PDA

View Full Version : Should the UK have Nuclear Submarines



BetterTogether
09-Apr-15, 22:58
Last night Nicola Sturgeon stated that Trident was a red line for the SNP. Given that the United Kingdom as a whole is an Island Nation and traditionally seafaring. What are people's views on whether we should continue to have Nuclear Submarines within our Naval defence capabilities. Note that much ado is made of weapons of mass destruction but the reality is a submarine can carry any number of weapons not necessarily just nuclear warheads.Should we just dispense with having submarines or keep them but not allow them to carry nuclear weapons or some other

RUNT
09-Apr-15, 23:06
Absolutely, we not only look after the U.K with Trident but our ex-colonies, protectorates and the commonwealth.In addition we protect those who are unable to protect themselves.Trident prevents a repeat of the Falklands for exampleAnyone who opposes Trident will loose my vote regardless of political ideology

Oddquine
10-Apr-15, 02:03
Absolutely, we not only look after the U.K with Trident but our ex-colonies, protectorates and the commonwealth.In addition we protect those who are unable to protect themselves.Trident prevents a repeat of the Falklands for exampleAnyone who opposes Trident will loose my vote regardless of political ideology

No we shouldn't have nuclear weapons, because they are as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Out of interest, how does having Trident prevent a repeat of the Falklands? Either we could use it against a country without a nuclear capability....or we could threaten to use it against a country without a nuclear capability........so just another instance of the UK playing the playground bully again. Care to describe the consequences if Argentina called our bluff and we nuked them just because we can, as the Americans did to Hiroshima and again at Nagasaki....to make a point to the Russians, not to the Japanese.........much like me going to Wick to kick the crap out of a punter there in order to make a point to somebody in Lybster. And care to make a guess as to the reaction of the 180 odd countries in the UN who don't have nuclear weapons but do have resources the UK might covet? Or do you think that is a good use of nuclear weapons, as a threat against countries which don't have any?

Trident has been described by former Vulcan squadron commander (the UK’s original nuclear deterrent) and current vice-president of CND, Air Commodore Alastair Mackie, as Britain’s “stick-on hairy chest” which implies more for show than anything else... so are you serious when you say protects us,our ex-colonies, protectorates and the commonwealth......... really?

I had intended to summarise the content of the article, but decided that there was too much detail and links to fit in in precis form........so it is here
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/

For those of you who won't read Wings on principle, (although the article wasn't written by the Rev Stu), you are missing a reasoned argument, with links to unbiased material, as to why Trident is a waste of money and simply offers us a false sense of security , which would be just as well served, by doing what the USA would prefer we did........ie sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella, (as we would have to anyway if the nuclear option was ever initiated by any country with more than 40 bases which could release nuclear weapons.....like Russia), instead of pretending our pretty pathetic "independent" nuclear deterrent was of any real use if ever push came to shove, and pump our finite MOD resources instead into our conventional forces, which currently, in feet on the ground terms, consist of fewer members than the SNP does and which are woefully badly equipped. Think aircraft carriers sans aircraft to carry, for example.

The UK would be a lot better off if it stopped living in its imperial past and embraced its 21st century reality....which is as a small, relatively unimportant, nearly bankrupt country struggling to keep its own UK family together and with better things to spend its money on than an extremely expensive cosmetic stick-on hairy chest so that it can pretend to be as macho as it was in the 18th century.

sids
10-Apr-15, 06:36
A chocolate teapot is no match for a hydrogen bomb.

BetterTogether
10-Apr-15, 07:30
No we shouldn't have nuclear weapons, because they are as much use as a chocolate teapot. Out of interest, how does having Trident prevent a repeat of the Falklands? Either we could use it against a country without a nuclear capability....or we could threaten to use it against a country without a nuclear capability........so just another instance of the UK playing the playground bully again. Care to describe the consequences if Argentina called our bluff and we nuked them just because we can, as the Americans did to Hiroshima and again at Nagasaki....to make a point to the Russians, not to the Japanese.........much like me going to Wick to kick the crap out of a punter there in order to make a point to somebody in Lybster. And care to make a guess as to the reaction of the 180 odd countries in the UN who don't have nuclear weapons but do have resources the UK might covet? Or do you think that is a good use of nuclear weapons, as a threat against countries which don't have any? Trident has been described by former Vulcan squadron commander (the UK’s original nuclear deterrent) and current vice-president of CND, Air Commodore Alastair Mackie, as Britain’s “stick-on hairy chest” which implies more for show than anything else... so are you serious when you say protects us,our ex-colonies, protectorates and the commonwealth......... really?I had intended to summarise the content of the article, but decided that there was too much detail and links to fit in in precis form........so it is herehttp://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/For those of you who won't read Wings on principle, (although the article wasn't written by the Rev Stu), you are missing a reasoned argument, with links to unbiased material, as to why Trident is a waste of money and simply offers us a false sense of security , which would be just as well served, by doing what the USA would prefer we did........ie sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella, (as we would have to anyway if the nuclear option was ever initiated by any country with more than 40 bases which could release nuclear weapons.....like Russia), instead of pretending our pretty pathetic "independent" nuclear deterrent was of any real use if ever push came to shove, and pump our finite MOD resources instead into our conventional forces, which currently, in feet on the ground terms, consist of fewer members than the SNP does and which are woefully badly equipped. Think aircraft carriers sans aircraft to carry, for example. The UK would be a lot better off if it stopped living in its imperial past and embraced its 21st century reality....which is as a small, relatively unimportant, nearly bankrupt country struggling to keep its own UK family together and with better things to spend its money on than an extremely expensive cosmetic stick-on hairy chest so that it can pretend to be as macho as it was in the 18th century.

Ok all very nice and the usual argument against nuclear weapons but you see this is where the problem lay.

We aren't discussing whether or not the UK should have nuclear weapons the issue being discussed without all the misinformation flying about is whether we replace 4 Nuclear submarines nothing to do with the weapon system held within them.
So the big argument is not whether we scrap nuclear weapons but whether we scrap having submarines.
If your answer happens to be yes then we may as well scrap our whole surface fleet and leave the waters around this island unprotected.
Aircraft carriers without planes is one thing a navy without submarines is another.

Knowledge of politics is one thing knowledge of defence matters is quite another.

Fulmar
10-Apr-15, 08:30
Where does the 'nearly bankrupt country' come from? That describes Greece but by no stretch (of my imagination anyway) does it describe the UK. Do you yourself know of anyone who is bankrupt and how many of them are there? All I can say is that I do not.

Fulmar
10-Apr-15, 08:45
[QUOTE=Fulmar;1115681]Where does the 'nearly bankrupt country' come from? That describes Greece but by no stretch (of my imagination anyway) does it describe the UK. Do you yourself know of anyone who is bankrupt and how many of them are there? All I can say is that I do not.[/Further to that, if we are bankrupt, then how come so many folk from other lands are not only falling over themselves to come here but many of them are sadly losing or risking their lives to do so. They would be going the other way, wouldn't they!
To go back to the purpose of the thread, I do not know anything much about submarines and whether we could get away with having ones that were not nuclear powered or not, but I do think that whether we like it or not (and lets face it, we all hate war and conflict and so not wish it to happen) they are necessary. We know that there is someone with ill-disguised aggression in charge at the Kremlin whose planes and subs are patrolling round our shores and I like to think that we have something available to shadow these and to escort them off the premises!QUOTE]

PantsMAN
10-Apr-15, 09:19
Remember, we can't fire these things without permission from America.

A bit like asking your Mum if you can hit the bully back?

BetterTogether
10-Apr-15, 09:25
Remember, we can't fire these things without permission from America.A bit like asking your Mum if you can hit the bully back?

Ok maybe I'm being a bit dense this morning so I've got to ask, how do you fire a nuclear submarine ?

Pack of swan vesta and some newspaper Mebbe ?


Missile systems I get no need to explain that but that isn't what we are on about .

sids
10-Apr-15, 12:33
Remember, we can't fire these things without permission from America.



How do you know?

PantsMAN
10-Apr-15, 14:09
Ok maybe I'm being a bit dense this morning so I've got to ask, how do you fire a nuclear submarine ?

Pack of swan vesta and some newspaper Mebbe ?


Missile systems I get no need to explain that but that isn't what we are on about .

Given that nuclear weapons are as much a feature of this thread as their delivery mechanism, I thought that someone with your perspicacity might have been able to make the connection?

Ah well, clearly all the synapse in Better Together don't operate together eh?

PantsMAN
10-Apr-15, 14:14
How do you know?

Reference - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

para. 34ff.

BetterTogether
10-Apr-15, 15:13
Given that nuclear weapons are as much a feature of this thread as their delivery mechanism, I thought that someone with your perspicacity might have been able to make the connection?Ah well, clearly all the synapse in Better Together don't operate together eh?

I'd agree that currently the primary delivery system is geared toward nuclear warheads but the submarines are also capable and have in more recent history deployed non nuclear payloads via cruise missile.
So it may be fair to say that the day to day operational use of these submarines is non nuclear in its delivery of payloads.
The idea that we scrap or do not replace any method of delivering nuclear payloads is flawed, as the army has mobile missile systems capable of deploying tactical nuclear weapons so does the RAF but neither of those face the same backlash when it comes to replacement.
The reality is the SNP have made a stand against this particular piece of military equipment purely because it is based in Scotland and adds to their grievance politics and has little to do with the reality of the nations defence and requirement to have submarines in our fleet.
Should we remove submarines from the UK fleet what would you suggest replaces them or should we just leave a gaping chasm in our integrated defence systems.

PantsMAN
10-Apr-15, 15:21
SNIP

Should we remove submarines from the UK fleet what would you suggest replaces them or should we just leave a gaping chasm in our integrated defence systems.

I don't think I suggested we should remove submarines from the UK fleet.

If we remove nuclear weapons then we may not require submarines with the capability to remain underwater for months at a time; I believe this is a feature of the current submarines.

Think of all the other positive things we could spend the money on.

Also, I am convinced that we keep this particular quartet of boats only so that we can sit at the top table and pretend that we are one of the big players. Sheer arrogance!

BetterTogether
10-Apr-15, 16:26
Well those 4 submarines are just that Submarines why would you want a submarine that has to resurface all the time, it sort of defeats the purpose of having them in the first place .
Seems people get all hung up on the nuclear potential of these ships rather than their more conventional usage.While its very nice to say we could spend money on other things, which indeed we could, it would then leave us without submarines in our fleet and put the whole fleet at risk.
Remember the Falklands and sinking of the belgrano, that was a submarine and all those non nuclear cruise missiles they have launched in the wars of late.
This shows the versatility of these craft. The modern world is as dangerous as it's ever been and any nation that takes a totally passive stance and disarms leaves itself seriously disadvantaged on the global stage.
It may seem far fetched but as a scenario it's valid,remove all the big toys from the military arsenal and what realistically is there to stop someone like Mr Putin whatever they want to us. The U.S would hardly weigh in on or our defence nor would any other country.
Then what happens to all the ideas of a free fair society.

It's a bit like being the smallest kid in the playground wanting to play with his friends left to their own devices the big bullies wade in and take over.
But if everyone knows Mike Tyson is sat around the corner ready to kick anyone who toys with him the peace prevails.

Humerous Vegetable
10-Apr-15, 17:30
BetterTogether, your nuclear fleet at Faslane did not appear to prevent (or even notice) Mr Putin's subs sailing up the Clyde a couple of weeks ago. I seem to remember that Trident was not called into action when Russian warships appeared in the English channel last month either.

So, which exact function do they fulfill, apart from costing taxpayers money they could better spend on other services? Trident is not a deterrent, it is a target.

BetterTogether
10-Apr-15, 17:49
BetterTogether, your nuclear fleet at Faslane did not appear to prevent (or even notice) Mr Putin's subs sailing up the Clyde a couple of weeks ago. I seem to remember that Trident was not called into action when Russian warships appeared in the English channel last month either.So, which exact function do they fulfill, apart from costing taxpayers money they could better spend on other services? Trident is not a deterrent, it is a target.

Humerous Vegetable you're quite right Mr Putins subs weren't stopped sailing anywhere even more surprising in your eyes is we just let them go.
But maybe as we are in a state of peace with Russia attacking a Russian submarine would be in my humble opinion an act of unwarranted aggression.
As you also have noted they sailed by and nothing happened which also shows that they are infact a deterrent not a target.
As you'd be aware there would not have been all 4 subs sitting on the Clyde but maybe 3 leaving one sitting somewhere unknown ready to strike should the situation require it.
Unless you think that Nuclear strikes should be undertaken at every minor sabre rattling minor transgression of the Russian navy.
The continued peace of this nation is assured from larger more aggressive countries while we have such a formidable weapon in our arsenal and as the past 50 yrs have proved they seem to have kept Europe quiet.

Maybe you'd be happier if we had no such deterrent and whoever wanted could sail up the Clyde unhindered and do as they please rather than having a rather large missile sitting there unused but suitably deterring them from doing as they please.

BetterTogether
10-Apr-15, 18:01
It may also be worth asking the people of the Ukraine whether they think having a Nuclear deterrent kept them safe from unwanted aggression. Or having removed nuclear weapons from their soil and having a proxy war launched on them by Russia they still feel safe and secure.

sids
10-Apr-15, 18:17
Remember, we can't fire these things without permission from America.



How do you know?


Reference - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

para. 34ff.

Which says:
In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval

"Can't" is a bit of an exaggeration.

PantsMAN
10-Apr-15, 18:28
Which says:

"Can't" is a bit of an exaggeration.

OK, swap 'wouldn't' for 'can't'.

The implication remains that we are not in independent control of these WMD. Therefore, what's the point?

PantsMAN
10-Apr-15, 18:37
1. Well those 4 submarines are just that Submarines why would you want a submarine that has to resurface all the time, it sort of defeats the purpose of having them in the first place .

2. The U.S would hardly weigh in on or our defence nor would any other country.

.

1. Reference http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/faq.html
Para. 17
Seems like the US navy have these silly submarines which need to come to the surface regularly. What do they know?

2.There's this little-known organisation called NATO, maybe you've not heard of it yet. Go on Google it, you know it makes sense. :)

BetterTogether
10-Apr-15, 18:47
1. Reference http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/faq.htmlPara. 17Seems like the US navy have these silly submarines which need to come to the surface regularly. What do they know?2.There's this little-known organisation called NATO, maybe you've not heard of it yet. Go on Google it, you know it makes sense. :)
Yes naturally all submarines have to surface at some point but the ability to stay under water for months on end isn't really considered regularly as the previous versions had to.
NATO is a nice organisation but has yet to be tested on any level.
The USA is strangely self interested when it comes to European conflicts last time they where practically forced into it by having war declared on them as opposed to riding to Europes rescue.
As for Europe previous form for them is non too good either.
Having a treaty and actually sticking by it are entirely two different things.

golach
10-Apr-15, 18:52
2.There's this little-known organisation called NATO, maybe you've not heard of it yet. Go on Google it, you know it makes sense. :)

and how long do you think Nato will protect a independent Scotland (file://\\cotland), who's fm and her party want to ban Trident, and lose 7k jobs at Faslane

Oddquine
10-Apr-15, 20:36
Where does the 'nearly bankrupt country' come from? That describes Greece but by no stretch (of my imagination anyway) does it describe the UK. Do you yourself know of anyone who is bankrupt and how many of them are there? All I can say is that I do not.

Well, logically, given that Osborne said, as he was proclaiming his cuts in 2010 that Today is the day when Britain steps back from the brink......and further given that he has, as yet, met not one of his targets (except maybe in the rolling back of the welfare state and the increase in dividends for the many MPs and ministers with shares in and connections with, private health care companies), the austerity cuts after 2015 are to be even bigger than forecast in 2010 and the national debt is still being added to annually with regular monotony....... then that brink is still looming, is it not..........hence the "nearly" ? Or are you telling me that Osborne lied through his teeth?

Any individual/family living on overdraft,and borrowing on credit card to make its payments of the overdraft and mortgage interest, as their hours are cut and their income drops would certainly have to apply for bankruptcy or alternatively drastically cut back their spending. I know a country is not an individual family, before anyone shoots in and tells me....but if it were, nearly bankrupt would fairly describe the UK...but as it isn't, just what terrible brink has Osborne not yet managed to pull us back from which was horrific enough to require the trashing of the disadvantaged, the enriching of the already rich, the sale of the few assets the UK still has, and the part privatising of the NHS.......if it wasn't the brink of default on borrowing?

And, Better Together, re the submarines..I can't see much point in them tbh....but if they would be useful in defence without nuclear warheads, then I have no real problem with having a couple or so, but I do think we should be putting aircraft on our aircraft carrier first.....don't you?

sids
10-Apr-15, 21:50
OK, swap 'wouldn't' for 'can't'.

The implication remains that we are not in independent control of these WMD. Therefore, what's the point?

"Wouldn't" is reasonable.

At a basic level, the point is to scare people.

BetterTogether
10-Apr-15, 21:57
Oddquine what's the point in having lots of shiney aircraft on a nice shiney aircraft carrier when some sneaky person with a big submarine will come and sink your big toy, also the Chinese have a new missile which can effectively take out aircraft carriers. Meaning the USAs dominance in the Pacific region is drawing to a close . Which also means the era of the aircraft carrier is drawing to a close!

Oddquine
10-Apr-15, 22:40
Oddquine what's the point in having lots of shiney aircraft on a nice shiney aircraft carrier when some sneaky person with a big submarine will come and sink your big toy, also the Chinese have a new missile which can effectively take out aircraft carriers. Meaning the USAs dominance in the Pacific region is drawing to a close . Which also means the era of the aircraft carrier is drawing to a close!

To be honest, I'm not overly bothered if the UK has aircraft carriers, with or without aircraft or submarines with or without warheads.....I am just trying to enter the fun of pretending the UK actually has a defence set up predicated on defending the whole UK with their available and useable military resources against genuine threats from the time a possible threat hoves into sight, as opposed to an offence set up which is predicated on fighting people who are no threat to us, in their own countries, on the slightest excuse, because they have something we want.....and because we can always make money charging them for clearing our mess up behind us!

BetterTogether
10-Apr-15, 23:56
To be honest, I'm not overly bothered if the UK has aircraft carriers, with or without aircraft or submarines with or without warheads.....I am just trying to enter the fun of pretending the UK actually has a defence set up predicated on defending the whole UK with their available and useable military resources against genuine threats from the time a possible threat hoves into sight, as opposed to an offence set up which is predicated on fighting people who are no threat to us, in their own countries, on the slightest excuse, because they have something we want.....and because we can always make money charging them for clearing our mess up behind us!

So what form of defensive strategy would you think suitable for the whole of the United Kingdom. It's very easy to say I'm not bothered by this that or the other but am totally against possibly the biggest stick you can have to stop anyone playing hardball, there has to be some form of defence that you'd find acceptable.
Maybe you'd find Boy Scouts with Jamboree bags acceptable.
I'd accept the Blair/ Bush wars were illegal and have done the wests interests no good and created and major problem. That doesn't solve the what if problems that may occur if a major power decides to cut loose and want a rumble for what ever reason they can dream up.

Fulmar
11-Apr-15, 08:33
Perhaps you are standing as a candidate, Oddquine, only you seem to know such a lot about everything and would evidently be able to sort out all problems, from the economy to defence and the UK could surely benefit from your expertise!
Maybe you already have your shoulder to the wheel and are helping to make things better for the good of all in whatever way you can- as an expert adviser in all areas perhaps?

Oddquine
11-Apr-15, 11:55
So what form of defensive strategy would you think suitable for the whole of the United Kingdom. It's very easy to say I'm not bothered by this that or the other but am totally against possibly the biggest stick you can have to stop anyone playing hardball, there has to be some form of defence that you'd find acceptable.
Maybe you'd find Boy Scouts with Jamboree bags acceptable.
I'd accept the Blair/ Bush wars were illegal and have done the wests interests no good and created and major problem. That doesn't solve the what if problems that may occur if a major power decides to cut loose and want a rumble for what ever reason they can dream up.

Why would we need a huge defense if we are not offensive? Which country has made verifiable threats to bomb or invade us in my post 1947 lifetime? Sure the Government says everybody is out to get us (or the USA) and we should be feart, very very feart....but the intelligent would assume that, if we leave other people alone, they'll leave us alone. The one sure fire way of needing a defence is to go on the offensive, both militarily or via sanctions, against countries who have not harmed us, just in case they will some time in the future when/if they have the means to do so.

It does however, seem more than a little hypocritical of us in the West to be trashing foreign countries, mostly Muslim, while at the same allowing, facilitating and even conniving with Israel in their complete ignoring and circumventing of every international law on the books to steal land which is not theirs, create quasi-concentration camps in that land which is not theirs and their blithe ignoring of the nuclear proliferation treaty with not one sanction applied. (If ever a country really needed to be smacked about the head by the playground bullies to make it behave better, it is Israel.)

Seems to me the only countries which dream up spurious justifications to invade/attack are the USA and the UK. It may be because the USA was formed by people like us, and it was people like us who spent a century or two trashing other countries for their resources, so perhaps our governments appear to still have this mindset that considers imperialism is still appropriate in what is now a different world and believe they are still entitled to do what they will, as long as they themselves, as individuals, don't suffer the consequences.....and perhaps even benefit.

Oddquine
11-Apr-15, 11:58
Perhaps you are standing as a candidate, Oddquine, only you seem to know such a lot about everything and would evidently be able to sort out all problems, from the economy to defence and the UK could surely benefit from your expertise!
Maybe you already have your shoulder to the wheel and are helping to make things better for the good of all in whatever way you can- as an expert adviser in all areas perhaps?

Sarky,sarky! This is a discussion forum. What else is there to do on it but discuss things? And what else am I doing but giving my opinion. Are you not doing exactly the same?

PantsMAN
11-Apr-15, 12:23
and how long do you think Nato will protect a independent Scotland (file://\\cotland), who's fm and her party want to ban Trident, and lose 7k jobs at Faslane

Why wouldn't Scotland be a member of NATO?

And before you mention nuclear weapons, many countries who are in NATO don't have a nuclear capability.

Even Jim Murphy confirmed that you don't need to have nuclear weapons to be a member.

I believe the plan is to make Faslane the base for an independent Scottish military with the commensurate number of civilian jobs.

sids
11-Apr-15, 13:49
Evicting NATO submarines wouldn't endear Scotland to NATO.

Fulmar
11-Apr-15, 14:01
I guess I simply do not understand you, Oddquine, or 'where you are coming from' as the saying goes and the way you come across to this reader anyway is that you hate the UK. You do make a lot of sweeping statements and I just wonder where you get it all from. For instance, when has the government said that everyone is out to get us as I have missed that one? It certainly does not chime with what I have heard in the last few years coming from President Obama anyway and I cannot recall Dave saying it either. The US government (and ours) has also come in for criticism in recent times for not putting boots on the ground in the latest rounds of carnage in the Middle East. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
As regards defence, well I would not like to put your 'if we're not offensive who is going to bother us' opinion to the test when it comes to the likes of the so-called Islamic State who have a stated aim of including these isles in their caliphate. President Putin is fast taking Russia back to the mistrust and suspicion of the Cold War and is deliberately and provocatively deploying subs and planes around these shores. Those are facts anyway.
Anyway, I am not posting anymore- will go back to being one of the silent readers so over and out.

BetterTogether
11-Apr-15, 18:30
Why would we need a huge defense if we are not offensive? Which country has made verifiable threats to bomb or invade us in my post 1947 lifetime? Sure the Government says everybody is out to get us (or the USA) and we should be feart, very very feart....but the intelligent would assume that, if we leave other people alone, they'll leave us alone. The one sure fire way of needing a defence is to go on the offensive, both militarily or via sanctions, against countries who have not harmed us, just in case they will some time in the future when/if they have the means to do so. It does however, seem more than a little hypocritical of us in the West to be trashing foreign countries, mostly Muslim, while at the same allowing, facilitating and even conniving with Israel in their complete ignoring and circumventing of every international law on the books to steal land which is not theirs, create quasi-concentration camps in that land which is not theirs and their blithe ignoring of the nuclear proliferation treaty with not one sanction applied. (If ever a country really needed to be smacked about the head by the playground bullies to make it behave better, it is Israel.)Seems to me the only countries which dream up spurious justifications to invade/attack are the USA and the UK. It may be because the USA was formed by people like us, and it was people like us who spent a century or two trashing other countries for their resources, so perhaps our governments appear to still have this mindset that considers imperialism is still appropriate in what is now a different world and believe they are still entitled to do what they will, as long as they themselves, as individuals, don't suffer the consequences.....and perhaps even benefit.

While I can agree with you on certain aspects of your post, such as the Israeli problem and non justified wars in the Middle East.
The whole concept of if we leave them alone they will leave us alone is a nice ideology to have ,but there are harsh realities to deal with. Unfortunately history has shown as that left alone the Human Race can raise some profoundly distasteful but charismatic characters who unfortunately seem to rally other suitably unsavoury characters to their cause.

All it takes is one such charismatic character who happens to be in charge of a relatively large capable country to inflict catastrophic damage to its own country and those it seeks to cause grievance with.
The politics of grievance have always been an easy way to raise the masses to a cause at whatever perceived issues are thrown about.
Europe itself does not have a particularly glorious past when it comes to peace.
Infact the period since 1947 has been unusual in the fact there have been no wars between European countries, many would place this down to the creation of such unions such as the EU or advent of nuclear weapons ensuring that no one is able to justify launching an uncessary war on some other country.
But the bottom line is our current period of history is probably but a brief sojourn in the war like tendencies of nations.
In the meantime the idea that disarming would stop all future transgression is misplaced as who know what may lay around the corner.
Can you honestly say that you foresaw the rise of Isis or Mr Putins aggression.

David Banks
11-Apr-15, 19:27
In my view, there are two separate questions.

Nuclear powered submarines

and

nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, better together is good at generating heat, but not so much light.

If someone else has already made this point, I did not copy your post - just sometimes I can't read everything.

BetterTogether
11-Apr-15, 22:09
In my view, there are two separate questions.Nuclear powered submarinesandnuclear weapons.Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, better together is good at generating heat, but not so much light.If someone else has already made this point, I did not copy your post - just sometimes I can't read everything.

If you read the poll there are a number of options David the first two are quite clear

Yes
or
Yes but no nuclear weapons.

There is also a

No option
or
I don't care not Scotland's problem.

Does that illuminate things sufficiently for you ?

Not much heat but plenty of light for those prepared to see the easy options

David Banks
13-Apr-15, 14:12
If you read the poll there are a number of options David the first two are quite clear

Yes
or
Yes but no nuclear weapons.

There is also a

No option
or
I don't care not Scotland's problem.

Does that illuminate things sufficiently for you ?

Not much heat but plenty of light for those prepared to see the easy options

Yes, partly.

Thank you.

I still have a bit of a problem conversing with something as insubstantial as a political slogan.

BetterTogether
13-Apr-15, 16:28
Yes, partly.Thank you.I still have a bit of a problem conversing with something as insubstantial as a political slogan.Life is inherrently fraught with problems if that's the biggest of them, then you're doing well and should be the happiest man in Scotland

Manxman
14-Apr-15, 10:03
Has anyone considered the implication of all the jobs that will be lost by removing these boats
Having been stationed at faslane whilst in the RN I know firsthand just how much depends on its continued use
The infrustructor for suppling this base stretches down to glasgow and beyond
Helensburgh relies on it being there and has anyone consulted the workforce with regards to their future
Will it have any effect on Coulport there are at least 4 married quarter estates that may be left empty because I cant see the government leaving any thing else at this base
I bet that the workforce in portsmouth plymouth etc are rubbing their hands with glee with all the work that may be coming their way also the suppliers

Oddquine
14-Apr-15, 19:54
Has anyone considered the implication of all the jobs that will be lost by removing these boats
Having been stationed at faslane whilst in the RN I know firsthand just how much depends on its continued use
The infrustructor for suppling this base stretches down to glasgow and beyond
Helensburgh relies on it being there and has anyone consulted the workforce with regards to their future
Will it have any effect on Coulport there are at least 4 married quarter estates that may be left empty because I cant see the government leaving any thing else at this base
I bet that the workforce in portsmouth plymouth etc are rubbing their hands with glee with all the work that may be coming their way also the suppliers

Right now, nobody is seriously considering the submarines will be removed, however much we would wish that to be the case. That is an outcome which will need a vote for independence first.....after which the Clyde Naval Base would have a future in the non-nuclear Scottish Defence force.

The UK is a country which has seen a six fold increase in foodbanks since 2010, as well as the deaths and suicides of people left penniless due to spurious sanctioning of the disabled, by a corporation to meet their profit targets, and equally spurious sanctioning by the DWP to cut the levels of benefits paid out and the numbers of people on the employment register, not to mention one which has seen the numbers and incomes of the wealthy continue to rise at the same time as our incompetent and ideologically fixated Governments, whatever their colour, have been reducing the lives of even many of those in work back to the very Victorian age and ethos Mrs Thatcher used to talk about with approval, though to be fair to Mrs Thatcher, she did at least draw the line at playing about with the NHS to achieve that. How then can the UK Government, in all conscience, be advocating not just the future renewal, at enormous taxpayer cost post 2016, but paying out millions annually now, before any final decision as to whether, or with what, they will be replaced, to design the new submarines, to purchase new reactors for them, to ready the base to receive them and to contract for long lead-time items in preparation for the first submarine entering service in the late 2020s?

Regarding the benefits to Helensburgh......the view of a Helensburgh resident or two (all linked articles were written during the referendum campaign, and while those making the points may not have been NO voters, closed shops, a preponderance of charity shops and the fall in house prices etc are ascertainable facts which are chiels that winna ding)
http://misssymartin.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/an-open-letter-to-jackie-baillie.html , http://sputniknews.com/world/20140825/192337478.html ,

In his memoirs, Tony Blair gave the truth of the matter of Trident and its continuation......he said "the expense is huge, and the utility in a post-cold war world is less in terms of deterrence, and non-existent in terms of military use" and he also said........and this is where imo, the real benefit of Trident comes, not to our safety, but as the UK's sticky-on hairy chest........so "In the final analysis, I thought giving it up too big a downgrading of our status as a nation, and in an uncertain world, too big a risk for our defence."

I'm sure you will forgive me if I think the world is uncertain because, out there in it, are nine states with nuclear weapons and 180+ without them, and the paranoia, arrogance and UN veto of five of the nine states with them are why the world is uncertain.....because those states consider only the cost and benefit to their own country of any action and do not consider the international law they were instrumental in compiling, or the wider picture of the effects of their decisions on the rest of the world......the growth in terrorism being an example. I would be more sanguine if I was not aware that the USA have already used nuclear weapons, not for any good reason, against a country ready and willing to surrender, but to send a message to Russia. The USA started and exacerbated the arms race, and took steps to ensure that the big stick numbers were limited to their advantage.

I'd be interested if you, or anyone, could give me some idea of just what circumstances would ever warrant the use of Trident against either one of the 180+ countries without nuclear weapons.......or the other eight which have them........many of which will undoubtedly have much bigger and better ones than we do...and also what use they are in the "War on Terrorism" or "The War on Drugs" or the There may have been some small benefit in having it parked near the most densely populated part of Scotland if, because of its presence, it actually stopped wars......but all it does do is permit the Governments of those countries with nuclear weapons to pretty much ride roughshod over the Governments and populations of countries without any to abstract resources and make money......the playground bullies of the nuclear age.

BetterTogether
14-Apr-15, 21:54
The reality of having Nuclear Weapons is if you have them then no one is going to push things too far so you use them. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the USA and USSR was just a big show of force by both of them and a complete waste of money there has never been a requirement to have that many. The reality is the devastation caused by just a handful of nuclear weapons is sufficient to deter their usage. The worlds problems aren't solved by nuclear weapons just held in abeyance for now. Alas the genie is out of the bottle.Americas usage of them in WW2 wasn't anything to do with showing Russia anything it was because they feared the amount of casualties an invasion of mainland Japan would cause. Japan was neither ready nor willing to surrender until those bombs had been dropped.

Rheghead
14-Apr-15, 22:34
The UK has signed up to the Non nuclear proliferation Treaty. Sometimes it just takes an initial token of Goodwill to defuse a nasty situation.

Oddquine
14-Apr-15, 22:57
The reality of having Nuclear Weapons is if you have them then no one is going to push things too far so you use them. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the USA and USSR was just a big show of force by both of them and a complete waste of money there has never been a requirement to have that many. The reality is the devastation caused by just a handful of nuclear weapons is sufficient to deter their usage. The worlds problems aren't solved by nuclear weapons just held in abeyance for now. Alas the genie is out of the bottle.Americas usage of them in WW2 wasn't anything to do with showing Russia anything it was because they feared the amount of casualties an invasion of mainland Japan would cause. Japan was neither ready nor willing to surrender until those bombs had been dropped.

You really think so re bombing Japan? http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

and

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

andPresident Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it "saved millions of lives" by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

sids
15-Apr-15, 06:45
On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched."


So, you say the Japanese were not offering unconditional surrender.

Kind of knocks a hole in your argument, although I may be misunderstanding your argument.

BetterTogether
15-Apr-15, 08:18
Aye oddquine Devils always in the detail !

Unconditional surrender is just what it says Unconditional no ifs no buts no maybes no emperor !

We should also remember it took the dropping of not one but two nuclear weapons to bring them to heel with a reasonable time frame between each bomb.

Let's not feel overly sorry for the Japanese how about we remember the unprovoked attack on pearl harbour, the way they treated POWS, the way the treated the people of the Philippines China Burma and the fanatical way they defended each island as the USA progressed across the Pacific.

Revisionist Hisotry is all well and good but does no justice to the horrors perpetrated by Japanese Troops and the fanatical cult like way the emperor was followed and obeyed.

Oddquine
15-Apr-15, 13:26
So, you say the Japanese were not offering unconditional surrender.

Kind of knocks a hole in your argument, although I may be misunderstanding your argument.

If unconditional surrender would have meant that the Queen or our PM was handed over and tried for War Crimes, would we have worn that? Really?

It would have been so simple to have clarified the meaning of unconditional.....but then there would have been no excuse to continue the war until the bombs were ready to be used.....would there? In the end, the emperor was not removed, or tried for war crimes....so what other reason for not saying that unconditional surrender would not require him to be more punished than losing his authority, as opposed to his freedom or his life could there have been.

Re "making a point to Russia", Better Together..........can you think of any other reason why, when he knew Russia intended to declare war on Japan on 9th August, Trueman decided to bomb Nagasaki on the same day. Whether bombing Hiroshima was justified or not, and I don't believe for a second it was, bombing Nagasaki most definitely was not...... unless the purpose of it was to intimidate Russia....and that really worked well, didn't it?

If "unconditional surrender" had been defined, in January 1945, when the first try at surrendering took place, or at any other time between then and August, when the Japanese made repeated overtures as to terms, as what it actually turned out to mean after the bombing, the American lives lost between January and August, including the lives of the American POWs who died in the bombings would have been saved, as well as the exaggerated estimate of a million plus who didn't die when they didn't have to invade. After all, the Americans knew that all the Japanese wanted was to ensure the safety and continuance of the Royal Family.

It appears American lives are only important to US Governments if they can give an excuse for American retaliation and muscle-flexing......and the lives of civilians in the countries against which they act, for their own spurious reasons, are of no consequence whatsoever.....and that is the country we allow to lord it over the world..the western part of it, at least.

BetterTogether
15-Apr-15, 17:20
Nice attempt at obfuscation there oddquine but the reality is unconditional surrender has always meant the same thing.

Absolutely no terms or conditions by the party surrendering.

I get the anti American rant I do and they have questions to answer but trying to redefine a word doesn't help your cause.

Distrust of Stalin was quite rightly placed as well under him the people of the Eastern Block suffered more unnecessary pain. Communism in itself has bought no peace and joy to its people both Russia and China have human rights records that make the USA look positively angelic.
Yes there have been defacto wars fought between the superpowers during the course of the twentieth century and that just shows the tight reign Politicians of all beliefs should be kept under.

I think the moral to be learnt from this is not against the people of any one country but more

Never Ever Trust a Politician despite whatever they tell you.

They all have one major fault they crave power and think they know what's best for everyone.

sids
15-Apr-15, 18:02
OQ- you are banging on about a personal hobby horse, that has some truth. But life is not simple.

Hostile Japanese could have our PM and Queen right now, for all I care. They might not go quietly though and being fairly influential people, it would be hard to make them go.

It would be hard to persuade the God-Emperor and the military rulers of Japan to hand themselves over to the USA in 1945, too. In fact, any Japanese citizen who suggested it, would be killed.

The USSR fighting Japanese forces in China in 1945 was an agreement with the other Allies.

To what extent the bombing was rushed through before a Japanese surrender, I'll never know, but Japan appeared game for a land invasion.
Japan did not surrender after the first A-bomb. That was maybe tactical and cynical. They may have hoped the USA did not have more bombs ready for use. Japan had scientists too and they would have some idea how painstaking and slow bomb production was.

You're right about a couple of things:
I expect many American polititians and military hawks were very pleased at the way Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed Russia, Britain, etc., who was top dog.

Dropping nuclear weapons on people is not very humane.

Rheghead
15-Apr-15, 20:44
From what I read just recently, Harry S Truman said some awful racist things about the Japanese even prior to WW2 and wanted to teach them a lesson rather than using the atomic bomb as a tactical weapon.

sids
15-Apr-15, 21:14
From what I read just recently, Harry S Truman said some awful racist things about the Japanese even prior to WW2 and wanted to teach them a lesson rather than using the atomic bomb as a tactical weapon.

Saying bad stuff about foreign people who present a threat is a game they all played and still play.

I've read that he knew nothing about the bomb until he became president. He probably approved use of the bomb for both of your reasons and other reasons, in what proportions we'll never know.

BetterTogether
15-Apr-15, 22:04
From what I read just recently, Harry S Truman said some awful racist things about the Japanese even prior to WW2 and wanted to teach them a lesson rather than using the atomic bomb as a tactical weapon.
Aren't we lucky that we live in far more enlightened times than the 30s and 40s when racism and nationalism were common place.

Although you will always have to watch out for those xenophobic types who like to play those very old worn out cards to create division in civilised countries to gain power.

Thankfully in the enlightened 21st century I'm sure anyone who tried to play that game would be laughed off into obscurity as apparently we learnt all the lessons we needed from back in the 20th century or did we !

rob murray
16-Apr-15, 16:51
You really think so re bombing Japan? http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

and

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

andPresident Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it "saved millions of lives" by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

Reading your url it would seem that there was no case to use nuclear weapons on Japan, however the great thing about google is the amonut of contradictory information out there, ie there are no "filters" so people believe what suits their take on the world...heres something I grabbed from a google search : The U.S. was convinced the Japanese had ALREADY resolved to do that very thing ( fight a war of attrition ). The experience of the military commanders in trying to dislodge the Japanese from the islands they had captured was all the evidence they had. The Battle of Okinawa brought home the point even more. As bad as Okinawa was, the U.S. was convinced Kyuushu would be twice as bad, and the Japanese mainland would be hell on Earth. With that in mind, the option to drop the bombs was a no-brainer. Japan was preparing to fight a war of attrition on the mainland with the idea of making the U.S. pay dearly for every kilometer they advanced. But they had no answer to a single plane taking out a city with one pass. Their hopes for a war of attrition were dashed when they realized the U.S. could attack any city from the air, wreak total devastation, and fly away with no casualties. There are as many sites defending the bomb dropping dare I say than sites condemning it. I mean who killed JFK / consipiracy sites exist in their thousands !

So..who do you believe ? ACtually, Nuclear weapon "research" was started by the Nazis in the 1939..the US didnt get into this game until the early 40's, but key point is that you cannot put the genie back in the bottle surely, unless we all do it.

BetterTogether
22-Apr-15, 16:26
Much is made of the cost of Trident with people bandying around the £100 billion price tag but very few of those opposed to its renewal are honest enough to quote that those figures are spread over 30 yrs which makes the annual cost of having Nuclear Protection £3.33 billion a year.