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 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54

Thread: Should the UK have Nuclear Submarines

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The nation of Scotland
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post

    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.

  2. #22
    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
    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    8,203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PantsMAN View Post
    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, who's fm and her party want to ban Trident, and lose 7k jobs at Faslane
    Once the original Grumpy Owld Man but alas no more

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    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?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PantsMAN View Post
    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.

  6. #26
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    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!

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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!

  8. #28
    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
    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.

  9. #29

    Default

    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?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    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?

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The nation of Scotland
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golach View Post
    and how long do you think Nato will protect a independent Scotland, 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.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,262

    Default

    Evicting NATO submarines wouldn't endear Scotland to NATO.

  14. #34

    Default

    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.

  15. #35
    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
    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.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Beechville, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    670

    Default

    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.

  17. #37
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Banks View Post
    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
    Last edited by BetterTogether; 11-Apr-15 at 22:12.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Beechville, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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.
    Last edited by David Banks; 13-Apr-15 at 14:32.

  19. #39
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Banks View Post
    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

  20. #40

    Default trident

    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

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •