Caithness Map :: Links to Site Map Paying too much for broadband? Move to PlusNet broadband and save£££s. Free setup now available - terms apply. PlusNet broadband.  

View Poll Results: Should we Contiinue to have nuclear submarines

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    42 60.87%
  • Yes but no nuclear weapons

    2 2.90%
  • No

    24 34.78%
  • I don't care not Scotlands problem

    1 1.45%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: Should the UK have Nuclear Submarines

  1. #1
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default Should the UK have Nuclear Submarines

    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

  2. #2

    Default

    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RUNT View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,262

    Default

    A chocolate teapot is no match for a hydrogen bomb.

  5. #5
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oddquine View Post
    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.
    Last edited by BetterTogether; 10-Apr-15 at 07:33.

  6. #6

    Default

    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.

  7. #7

    Default

    [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]

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The nation of Scotland
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Remember, we can't fire these things without permission from America.

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

  9. #9
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PantsMAN View Post
    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 .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PantsMAN View Post
    Remember, we can't fire these things without permission from America.
    How do you know?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The nation of Scotland
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The nation of Scotland
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sids View Post
    How do you know?
    Reference - http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/986we13.htm

    para. 34ff.

  13. #13
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PantsMAN View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The nation of Scotland
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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!

  15. #15
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by BetterTogether; 10-Apr-15 at 16:29.

  16. #16

    Default

    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.

  17. #17
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Humerous Vegetable View Post
    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.
    Last edited by BetterTogether; 10-Apr-15 at 17:53.

  18. #18
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PantsMAN View Post
    Remember, we can't fire these things without permission from America.
    Quote Originally Posted by sids View Post
    How do you know?
    Quote Originally Posted by PantsMAN View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The nation of Scotland
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sids View Post
    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?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •