Trident

[jamborich]

Definitely 

[Sarah O]

Definitely not

[ri Alban]

Worthless.

[dobmisterdobster]

Trident has been vindicated by recent events.

[ri Alban]

15 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Trident has been vindicated by recent events.

[Jambo_jim2001]

Who washes the windows,and do they have window wipers for when under the water?🤔

[1971fozzy]

3 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Trident has been vindicated by recent events.

sadly your right.  

[Humblerogue]

Should be moved to London 

[Roxy Hearts]

No! It was meant to prevent war. Russia don't care.

 

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Trident has been vindicated by recent events.

Well that's just not true

[SectionDJambo]

Trident was intended to discourage a nuclear attack on the UK and, by extension, any NATO member country. Ukraine, as we know, is not a member of NATO, and hasn't yet suffered a nuclear attack from Russia.

We don't know if the Russians don't care about Trident, as they've yet to launch a nuclear attack on any other country. I would imagine that they are more concerned about the American nuclear arsenal, though.

It's to be hoped that the Russians, Chinese, and any other country, have grasped the reality that there would be no winners in a nuclear conflict, only mass distruction that our planet would never recover from.

[Don Dan]

Supposition if it has value or not. We are maybe about to find out. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by Boy Daniel

[indianajones]

Everyone needs to wise up and bin them all. 

 

Nuclear bombs ffs. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

18 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Everyone needs to wise up and bin them all. 

 

Nuclear bombs ffs. 

You are right but sadly the Human Race are *****.

[John Findlay]

Since Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, man hasn't learned much. As long as one side has them then the other will. Perhaps SALT talks and treaties will happen again?

[indianajones]

12 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

You are right but sadly the Human Race are *****.

 

Pretty much. 

 

All the good the many billions (maybe trillions?) of £ could do worldwide would be crazy. Poverty, hunger, energy etc all sorted.

 

[frankblack]

34 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Everyone needs to wise up and bin them all. 

 

Nuclear bombs ffs. 

 

A deterrent will always be needed when you have nutters like Putin and Kim Jon Un threatening your national security.

 

Putin knows the consequences if he escalates his genocidal conquests beyond Ukraine.

[Roxy Hearts]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

A deterrent will always be needed when you have nutters like Putin and Kim Jon Un threatening your national security.

 

Putin knows the consequences if he escalates his genocidal conquests beyond Ukraine.

Why doesn't every country have them? Take them out of Scotland and put them in that brown, horrible river Thames. It would clean it up and could be tourist attraction. 

[frankblack]

Just now, Roxy Hearts said:

Why doesn't every country have them? Take them out of Scotland and put them in that brown, horrible river Thames. It would clean it up and could be tourist attraction. 

 

Because of cost and perhaps intimidation from larger neighbours.

 

Take the Nukes out of Scotland and an independent Scotland would be wide open to Putin.

[redjambo]

If I could click my fingers and get rid of every nuclear weapon on earth I would. But I can't, and no-one else can. So, until Earth can achieve true peace, or aliens intervene (probably more likely ;)), they're going to stay, and probably have to as well in order that one side doesn't go crazy.

 

The sword of Damocles indeed.

[Unknown user]

Just for the record I doubt there's much chance that our trident subs are anywhere near Faslane at the moment!

 

To those who say Trident's existence is vindicated by recent events let's just say the UK hadn't spent billions upon billions on Trident - how exactly would today's situation be any different?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

A deterrent will always be needed when you have nutters like Putin and Kim Jon Un threatening your national security.

 

Putin knows the consequences if he escalates his genocidal conquests beyond Ukraine.

 

Indeed, Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons and received security assurances from Russia that Russia would never attack them.

 

Proved to be just another Russian lie.

[GBJambo]

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine if they had nukes

[Jambo_Gaz]

Folk not getting the purpose of Trident and the place it gives the UK in the world. 

 

Small minded Scottish separatists in a nutshell. 

[frankblack]

11 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

Folk not getting the purpose of Trident and the place it gives the UK in the world. 

 

Small minded Scottish separatists in a nutshell. 

 

Finding a way to rejoin the EU would pale into insignificance at least if Russia invaded.

[EH11]

Last time we tested our capability, the missile launched in the wrong direction.

[JimmyCant]

44 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

Folk not getting the purpose of Trident and the place it gives the UK in the world. 

 

Small minded Scottish separatists in a nutshell. 

The UK’s current place in the world is to stand back with everyone else in the west whilst thousands of civilians are murdered and millions forced out of a non aggressive non nuclear sovereign state.

 

We’re doing that because we’re a target for a nuclear attack and we’d have to be part of the Armageddon if anyone pushed a button on either side. Were it not for the existence of nuclear weapons, we’d be in the Ukraine already and if Russia didn’t have them, they wouldn’t have gone in there in the first place

 

Id rather we binned those horrible weapons unilaterally or negotiated them away as part of a new SALT.

 

Being independent or otherwise makes no difference here

Edited March 12, 2022 by JimmyCant

[highlandjambo3]

2 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Because of cost and perhaps intimidation from larger neighbours.

 

Take the Nukes out of Scotland and an independent Scotland would be wide open to Putin.

Nah……look at what the Ukrainian population are doing…..burying their dead in the snow, singing the national anthem, filling sandbags…………..we’d get right into those pesky ruskies……………well at least for 15 minutes until the wi-fi and power went down.

[Cruyff]

They are a Deterrent, they have deterred NATO from getting involved in Ukraine and they will deter Russia from attacking NATO member states. They've also deterred countries from attacking Israel and India & Pakistan from attacking one another. If Ukraine still had theirs, they probably wouldn't be in the situation they are today.

 

It's a 70 year Mexican standoff. There's only two ways out of it. We all become pals and get rid off them or we obliterate one another.

 

What kin ye dae? 

[micole]

UK is a minor player, the 3 world power's , USA , Russia and China would decide any outcome. The UK is used as a docking station for USA nukes it would make no difference If we have them or not IMO. For me I would get rid asap, just my thoughts on it.

[Jambo_jim2001]

He was aware he let the genie out of the bottle😳😳

[The Real Maroonblood]

19 minutes ago, micole said:

UK is a minor player, the 3 world power's , USA , Russia and China would decide any outcome. The UK is used as a docking station for USA nukes it would make no difference If we have them or not IMO. For me I would get rid asap, just my thoughts on it.

Fair comment. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

38 minutes ago, micole said:

UK is a minor player, the 3 world power's , USA , Russia and China would decide any outcome. The UK is used as a docking station for USA nukes it would make no difference If we have them or not IMO. For me I would get rid asap, just my thoughts on it.

 

That's where I am.

I'd happily **** Trident right off.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

59 minutes ago, Jambo_jim2001 said:

He was aware he let the genie out of the bottle😳😳

 

Crackin' line, right enough.

 

[Gizmo]

2 hours ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

Folk not getting the purpose of Trident and the place it gives the UK in the world. 

 

Small minded Scottish separatists in a nutshell. 

 

2 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Finding a way to rejoin the EU would pale into insignificance at least if Russia invaded.

Seriously, this is the level of discourse you are both capable of? 🙄

The UK having nukes is nothing but projection.

As long as the UK - or an independent Scotland for that matter, remain part of NATO and the US maintain enough nukes to flatten Russia, they retain little more than a symbolic status of a faded country that, like Putin, still longs for past glories and cannot or will not move on from the past. It gives us bugger all status, even if the more strident Brit-nats wish it did. 

We opened Pandora's box when we, as a race, developed nuclear bombs but the UK or Scotland removing nukes makes no strategic difference to the current geopolitical status quo. 

The biggest potential change is if Putin maintains power and Trump wins in 2024 - he could well pull the US from NATO though I'd suggest recent events make this less likely assuming his advisors hold as many reigns on the idiot as Putinn does. If he was to do so, then we may well need to maintain our stockpile. It's a big if, tho. 

 

[Unknown user]

I don't think people understand how strategically important our wee bit of rock is, there's zero chance Europe would allow a hostile presence to be established in Scotland. 

And how's Putin going to invade anyway? Tanks don't swim, and planes would have to fly over several hostile airspaces

[milky_26]

12 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I don't think people understand how strategically important our wee bit of rock is, there's zero chance Europe would allow a hostile presence to be established in Scotland. 

And how's Putin going to invade anyway? Tanks don't swim, and planes would have to fly over several hostile airspaces

re your last point, how often is it reported that russian bear aircraft have been escorted away from british airspace as they have went near shetland

[graygo]

4 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Because of cost and perhaps intimidation from larger neighbours.

 

Take the Nukes out of Scotland and an independent Scotland would be wide open to Putin.

 

No it wouldn't, just like Russia wouldn't stand back and watch us invade Belarus and just like we wouldn't sit back and let Russia invade Ireland 

[frankblack]

5 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

No it wouldn't, just like Russia wouldn't stand back and watch us invade Belarus and just like we wouldn't sit back and let Russia invade Ireland 

 

You are naive to believe that.  The Greens and SNP have completely underestimated the threat from rogue states.  Thankfully Westminster is in charge here.

[frankblack]

50 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

 

Seriously, this is the level of discourse you are both capable of? 🙄

The UK having nukes is nothing but projection.

As long as the UK - or an independent Scotland for that matter, remain part of NATO and the US maintain enough nukes to flatten Russia, they retain little more than a symbolic status of a faded country that, like Putin, still longs for past glories and cannot or will not move on from the past. It gives us bugger all status, even if the more strident Brit-nats wish it did. 

We opened Pandora's box when we, as a race, developed nuclear bombs but the UK or Scotland removing nukes makes no strategic difference to the current geopolitical status quo. 

The biggest potential change is if Putin maintains power and Trump wins in 2024 - he could well pull the US from NATO though I'd suggest recent events make this less likely assuming his advisors hold as many reigns on the idiot as Putinn does. If he was to do so, then we may well need to maintain our stockpile. It's a big if, tho. 

 

 

Why would NATO accept a loser independent Scottish government who won't carry a nuclear deterrent?

[ri Alban]

30 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Why would NATO accept a loser independent Scottish government who won't carry a nuclear deterrent?

27 out 30 NATO members don't have nukes. 

 

Hopefully you say that Loser bit out loud one day and I'm standing right beside you.

[The Real Maroonblood]

6 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

27 out 30 NATO members don't have nukes. 

 

Hopefully you say that Loser bit out loud one day and I'm standing right beside you.

[Gizmo]

41 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Why would NATO accept a loser independent Scottish government who won't carry a nuclear deterrent?

Please remind me where possession of nuclear weapons is a mandatory requirement for NATO membership?

C'mon Frank, your a better poster than this. I don't really want a nationalist bent to creep into discussion of the Ukraine stuff to be honest, I'm quite sickened enough with where such sentiments, tied to chasing past glories/ideologies, can take us. 

[frankblack]

6 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

Please remind me where possession of nuclear weapons is a mandatory requirement for NATO membership?

C'mon Frank, your a better poster than this. I don't really want a nationalist bent to creep into discussion of the Ukraine stuff to be honest, I'm quite sickened enough with where such sentiments, tied to chasing past glories/ideologies, can take us. 

 

So why do you expect the protection of a nuclear deterrent from NATO but don't want to carry what we already have?

 

Batshit mental.

 

The invasion in Ukraine proves 100% that nuclear disarmament by others is a huge mistake.

Edited March 12, 2022 by frankblack

[Gizmo]

6 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

So why do you expect the protection of a nuclear deterrent from NATO but don't want to carry what we already have?

 

Batshit mental.

 

The invasion in Ukraine proves 100% that nuclear disarmament by others is a huge mistake.

 

Because the US and Russia have enough nukes to annihilate us all 10x over. What's the point of us standing behind the US waving a few token missiles, really? 

Are you suggesting you desire nuclear proliferation to the extent of arming all NATO countries, or is your complaint limited to just giving Scotland a wee bashing? The first concept is, to coin a phrase, batshit mental. The second is just pathetic. 

Also, even if we did become independent and didn't join NATO, do you think the rUK would just sit idly by and let Putin annex Scotland? Come on mate, none of these scenarios are remotely plausible. 

[frankblack]

10 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

 

Because the US and Russia have enough nukes to annihilate us all 10x over. What's the point of us standing behind the US waving a few token missiles, really? 

Are you suggesting you desire nuclear proliferation to the extent of arming all NATO countries, or is your complaint limited to just giving Scotland a wee bashing? The first concept is, to coin a phrase, batshit mental. The second is just pathetic. 

Also, even if we did become independent and didn't join NATO, do you think the rUK would just sit idly by and let Putin annex Scotland? Come on mate, none of these scenarios are remotely plausible. 

 

I think its clear nuclear disarmament was hugely premature.

 

If Russia did to us what they are doing to the Ukraine I'd expect to wipe them off the map.  That prospect in itself is enough to stop them.

 

We are all in it together and the pacifist stance doesn't wash.

Edited March 12, 2022 by frankblack

[Brighton Jambo]

An independent Scotland could join NATO and would do.  
 

An independent Scotland that insisted on removing Trident from Faslane would not be accepted into NATO.  
 

All this nonsense about ‘just move Trident’ to England have no idea what they are talking about.  Having no secure Naval base for the Nuclear deterrent in our part of Europe would be seen as a significant security risk by NATO especially given current events.  
 

To be honest it’s absolutely typical independence supporting rhetoric, always wanting their cake and eating it.  It’s totally unrealistic in the real world.  

[Gizmo]

10 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I think its clear nuclear disarmament was hugely premature.

 

If Russia did to us what they are doing to the Ukraine I'd expect to wipe them off the map.  That prospect in itself is enough to stop them.

 

We are all in it together and the pacifist stance doesn't wash.

It's not a pacifist stance since we'd be delegating much of our (joint) security to the most well-armed country on the planet with over 6,000 nukes.

You kinda skirted my questions so let's put this another way, do you think there is any scenario where Putin would attempt to annex Eire?

[frankblack]

5 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

An independent Scotland could join NATO and would do.  
 

An independent Scotland that insisted on removing Trident from Faslane would not be accepted into NATO.  
 

All this nonsense about ‘just move Trident’ to England have no idea what they are talking about.  Having no secure Naval base for the Nuclear deterrent in our part of Europe would be seen as a significant security risk by NATO especially given current events.  
 

To be honest it’s absolutely typical independence supporting rhetoric, always wanting their cake and eating it.  It’s totally unrealistic in the real world.  

 

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, Gizmo said:

It's not a pacifist stance since we'd be delegating much of our (joint) security to the most well-armed country on the planet with over 6,000 nukes.

You kinda skirted my questions so let's put this another way, do you think there is any scenario where Putin would attempt to annex Eire?

 

Sounds like a lot of deflection and bluster.

 

@Brighton Jambo Has pretty much nailed it above.