out already, the cost amounts to a few hundred million per year, in the scheme of things, pennies.
Afghanistan, a conventional war, has racked up a £20billion bill to the UK.
So in one sense, it would actually be beneficial to pay a share of the cost to have a nuclear deterrent. (Maybe even get a reduced rate by letting rUK use Faslane!)
No need for any sizeable defence force / army. Just a couple of wee frigates to go and take pot shots at Faroese fisherpeeps, the odd plane for jollies and a platoon of army types to check handbags at the commonwealth games.
So a massive saving on an independent Scottish military, not to mention a longer term saving by not getting involved in silly wars or peacekeeping missions. Can't send what you don't have.
And, trump card, no more lives lost to IED's etc. now that has gotta be worth a couple of billion over 40 years.
I'd say it'd be a bargain.
Comparing murder and the death penalty with a possibilty of nuclear attack and a nuclear deterrent is silly. It shows you haven't thought it through or listened to history.
Ignorant and silly? I suppose it makes a change from liar and romantic fool :roll:
Party line? You were never this political... :roll:
You could hear all sorts on a party line......
So lol, you can vote for a party which aims to keep the nuclear deterrent at Faslane and I wont - thats how it works. I hope that we get rid of the abhorrent things. I hope that the UK has nowhere to put them either so that they arent anywhere in the UK regardless of whether we are united or independent. They arent a deterrent - arguing thaty they are is as sensible as arguing that the death penalty is a deterrent and we know that isnt true either. I would be glad to see the back of them!
Reflect on this, Britain's nuclear weapons are the only ones in it's arsenal that have never killed anyone (as a result of being deployed against an enemy) I'm sure someone will find an accident or 3.
Reflect on this, Britain's nuclear weapons are the only ones in it's arsenal that have never killed anyone (as a result of being deployed against an enemy) I'm sure someone will find an accident or 3.
Unless you count the sinking of the Belgrano by HMS Conquerer.
Unless you count the sinking of the Belgrano by HMS Conquerer.
Which part of Nuclear Weapon do you not understand? The Belgrano was sunk with WW2 era HE Torpedo
Unless you count the sinking of the Belgrano by HMS Conquerer.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121110220608/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/e/e6/Facepalm100000000.gif
So there you go. When people can get there heads around Nuclear Deterrent it is actually has a very good financial v human lives ratio.
An Indy Scotland could do away with all other defence costs and just run a nuke sub aground somewhere by the west coast as a visual reminder to passing invaders.
Which part of Nuclear Weapon do you not understand? The Belgrano was sunk with WW2 era HE Torpedo
Fired from a nuclear submarine. Is a submarine not a weapon of war?
And then there's the British army's use of depleted uranium during the Iraq war.
A submarine is a method of transport, the torpedo is the weapon.
macadamia
25-Jan-13, 13:14
If a squaddie normally lives in a house in the UK which is powered by nuclear energy, then he becomes an atomic weapon when pointed at ne'er-do-wells in sweaty countries. Like the logic!
And then there's the British army's use of depleted uranium during the Iraq war.
And the operative word in that sentence is 'depleted'.
A submarine is a method of transport, the torpedo is the weapon.
Oh I see. So guns are just methods of transport.
And the operative word in that sentence is 'depleted'.
The people of Iraq, in the areas DU weapons were used, have suffered a huge increase in leukaemia and other cancers. In some cases entire families have died of leukaemia within a year or so of exposure to DU debris.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-far-worse-than-9-11/2374
The people of Iraq, in the areas DU weapons were used, have suffered a huge increase in leukaemia and other cancers. In some cases entire families have died of leukaemia within a year or so of exposure to DU debris.
There are incidences of leukaemia all over the world in the total absence of DU.
Oh I see. So guns are just methods of transport.
Fair point, well made.
I worded my response badly.
However there is a very big difference between a nuclear powered machine and a nuclear warhead.
To be honest mate you are clutching at straws, claiming we have used nuclear weapons.
There are incidences of leukaemia all over the world in the total absence of DU.
From the link I posted previously:
Dr. Jawad Al-Ali (55), director of the Oncology Center at the largest hospital in Basra, Iraq stated, at a recent ( 2003) conference in Japan:
“Two strange phenomena have come about in Basra which I have never seen before. The first is double and triple cancers in one patient. For example, leukemia and cancer of the stomach. We had one patient with 2 cancers – one in his stomach and kidney. Months later, primary cancer was developing in his other kidney–he had three different cancer types. The second is the clustering of cancer in families. We have 58 families here with more than one person affected by cancer. Dr Yasin, a general Surgeon here has two uncles, a sister and cousin affected with cancer. Dr Mazen, another specialist, has six family members suffering from cancer. My wife has nine members of her family with cancer”.
“Children in particular are susceptible to DU poisoning. They have a much higher absorption rate as their blood is being used to build and nourish their bones and they have a lot of soft tissues. Bone cancer and leukemia used to be diseases affecting them the most, however, cancer of the lymph system which can develop anywhere on the body, and has rarely been seen before the age of 12 is now also common.”,
“We were accused of spreading propaganda for Saddam before the war. When I have gone to do talks I have had people accuse me of being pro-Saddam. Sometimes I feel afraid to even talk. Regime people have been stealing my data and calling it their own, and using it for their own agendas. The Kuwaitis banned me from entering Kuwait – we were accused of being Saddam supporters.”
And there's more:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/cancer-spreading-in-iraq-due-to-depleted-uranium-weapons/16934
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/cancer-spreading-in-iraq-due-to-depleted-uranium-weapons/16934)
Cancer is spreading like wildfire in Iraq. Thousands of infants are being born with deformities. Doctors say they are struggling to cope with the rise of cancer and birth defects, especially in cities subjected to heavy American and British bombardment.Dr Ahmad Hardan, who served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health, says that there is scientific evidence linking depleted uranium to cancer and birth defects. He told Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2003/10/2008410163515321636.html) [3], “Children with congenital anomalies are subjected to karyotyping and chromosomal studies with complete genetic back-grounding and clinical assessment. Family and obstetrical histories are taken too. These international studies have produced ample evidence to show that depleted uranium has disastrous consequences.”Iraqi doctors say cancer cases increased after both the 1991 war and the 2003 invasion. Abdulhaq Al-Ani, author of “Uranium in Iraq” told Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/2009101213552137511.html) [4] that the incubation period for depleted uranium is five to six years, which is consistent with the spike in cancer rates in 1996-1997 and 2008-2009.Not everyone is ready to draw a direct correlation between allied bombing of these areas and tumors, and the Pentagon has been skeptical of any attempts to link the two. But Iraqi doctors and some Western scholars say the massive quantities of depleted uranium used in U.S. and British bombs, and the sharp increase in cancer rates are not unconnected.In Falluja, which was heavily bombarded by the US in 2004, as many as 25% of new- born infants (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/falluja-cancer-children-birth-defects) [1] have serious abnormalities, including congenital anomalies, brain tumors, and neural tube defects in the spinal cord.The cancer rate in the province of Babil, south of Baghdad has risen from 500 diagnosed cases in 2004 to 9,082 in 2009 according to Al Jazeera English (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnGz51kjHnE) [2].The water, soil and air in large areas of Iraq, including Baghdad, are contaminated with depleted uranium that has a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years.
Purely anecdotal I'm afraid, we can all go to town on googling studies and there has been other 'studies' which show the same or no significant link. So far there has been no successfully peer-reviewed study that shows a link between DU and leukaemia. Too many other factors always muddy any causal link. We are talking war zones here, poor food and water sources and medical supplies etc. Let us not ignore the elephant in the room.
Let us not ignore the elephant in the room. Yes, vaporised nuclear waste spread over large areas of Iraq. Many of those areas residential.
Fair point, well made.
I worded my response badly.
However there is a very big difference between a nuclear powered machine and a nuclear warhead.
To be honest mate you are clutching at straws, claiming we have used nuclear weapons.
A nuclear submarine IS a nuclear weapon, and we HAVE used that weapon in anger.
Yes, vaporised nuclear waste spread over large areas of Iraq. Many of those areas residential.
all you have, may be, is a coincidence but getting a causal link is difficult and problematic by having so many conflicting studies and other environmental factors. One use of DU is for radiation shielding, not as a source. Though there are low energy beta rays but they are not energetic enough to cause DNA damage.
I'm not against pure research for its own sake so I would welcome an independent study which would show a causal link but alas one is not forthcoming...
A nuclear submarine IS a nuclear weapon, and we HAVE used that weapon in anger.
Perhaps using your twisted logic it is.
Is a nuclear power station a nuclear weapon?
After all, they produce electricity and I am sure the places that make missiles and bullets or homes containing the squaddies of the future have or are supplied in some way or form via nuclear generated electricity, therefore all of these are nuclear weapons.
Enough of the nonsense now though, lets look at the definition of a nuclear weapon shall we?
Courtesy of thefreedictionary.com - "nuclear weapon n. A device, such as a bomb or warhead, whose great explosive power derives from the release of nuclear energy."
The crucial part of the definition is that it requires the release of nuclear energy, nuclear subs do not release nuclear energy in normal operation.
all you have, may be, is a coincidence but getting a causal link is difficult and problematic by having so many conflicting studies and other environmental factors. One use of DU is for radiation shielding, not as a source. Though there are low energy beta rays but they are not energetic enough to cause DNA damage.
I'm not against pure research for its own sake so I would welcome an independent study which would show a causal link but alas one is not forthcoming...
Twelve years ago the MoD warned of the dangers posed by DU weapons: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jan/11/armstrade.world?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jan/11/armstrade.world?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)
"Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance - if any," it says: "Although chemical toxicity is low, there may be localised radiation damage of the lung leading to cancer."In a devastating passage under the heading "Risk assessment relating to Gulf war uranium exposure", it warns: "First and foremost, the risk of occupational exposure by inhalation must be reduced."
It goes on to say: "All personnel... should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long-term risk... [the dust] has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers."
It adds: "Working inside a DU dust-contaminated vehicle without adequate respiratory protection will expose the worker to up to eight times the OES [the occupational exposure standard or accepted exposure level]."
Perhaps using your twisted logic it is.
Is a nuclear power station a nuclear weapon?
After all, they produce electricity and I am sure the places that make missiles and bullets or homes containing the squaddies of the future have or are supplied in some way or form via nuclear generated electricity, therefore all of these are nuclear weapons.
Enough of the nonsense now though, lets look at the definition of a nuclear weapon shall we?
Courtesy of thefreedictionary.com - "nuclear weapon n. A device, such as a bomb or warhead, whose great explosive power derives from the release of nuclear energy."
The crucial part of the definition is that it requires the release of nuclear energy, nuclear subs do not release nuclear energy in normal operation.
It isn't twisted logic at all. Nuclear submarines are weapons. And we used those weapon during the Falklands war.
It isn't twisted logic at all. Nuclear submarines are weapons. And we used those weapon during the Falklands war.
I tend to agree, a submarine is a weapon.
However it is not a nuclear weapon.
There you go everyone is happy
I tend to agree, a submarine is a weapon.
However it is not a nuclear weapon.
There you go everyone is happy
It is a nuclear weapon. It was the fact that it was a nuclear sub that gave it the advantage. How effective would it have been if it had been an old diesel/battery sub?
It is a nuclear weapon. It was the fact that it was a nuclear sub that gave it the advantage. How effective would it have been if it had been an old diesel/battery sub?
Except it is not.
There is no release of nuclear material.
Experts
What do they say
Field Marshall Lord Bramhall - former chief of defence staff said
"For all practical purposes it has not and, indeed, would not deter any of the threats and challenges-likely to face this country in the foreseeable or even longer-term future. It has not stopped any terrorist outrage in this country nor, despite America's omnipotent deterrent, did it prevent the very traumatic 9/11. It did not stop the Argentines trying to take over the Falklands, nor did any nuclear deterrent stop Saddam Hussein marching into Kuwait or firing missiles into Israel. Nor indeed, in a now intensely globalised and interlocked world, could our deterrent ever conceivably be used-not even after a serious hostile incident which it had presumably failed to deter-without making the whole situation in the world infinitely worse for ourselves as well as for everybody else."
Lord Browne - defence minister in Tony Blair's government
"Are we telling the countries of the rest of the world that we cannot feel secure without nuclear weapons on continuous at-sea deployment while at the same time telling the vast majority of them that they must forgo indefinitely any nuclear option for their own security? Is that really our policy? If so, do we expect the double standard that it implies and indeed contains, to stick in a world of rising powers?"
Lord King - defence minister for Margaret Thatcher and John Major
"The issues that we face include terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, piracy and cyber threats. However, against none of those do nuclear weapons look like God's gift to solving the problem. It is against that background that I look on the present situation. It is certainly not obvious to me that there is any longer a need for a major nuclear system based on 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week availability."
Lord Hannay - former Abassador to the UN.
"the sustaining of our permanent membership depends infinitely more on the role that we play in peacemaking, peacekeeping and conflict prevention, and matters such as that, than it does on making this false linkage with nuclear weapons."
These quotes are from the debate in the Lords yesterday and are available in Hansard. If these people are saying this stuff then why should an Independent Scotland need to have Nuclear Weapons - the short answer is that we dont!
Twelve years ago the MoD warned of the dangers posed by DU weapons: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jan/11/armstrade.world?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jan/11/armstrade.world?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)
What you got is a secret report but 'leaked' to the guardian, that gives precautionary advice to its employees, so what? I could write something on the same lines on the subject of coal dust. Hardly a peer-reviewed publication on an epidemiological study of the link between DU and post war incidences of leukemia. :roll:
It is a nuclear weapon. It was the fact that it was a nuclear sub that gave it the advantage. How effective would it have been if it had been an old diesel/battery sub?
Very I should think. The Belgrano was an ex USA WW2 battle cruiser so yes. And the fact it carried a similar age torpedo designed to break the back of giant WW2 heavily armoured battle ships was I'm sure, just a coincidence.
billmoseley
25-Jan-13, 19:48
It is a nuclear weapon. It was the fact that it was a nuclear sub that gave it the advantage. How effective would it have been if it had been an old diesel/battery sub? you say old diesel/battery sub but i have to tell you the modern ones are just as lethal as a nuclear one. a nuclear sub has the advantage of staying at sea along while. they aren't silent the only difference is their power plant
you say old diesel/battery sub but i have to tell you the modern ones are just as lethal as a nuclear one. a nuclear sub has the advantage of staying at sea along while. they aren't silent the only difference is their power plant
Nuclear subs also don't have to surface at regular intervals. They are a much more effective weapon than the old diesel/electrics.
What you got is a secret report but 'leaked' to the guardian, that gives precautionary advice to its employees, so what? I could write something on the same lines on the subject of coal dust. Hardly a peer-reviewed publication on an epidemiological study of the link between DU and post war incidences of leukemia. :roll:
So to use your logic: An asbestos disposal company scatters asbestos dust over a wide area. A few years later there is an unprecedented and unusual mass occurence of asbestosis and cancer in the surrounding area. But it's ok, because Rheghead is there telling everyone it's 'just a coincidence'.
Oh and by the way, it isn't just leukaemia. Patients are presenting with several different cancers, in the same patient. The last time something like this was seen was in Japan.
Nuclear subs also don't have to surface at regular intervals. They are a much more effective weapon than the old diesel/electrics.Granted, however just bEcause it is efficient it does not make it a nuclear weapon.
So to use your logic: An asbestos disposal company scatters asbestos dust over a wide area. A few years later there is an unprecedented and unusual mass occurence of asbestosis and cancer in the surrounding area. But it's ok, because Rheghead is there telling everyone it's 'just a coincidence'.
Oh and by the way, it isn't just leukaemia. Patients are presenting with several different cancers, in the same patient. The last time something like this was seen was in Japan.
DU doesn't vaporise for a start, it would be silly to have a projectile that vaporises on impact.
So.. I think we have established that being shot at with DU armour piercing shells from a gatling gun is dangerous.:Razz
billmoseley
26-Jan-13, 18:40
surely the defining thing about nuclear weapons is that they kept the peace during the cold war and beyond so you could say they are life savers
surely the defining thing about nuclear weapons is that they kept the peace during the cold war and beyond so you could say they are life savers
Change "are" to "where" & your statement will be more accurate.... We have moved on from the Cold War now.
billmoseley
26-Jan-13, 18:53
Change "are" to "where" & your statement will be more accurate.... We have moved on from the Cold War now. have we? i see the world slipping slowly but surely back to the cold war days but this time it will be russia and china that we will up against
Experts
What do they say
Field Marshall Lord Bramhall - former chief of defence staff said
"For all practical purposes it has not and, indeed, would not deter any of the threats and challenges-likely to face this country in the foreseeable or even longer-term future. It has not stopped any terrorist outrage in this country nor, despite America's omnipotent deterrent, did it prevent the very traumatic 9/11. It did not stop the Argentines trying to take over the Falklands, nor did any nuclear deterrent stop Saddam Hussein marching into Kuwait or firing missiles into Israel. Nor indeed, in a now intensely globalised and interlocked world, could our deterrent ever conceivably be used-not even after a serious hostile incident which it had presumably failed to deter-without making the whole situation in the world infinitely worse for ourselves as well as for everybody else."
Lord Browne - defence minister in Tony Blair's government
"Are we telling the countries of the rest of the world that we cannot feel secure without nuclear weapons on continuous at-sea deployment while at the same time telling the vast majority of them that they must forgo indefinitely any nuclear option for their own security? Is that really our policy? If so, do we expect the double standard that it implies and indeed contains, to stick in a world of rising powers?"
Lord King - defence minister for Margaret Thatcher and John Major
"The issues that we face include terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, piracy and cyber threats. However, against none of those do nuclear weapons look like God's gift to solving the problem. It is against that background that I look on the present situation. It is certainly not obvious to me that there is any longer a need for a major nuclear system based on 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week availability."
Lord Hannay - former Abassador to the UN.
"the sustaining of our permanent membership depends infinitely more on the role that we play in peacemaking, peacekeeping and conflict prevention, and matters such as that, than it does on making this false linkage with nuclear weapons."
These quotes are from the debate in the Lords yesterday and are available in Hansard. If these people are saying this stuff then why should an Independent Scotland need to have Nuclear Weapons - the short answer is that we dont!
So basically, they are saying that the possession of a nuclear capability is simply a posturing aid so the UK can claim to be a "nuclear country" and be upsides with the USA, Russia, France and China in the UN with a veto when the whim takes them...and upsides with France and the USA in NATO? In other words we have replaced the old British Empire, which once made us pretty important in the world because we kicked arse better than most other countries...with a nuclear "deterrent" we don't dare use because it would trigger retaliation.....in order to make the UK feel pretty important in the world because we can kick arse using our nuclear capability (which, if we are going to be brutally honest, against most other nuclear countries, will have much the same impact as the Scottish midgie has on Scottish tourism..given their fly swats are a lot bigger!)
In the Scottish Select Affairs Committee, discussing the options, given an Independence vote, re removal of Trident from Faslane/Coulport. I was interested to see that criteria of keeping warheads and missiles far enough away from people and sites of economic value was why Scottish locations were popular among the 1960s options. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/676/67607.htm
So basically, as far as I can see, Scotland got Trident (and Dounreay) because we didn't have enough people to worry about the impact of "accidents" on UK sensibilities re death levels in the event of nuclear incidents.... and the areas used weren't going to trash the UK economy by scaring off possible inward investment, because there wouldn't have been that much anyway....and, into the bargain, the councils of the time didn't see past the jobs and the boost to the local economy to consider any future impact, if that was ever explained to them at all.. However, what they did not do in the 1960s options in the far enough away from people stakes, was stop people moving in and villages expanding, or consider the increased ability over time of nuclear weapons to kill more over a larger area. According to http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W76.html Questions also surround the weapon's basic design. Four knowledgeable critics, three former scientists and one current one at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which designed the W-76, have recently argued that the weapon is highly unreliable and, if not a complete dud, likely to explode with a force so reduced as to compromise its effectiveness. So Scotland does not only host nuclear facilities which are irradiating our beaches and endangering our sun-worshippers, and make us a retaliatory target for countries the UK hacks off, but also lianble to have terrorist attacks, if as the West seems to think, every terrorist knows all about nuclear weaponry and they are all trying to get hold of it......and all for a weapon which is more likely to damage the punters in the local area of the facilities harbouring it than it is to damage those we point it at and explode it among.
Isn't the best and simplest option not just to admit that all a nuclear-based war will guarantee is the death of humanity at a much greater speed than the environmental impact of global warming which is the current obsession and which is costing lots of bucks that getting rid of Trident could fund...and just get rid of nuclear weapons altogether and use the dosh to benefit us and the world, and not maintain, extremely expensively, an option to remove both us and the world as we know it?
Why spend a lot of money erecting pointless windfarms and investing in/promoting green alternatives to the kinds of energy we have been using for generations so we can make sure we exist on this earth a long as possible...and then spend much more in maintaining/replacing nuclear weaponry which, if used will ensure nobody is going to be around to reap the benefits of the money spent to combat Global Warming..and if not used are as pointless regarding defence/offence as windmills are re a base load to keep our lights and fridges running 24/7/365?
Why would any enemy need nuclear weapons when a few well placed conventional bombs on nuclear power stations could/would cause the same damage and loss of life.
Why would any enemy need nuclear weapons when a few well placed conventional bombs on nuclear power stations could/would cause the same damage and loss of life.
They don't, but the assertion that they do doesn't half give our Western governments a darn good excuse to reduce our liberties and increase their supervision of everything we do/say, citing the limits to personal freedom required by "National Security" to stop terrorists acquiring WMDs...and incidentally trash other countries to the benefit of big business profits.
DU doesn't vaporise for a start, it would be silly to have a projectile that vaporises on impact.
That is exactly what it does. When a DU round hits a target the impact generates enormous heat igniting the DU. Anything up to 70% of the DU tip will burn, creating particulate fallout over a wide area.
[QUOTE=billmoseley;1003316]surely the defining thing about nuclear weapons is that they kept the peace during the cold war and beyond so you could say they are life savers[/ QUOTE]
Nuclear weapons did not keep the peace.... People kept the peace. Governments, the UN, negotiators they kept the peace. We could never ever use these weapons and the whole world knows it. Today, in the 21st century, even assuming some mad dictator presses his button, we would not press ours... Because we know that bad as it is with one nuclear attack it would be massively worse with two. If this madness got to the stage where there was a nuclear attack then they would have already failed as a deterrent.
Nuclear weapons are disgusting, abhorrent and an affront to humanity. Does an independent Scotland need them here in Scotland .... No.... Do we need them in the UK without an independent Scotland ... No.... They are a useless waste of money.
Well, unfortunately we're gonna be stuck with them for a long time yet.
That depends on us too Phill :)
Hmm, not so sure we're going to get the option. :confused
billmoseley
27-Jan-13, 17:40
Well i think they are a good weapon to have in your arsenal. I'm still a firm believer that they have saved countless 1000s of lives. there have been times since 1945 that the world has come very close to war and the only reason we haven't is because of them. But i also respect other people views and beliefs which is what makes the org such an interesting place.
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats, and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the Blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out.
The Scots raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the ........." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the frontline in the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose".
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!". Due to continuing defense cutbacks, New Zealand only has one more level of escalation, which is "Damn, I hope Australia will come and rescue us".
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, mate". Three more escalation levels remain, "Crikey!", "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.
M Swanson
29-Jan-13, 10:25
:lol:[lol]:lol:
Many a true word, Jox. Many a true word.
Not just the loony left looking for cuts in the Nuclear Stockpile....
Hagel supports nuclear arms cuts, then elimination (http://www.mail.com/news/world/1854050-hagel-supports-nuclear-arms-cuts-then-elimination.html#.7518-stage-hero1-6)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Chuck Hagel, the likely next secretary of defense, would be the first to enter the Pentagon having publicly advocated for sharply reducing the number of U.S. nuclear weapons, possibly without equivalent cuts by Russia. He supports an international movement called Global Zero that favors eliminating all nuclear weapons....
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.