Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Trident: The Chocolate Teapot. http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/ If it was up to me I'd scrap Trident, but that article is flawed in that it assumes the only country we'd ever get into a confrontation with would be Russia. The author is stuck in the same Cold War mentality that they criticise Westminster and the MOD for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 If it was up to me I'd scrap Trident, but that article is flawed in that it assumes the only country we'd ever get into a confrontation with would be Russia. The author is stuck in the same Cold War mentality that they criticise Westminster and the MOD for. Who else would want to attack Scotland and how would Trident help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taza Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Who else would want to attack Scotland and how would Trident help? One of the big things to love about an Indy Scotland, is that after the removal of Trident and the separation of our armed/defence forces from The UK/British military machine, we'd make a pretty pointless target for anyone. Fk the yanks probably wouldn't even be outraged if we were invaded by a foreign power, it'd be totally utterly pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Who else would want to attack Scotland and how would Trident help? The article isn't talking about Scotland, it's talking about why Trident doesn't make sense for the UK as a whole. And I'd say a country such as Libya, which in the past has pursued a nuclear weapons program and was lead by someone who wasn't a particularly rational individual. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine situations involving countries like that where Britain's nuclear deterrent wouldn't be completely pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 The article isn't talking about Scotland, it's talking about why Trident doesn't make sense for the UK as a whole. And I'd say a country such as Libya, which in the past has pursued a nuclear weapons program and was lead by someone who wasn't a particularly rational individual. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine situations involving countries like that where Britain's nuclear deterrent wouldn't be completely pointless. And this Libyan nuclear threat would be delivered by what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 And this Libyan nuclear threat would be delivered by what? Bearing in mind we're dealing with hypotheticals, their nuclear weapons that they actively but unsuccessfully tried to produce could be delivered by the intermediate range missiles they actively but unsuccessfully tried to buy/build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Bearing in mind we're dealing with hypotheticals, their nuclear weapons that they actively but unsuccessfully tried to produce could be delivered by the intermediate range missiles they actively but unsuccessfully tried to buy/build. So they didn't have missiles and they didn't have payloads to load onto the missiles they didn't have. Where does Trident come in to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Keeping in mind, it's not just having the know how to build a nuclear weapons, it's having the ability to launch it and hit a target, especially one half way round the globe That's the downfall for most of these nations when developing nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 So they didn't have missiles and they didn't have payloads to load onto the missiles they didn't have. Where does Trident come in to this? The article isn't talking about Scotland, it's talking about why Trident doesn't make sense for the UK as a whole. And I'd say a country such as Libya, which in the past has pursued a nuclear weapons program and was lead by someone who wasn't a particularly rational individual. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine situations involving countries like that where Britain's nuclear deterrent wouldn't be completely pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Keeping in mind, it's not just having the know how to build a nuclear weapons, it's having the ability to launch it and hit a target, especially one half way round the globe That's the downfall for most of these nations when developing nuclear weapons. That's all fair enough. I'm not suggesting it's likely, just saying that it's not completely inconceivable that one of these countries could manage it (or even get to a point where it looks possible). In that kind of situation Trident might possibly be useful (I'm still not in favour of it). The article focuses on its uselessness against Russia, when that's one of the places on Earth that we're least likely to get into any sort of military confrontation with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 That's all fair enough. I'm not suggesting it's likely, just saying that it's not completely inconceivable that one of these countries could manage it (or even get to a point where it looks possible). In that kind of situation Trident might possibly be useful (I'm still not in favour of it). The article focuses on its uselessness against Russia, when that's one of the places on Earth that we're least likely to get into any sort of military confrontation with. Do you think the UK would have used trident against Lybia? Or anyone else? What would be the point? The rest of the world would make you outcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 "It's talking about why Trident doesn't make sense for the UK as a whole.it's talking about why Trident doesn't make sense for the UK as a whole." Uh-huh and I'm asking what threat Trident is designed to counter. You said Libya was a possibility and I'd like to know in what way. Actually discuss it if you can, I'm interested. I'd rather you didn't just repeat your elliptical sentences, mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 That's all fair enough. I'm not suggesting it's likely, just saying that it's not completely inconceivable that one of these countries could manage it (or even get to a point where it looks possible). In that kind of situation Trident might possibly be useful (I'm still not in favour of it). The article focuses on its uselessness against Russia, when that's one of the places on Earth that we're least likely to get into any sort of military confrontation with. It's also useless against every other country in the world. It was designed to be useful against Russia and if it can't do that it can't do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Carmichael, we'll get more Westminster in the event of a no vote. http://t.co/zyqbQb7zts Lucky us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Carmichael, we'll get more Westminster in the event of a no vote. http://t.co/zyqbQb7zts Lucky us Extra powers and a boot on the throat, nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Do you think the UK would have used trident against Lybia? Or anyone else? What would be the point? The rest of the world would make you outcast. I don't think so, but it's not a situation anyone has been faced with. My hypothetical scenario isn't really about actually using them anyway, it's about whether it can work as a deterrent at all (the article says it can't). Would it deter Russia, a vast nation with a huge nuclear arsenal and advanced missile defence systems? It's pretty unlikely. Could it deter a smaller country with a very limited nuclear arsenal (a hypothetical Iran or Libya or whoever). Possibly, who can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Imagine if the situation was completely new. Hear, do you want to spend a billion smackers a year on schools, hospitals (even lowering taxes if that's your bag)? Or do you want it spent on nukes? All but the nuttiest of nutters wouldn't choose the second option. But when it's an argument about Scotland potentially doing something better for its people, it's to be defended at all costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Uh-huh and I'm asking what threat Trident is designed to counter. You said Libya was a possibility and I'd like to know in what way. Actually discuss it if you can, I'm interested. I'd rather you didn't just repeat your elliptical sentences, mind. I said that it's not inconceivable that a country like Libya, which was hostile to us, and tried over decades to develop/procure both nuclear weapon technology and intermediate ballistic missiles, could possibly be countered with the threat of Trident. I don't think that's hugely outlandish. It's also useless against every other country in the world. It was designed to be useful against Russia and if it can't do that it can't do anything. Well that's just nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 I said that it's not inconceivable that a country like Libya, which was hostile to us, and tried over decades to develop/procure both nuclear weapon technology and intermediate ballistic missiles, could possibly be countered with the threat of Trident. I don't think that's hugely outlandish. Well that's just nonsense. Trident is useless full stop. It's primarily a first strike programme, therefore in the event that it has to be used, we're all fucked anyway. It's nothing more than scrap metal with a mental half life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiesmaw Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 You can shove it up your arse Alex salmond is a fat w**k who doesn't have a clue what to do with the country if we go independant and what about out army? Just splitting one of the best military's in the world in 2 because some arsehole thinks we will be better off we have enough warnings Ireland? Greece? Both fucked Scotland will end up the same no thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.