What is the point of Labour ?

[NotThePars]

@theguardian
Sports - £20 million
Travel - £12 million
International news - £16 million
Anti-Corbyn staff columnists - £200 million
Arts coverage - £8 million

Someone who’s good at budgeting please help my paper is dying

[SandyCromarty]

On 05/07/2020 at 10:06, GordonS said:

FWIW, the world has had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads for many decades and there hasn't been a single catastrophic accident. There hasn't been a serious accident in a Western country since the early days. I don't think many people in Scotland care much about Trident at all. 

There have been more than a few near collisions between nuclear submarines and commercial vessels reported in the last few years in the Clyde estuary, the most recent, two years ago, was when the British nuclear submarines watch officer miscalculated the speed of a Stena Ferry as being 15 knots when in fact the ferry was travelling at 30 knots. 

And lets not forget the Tarbert fishing boat that got dragged down underwater within minutes with all hands drowned when it's nets were caught on a nuclear submarine.

And there was the sailor who went berserk on The Astute, a british nuclear submarine, when he shot and killed an officer with an SA80 auto gun in the control room of the sub, in all he fired six shots before he was overpowered.

Another massively serious incident was back in the seventies in the Clyde estuary when an American sub with sixteen nuclear missiles onboard had an underwater collision with a Russian sub that was tailing it.

And these are only the reported ones where other vessels are involved and inquiries are set up to investigate the cause.

Accidents do happen, and a catastrophic one is more than a possibility.

[GordonS]

7 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

There have been more than a few near collisions between nuclear submarines and commercial vessels reported in the last few years in the Clyde estuary, the most recent, two years ago, was when the British nuclear submarines watch officer miscalculated the speed of a Stena Ferry as being 15 knots when in fact the ferry was travelling at 30 knots. 

And lets not forget the Tarbert fishing boat that got dragged down underwater within minutes with all hands drowned when it's nets were caught on a nuclear submarine.

And there was the sailor who went berserk on The Astute, a british nuclear submarine, when he shot and killed an officer with an SA80 auto gun in the control room of the sub, in all he fired six shots before he was overpowered.

Another massively serious incident was back in the seventies in the Clyde estuary when an American sub with sixteen nuclear missiles onboard had an underwater collision with a Russian sub that was tailing it.

And these are only the reported ones where other vessels are involved and inquiries are set up to investigate the cause.

Accidents do happen, and a catastrophic one is more than a possibility.

None of those could have led to even a partial detonation, though a radiation leak is always a possibility. 

The fishing boat that sunk in the Clyde - the Antares - was sunk by HMS Trenchant, a submarine that doesn't carry nuclear missiles. The UK has 11 submarines, of which four can carry Trident; three more subs are in construction, none of which will be able to carry Trident.

[Tutankhamen]

On 8 July 2020 at 10:34, invergowrie arab said:

Absolute rubbish.

John Swinney created the modern SNP by doing the hard stuff amd weeding out the factions that a populist like Salmond couldn't bring himself to do.

Nobody has done more to bring independence as close as it is than John Swinney

Respect for the sense of humour, John.

[Wee Willie]

On 05/07/2020 at 10:06, GordonS said:

FWIW, the world has had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads for many decades and there hasn't been a single catastrophic accident. There hasn't been a serious accident in a Western country since the early days. I don't think many people in Scotland care much about Trident at all. 

 

On 07/07/2020 at 19:29, AUFC90 said:

To be fair, nuclear weapons dont just accidently go off. It's literally impossible.

"The problem is that the dockyard is in a densely populated area and, if there were an accident, thousands of people would be at risk.

The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth"

Why did the MoD use this excuse to say No to Trident being based at Plymouth.

What were the potentially 11,000 victims going to succumb to?

 

On 17/07/2020 at 09:54, SandyCromarty said:

There have been more than a few near collisions between nuclear submarines and commercial vessels reported in the last few years in the Clyde estuary, the most recent, two years ago, was when the British nuclear submarines watch officer miscalculated the speed of a Stena Ferry as being 15 knots when in fact the ferry was travelling at 30 knots. 

And lets not forget the Tarbert fishing boat that got dragged down underwater within minutes with all hands drowned when it's nets were caught on a nuclear submarine.

And there was the sailor who went berserk on The Astute, a british nuclear submarine, when he shot and killed an officer with an SA80 auto gun in the control room of the sub, in all he fired six shots before he was overpowered.

Another massively serious incident was back in the seventies in the Clyde estuary when an American sub with sixteen nuclear missiles onboard had an underwater collision with a Russian sub that was tailing it.

And these are only the reported ones where other vessels are involved and inquiries are set up to investigate the cause.

Accidents do happen, and a catastrophic one is more than a possibility.

Aye, and the fact that is based in Scotland is a bloody disgrace.

[AUFC90]

Aye, and the fact that is based in Scotland is a bloody disgrace.

Still doesn't change the fact that nuclear explosions don't just happen by accident. People literally thinking an accident at Faslane could level Glasgow are havering.

 

[GordonS]

8 hours ago, Wee Willie said:

 

"The problem is that the dockyard is in a densely populated area and, if there were an accident, thousands of people would be at risk.

The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth"

Why did the MoD use this excuse to say No to Trident being based at Plymouth.

What were the potentially 11,000 victims going to succumb to?

 

Aye, and the fact that is based in Scotland is a bloody disgrace.

Devonport is literally in Plymouth, about a mile from the city centre. The equivalent on the Clyde would be the Govan yard. A worst-case accident at Faslane would obviously kill far, far fewer people than one at Devonport - it's 25 miles from the centre of Glasgow, 12 miles from Dumbarton and behind a big lump of hills. It would be interesting to see those reports side-by-side - folk seem to talk about one, but not the other.

Worst-case scenario nuclear accidents with warheads are almost inconceivable in developed Western countries. You're talking about Chernobyl levels of incompetence, stupidity, arrogance, lack of training and lack of preparation. Things could and should be much better, but they're not nearly bad enough to worry about that.

As for location, if you stand back and look at where in the UK you would put a nuclear submarine base, the outer Clyde leaps out as an obvious top contender and probably clear number one. And it's not like there aren't plenty of comparable facilities in England - when we had an aviation-based nuclear capability it was based in the East of England, Greenham Common is in the Thames Valley and Aldermaston, where the actual warheads are made and serviced, is nearby. 

FWIW I'm in favour of unilateral disarmament and I don't like Trident on the Clyde any more than you do. 

[KingRocketman II]

6 hours ago, GordonS said:

Devonport is literally in Plymouth, about a mile from the city centre. The equivalent on the Clyde would be the Govan yard. A worst-case accident at Faslane would obviously kill far, far fewer people than one at Devonport - it's 25 miles from the centre of Glasgow, 12 miles from Dumbarton and behind a big lump of hills. It would be interesting to see those reports side-by-side - folk seem to talk about one, but not the other.

Worst-case scenario nuclear accidents with warheads are almost inconceivable in developed Western countries. You're talking about Chernobyl levels of incompetence, stupidity, arrogance, lack of training and lack of preparation. Things could and should be much better, but they're not nearly bad enough to worry about that.

As for location, if you stand back and look at where in the UK you would put a nuclear submarine base, the outer Clyde leaps out as an obvious top contender and probably clear number one. And it's not like there aren't plenty of comparable facilities in England - when we had an aviation-based nuclear capability it was based in the East of England, Greenham Common is in the Thames Valley and Aldermaston, where the actual warheads are made and serviced, is nearby. 

FWIW I'm in favour of unilateral disarmament and I don't like Trident on the Clyde any more than you do. 

we see this in our Government and many parts of the Civil Service on a daily basis. why would MOD be any different? 

[Wee Willie]

18 hours ago, AUFC90 said:

Still doesn't change the fact that nuclear explosions don't just happen by accident. People literally thinking an accident at Faslane could level Glasgow are havering.

 

"The problem is that the dockyard is in a densely populated area and, if there were an accident, thousands of people would be at risk.

The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth"

Then explain why the MoD use the fact that 11,000 could die in Plymouth due to an accident?

What kind of accident would that be where thousands are dead?

[Wee Willie]

12 hours ago, GordonS said:

Devonport is literally in Plymouth, about a mile from the city centre. The equivalent on the Clyde would be the Govan yard. A worst-case accident at Faslane would obviously kill far, far fewer people than one at Devonport - it's 25 miles from the centre of Glasgow, 12 miles from Dumbarton and behind a big lump of hills. It would be interesting to see those reports side-by-side - folk seem to talk about one, but not the other.

Worst-case scenario nuclear accidents with warheads are almost inconceivable in developed Western countries. You're talking about Chernobyl levels of incompetence, stupidity, arrogance, lack of training and lack of preparation. Things could and should be much better, but they're not nearly bad enough to worry about that.

As for location, if you stand back and look at where in the UK you would put a nuclear submarine base, the outer Clyde leaps out as an obvious top contender and probably clear number one. And it's not like there aren't plenty of comparable facilities in England - when we had an aviation-based nuclear capability it was based in the East of England, Greenham Common is in the Thames Valley and Aldermaston, where the actual warheads are made and serviced, is nearby. 

FWIW I'm in favour of unilateral disarmament and I don't like Trident on the Clyde any more than you do. 

If we were in a Dictatorship then that could be right. Apparently it was a done deal between the MoD and the Yanks with no questions asked and with no approval from the locals.

What about the report from the MoD The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth

Where is the 'accident' coming from'?

Worst-case scenario nuclear accidents with warheads are almost inconceivable in developed Western countries

That may be true but you are only quoting what 'developed Western Countries' want you to believe.

That's like listening to the BBC or the Daily Mail or the Sun and taking your info from them.

FWIW I'm in favour of unilateral disarmament and I don't like Trident on the Clyde any more than you do. 

Well said! Irrespective of an accident scenario Trident should not be on the Clyde or thereabouts.

I want my grandkids to grow up in a nuclear-free Scotland with no worries regarding nuclear fall-out.

And I would hope everyone else in Scotland would feel the same.

[GordonS]

On 19/07/2020 at 06:53, KingRocketman II said:

we see this in our Government and many parts of the Civil Service on a daily basis. why would MOD be any different? 

Come off it, there is absolutely no way you can compare the current running on a day-to-day basis of developed government with the late-stage Soviet Union. That's a huge loss of perspective. 

On 19/07/2020 at 13:31, Wee Willie said:

If we were in a Dictatorship then that could be right. Apparently it was a done deal between the MoD and the Yanks with no questions asked and with no approval from the locals.

What about the report from the MoD The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth

Where is the 'accident' coming from'?

Worst-case scenario nuclear accidents with warheads are almost inconceivable in developed Western countries

That may be true but you are only quoting what 'developed Western Countries' want you to believe.

That's like listening to the BBC or the Daily Mail or the Sun and taking your info from them.

FWIW I'm in favour of unilateral disarmament and I don't like Trident on the Clyde any more than you do. 

Well said! Irrespective of an accident scenario Trident should not be on the Clyde or thereabouts.

I want my grandkids to grow up in a nuclear-free Scotland with no worries regarding nuclear fall-out.

And I would hope everyone else in Scotland would feel the same.

So they should put stuff in less sensible places because we're not a dictatorship?

Why would the "Yanks" give a shit whether it was on the Clyde or elsewhere? 

I've not read any of these reports but in general the biggest danger from nuclear missiles is an explosion involving a warhead, leading to a radiation leak. As far as is understood it's impossible for an accidental detonation.

I get my information about nuclear weapons from academics, mostly in the US. I'm a bit of a nerd about this stuff, have been since reading about nuclear war theory at uni. I recommend Richard Rhodes' books and the work of Alex Wellerstein, especially his blog and his terrifying Nukemap: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/. I'm not saying worst-case nuclear accidents are all-but inconceivable because of what the BBC says, it's because of what these guys say.

I want my children to grow up in a nuclear-free Scotland every bit as much as you do. I just don't buy conspiracy theories without actual evidence, and contrary to what smart and independent people tell me.

And again FWIW, I do think nuclear weapons helped to prevent the Cold War from becoming a hot war, but that was a set of circumstances that are unusual, in which both sides had too much to lose. There's no way humanity has nuclear weapons without, some day, them being used to commit genocide.

[Detournement]

13 hours ago, GordonS said:

 

And again FWIW, I do think nuclear weapons helped to prevent the Cold War from becoming a hot war, but that was a set of circumstances that are unusual, in which both sides had too much to lose.

Klaus Fuchs is the hero of the 20th century.

 

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, Detournement said:

Klaus Fuchs is the hero of the 20th century.

 

I wouldn't say living under a Communist dictatorship was a barrel of fun for Eastern Europe, something that might have been avoided if the USSR hadn't got the bomb so quickly, but it's a theory.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

It's been a tremendously successful 48 hours in the battle to win back Scotland and the 'red wall'.

This is what real leadership looks like.

[Dunning1874]

I know you can easily pick a backbench cretin from any party then exploit the extreme views or objectionable behaviour of that individual to cast bad faith aspersions about a party as a whole, but holy f**k Rosie Duffield's behaviour over the last 48 hours really does have to be seen to be believed.

The final rebuttal she's given, after a solid two days of being bodied by journalists daring to consider trifling matters such as 'evidence' and 'facts', of 'I've stood up for you when you've been racially abused before but I'll not bother now because you've disagreed with me on a matter of policy' is really the most accidentally perfect summation of everything wrong with that shitheap of a party. Make a show of opposing racism when it's convenient, but whenever there's political capital to be found in attacking someone who isn't whiite go out of your way to be a racist scumbag (chuck a cancel culture trope in there for good measure) and launch minorities under the bus.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Duffield was openly pro-Remain and had the backbone to speak out against Corbyn and anti-Semitism in the party.

She’s far from the worst Labour MP.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Ffs Mixu.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

1 minute ago, MixuFruit said:

I'm literally always online you cannot expect me not to know all things as soon as they happen do not attempt to gazump me ever

In my defence, I was searching for the Corbyn gif.

I'll get you next time.

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

Why go after the Tories when you can try and close down a barely watched news channel instead?

https://www.cityam.com/labour-calls-for-review-of-russia-todays-uk-tv-licence/