The end of the union

[Getintaethem]

Buc, with regards to Trident... is Norway not in Nato? Therefore, if they were attacked - either with conventional weapons or nuclear weapons then the other Nato countries with nuclear weapons would defend them. Therefore, they are protected by a nuclear deterrent whether they have nuclear weapons themselves or not... or am I mistaken?

[sancho_panza]

Ah well .

See you have mentioned Trident what a waste of money 100 billion in 2014 we were told by 2016 costs went up to nearly 300 billion to replace.

Trident can kill up to 320 million people where's the good in that . Men woman and children over 99% of people who mean no wrong but to live a life like you and me.

If any government ever actually used Trident it would obviously be horrific, but the argument for having it isn't about how many people it can kill, but what it buys you in negotiations. The point being that if you give up your nuclear weapons you lose any leverage to encourage other states to give up theirs. Personally, I'm not sure I agree that it's still worth the money, particularly as there are other incentives you can give states beyond simply agreeing to disarm, but given that's the main justification for it existing that's what you have to address if we want it scrapped.

The actual cost of it to Scotland on an annual basis isn't particularly large when you put it against the broader fiscal balance. It's no more immoral a use of public money than buying aircraft carriers, fighter jets and all the rest of it in principle, the question is whether it serves a practical purpose (i.e. whether it's actually necessary for the kind of influence discussed above).

[ohno]

If any government ever actually used Trident it would obviously be horrific, but the argument for having it isn't about how many people it can kill, but what it buys you in negotiations. The point being that if you give up your nuclear weapons you lose any leverage to encourage other states to give up theirs. Personally, I'm not sure I agree that it's still worth the money, particularly as there are other incentives you can give states beyond simply agreeing to disarm, but given that's the main justification for it existing that's what you have to address if we want it scrapped.

The actual cost of it to Scotland on an annual basis isn't particularly large when you put it against the broader fiscal balance. It's no more immoral a use of public money than buying aircraft carriers, fighter jets and all the rest of it in principle, the question is whether it serves a practical purpose (i.e. whether it's actually necessary for the kind of influence discussed above).

Who are we aiming it at though? Massive cuts to the armed services who are of more use protecting our streets from ISIS extremists rather than a our nuclear suicide bomb.

[57vintage]

Who are we aiming it at though? Massive cuts to the armed services who are of more use protecting our streets from ISIS extremists rather than a our nuclear suicide bomb.

"We" don't aim it at anyone. Trump has the codes. They are US weapons on foreign soil.

I'm a long-time opponent of nuclear weaponry, and would have it removed from Faslane tomorrow, were that possible.

If it remained as WMD at a UK location, though, and it became a strategic target for nasty underhand slitty-eyed Commie foreign ****ers with their strange, cussed refusal to speak English or Gaelic and their driving on the right of the road, we'd have a few hours before the radiation levels reached us, causing immediate suffering and long-term genetic harm. I'd rather snuff it in the blast, to be honest.

Trident's symbolic for both sides of the argument. For those who think that Britain still has an empire on which the sun never sets (Billy Bragg explained, "that's because you wouldn't turn your back on an Englishman in the dark"), it's symbolic of the Empire's ability to punch above its weight, be seen as a world power (it has a permanent UN Security Council seat as one of the four Allied powers who defeated Hitler) and generally have the ability to act like Erchie when it comes to gunboat diplomacy. Except in Suez, of course.

For the SNP it is an easy, emotional rallying call to the drones, a symbol of the ongoing tyrrany of imperialism, and "TRI-DENT OOT" is easily remembered and can be parrotted instantly in a sort of Orwellian "Four legs good, two legs bad" manner. Maybe they have choir practice at their meetings. Their sentiment is correct, but their attempted seizure of the moral high ground on the issue always comes with the suggestion that anyone who votes differently must be a crazed Tamburlaine-like warmonger.

WMDs such as nuclear weapons are dastardly, and whilst I want to see the planet rid of them, I'm realistsic enough to know that you can't unlearn what Oppenheimer started, neither, for good scientific reasons, should we want to.

[stewarty27]

"We" don't aim it at anyone. Trump has the codes. They are US weapons on foreign soil.

I'm a long-time opponent of nuclear weaponry, and would have it removed from Faslane tomorrow, were that possible.

If it remained as WMD at a UK location, though, and it became a strategic target for nasty underhand slitty-eyed Commie foreign ****ers with their strange, cussed refusal to speak English or Gaelic and their driving on the right of the road, we'd have a few hours before the radiation levels reached us, causing immediate suffering and long-term genetic harm. I'd rather snuff it in the blast, to be honest.

Trident's symbolic for both sides of the argument. For those who think that Britain still has an empire on which the sun never sets (Billy Bragg explained, "that's because you wouldn't turn your back on an Englishman in the dark"), it's symbolic of the Empire's ability to punch above its weight, be seen as a world power (it has a permanent UN Security Council seat as one of the four Allied powers who defeated Hitler) and generally have the ability to act like Erchie when it comes to gunboat diplomacy. Except in Suez, of course.

For the SNP it is an easy, emotional rallying call to the drones, a symbol of the ongoing tyrrany of imperialism, and "TRI-DENT OOT" is easily remembered and can be parrotted instantly in a sort of Orwellian "Four legs good, two legs bad" manner. Maybe they have choir practice at their meetings. Their sentiment is correct, but their attempted seizure of the moral high ground on the issue always comes with the suggestion that anyone who votes differently must be a crazed Tamburlaine-like warmonger.

WMDs such as nuclear weapons are dastardly, and whilst I want to see the planet rid of them, I'm realistsic enough to know that you can't unlearn what Oppenheimer started, neither, for good scientific reasons, should we want to.

I despair I really do. Vintage do you ever read back what you've just written ? To be fair to you some reasonable points. But then you go and dress it up with a load of pretentious smart assed drivel. Do you talk like this in the Black Dog or the Ploo ?. And of course it always always comes back to your unhealthy fixated anti SNP rant. Are we impressed wi old Vintage Naw.

PS "realistsic is spelt realistic. .. Don't tell me Typo

[57vintage]

PS "realistsic is spelt realistic. .. Don't tell me Typo

Thanks. Duly noted.

Other puerile petty insults ignored, as ever.

Cheers now, Ian. Have a nice afternoon.

[Stupie82]

Just remember that Trident isn't there to protect Britain and its Citizens, it is there to protect the Government. If there became any need to use Trident at all, the likelihood would be that we would already be burnt shadows in the ground or endure months/years of exposure to high levels of radiation for the poor sods that survived it. The main parts of the government would of course be safe underground to later emerge unscathed.

Trident is expensive, immoral and it will NEVER be used. Some say its an expense worth having, I say the money would be much better suited elsewhere. There are almost 200 countries in the world and 9 have nuclear weapons... those with them are at more risk than those without. We need to stop thinking that the UK is still a political powerhouse or that we are still part of an empire and somehow need big scary weapons to fend off terrorism. If any country had the will or power to execute these weapons, what good would retaliation do anyway? Whether we had them or not, we would all be tatties anyway! Firing back wouldn't be detrimental to the government or terror cell that fired them originally, but only to the poor innocents on the ground at the other side. A retaliation strike is just as immoral as the impact of a first strike.

[57vintage]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0...83&oe=595E2FCB

[Disco Buc]

Well as i say Norway doesn't have it they feel safe enough without it..
Remind me which country got voted the happiest in the world. They also look after their students whilst living abroad .

Oh to be like Norway what could have been.

[Getintaethem]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0...83&oe=595E2FCB

stupid woman...

should be a colon after the word "demands".

edit: Real letter to Junker from a Polish MP a couple days ago... unless it is fake, but I don't think it is.

https://www.facebook.com/KrystynaPaw...type=3&theater