Trident and an Independent Scotland

#1
#2
Interesting article:

Trident: at what cost would an independent Scotland refuse the nuclear option? - Arts blog - Scotsman.com

Personally I've long though that we should either have a fully independent deterrant or none at all. The present situation, where our so called 'independent' deterrant could basically be removed on a whim by the USA, strikes me as preposterous. I suspect if Scotland does leave the UK, England will probably give up nuclear weapons.
On the contrary, we might need them all the more - to defend English soil from rampaging Picts.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#3
Well **** me ol' boots, whydoncha? We haven't had thread with so much potential for anti-Scots bile for....oh, for at least a week?
 
#4
So they'd have to replace DM Glen Douglas and allocate a new port, not the end of the world.

There are plenty of alternative sites and I'm sure many areas of England or Wales would gladly accept the investment associated with creating an alternative.
 
#5
Well **** me ol' boots, whydoncha? We haven't had thread with so much potential for anti-Scots bile for....oh, for at least a week?

Nothing anti-Scots from me Biscuits.

I mate hate that cnut Salmond (no surprise there, he's a politician) but I firmly believe in the Union between Scotland and England.
 
#6
So they'd have to replace DM Glen Douglas and allocate a new port, not the end of the world.

There are plenty of alternative sites and I'm sure many areas of England or Wales would gladly accept the investment associated with creating an alternative.
Yes, I for one can't wait to have a feck load of nukes dumped on my doorstep and become a prime target for every potential enemy's nukes.
 
#9
England will probably give up nuclear weapons.

Nice one! Tell us another.

No chance. Disband the army and replace with weekend pikemen? Possible. Sink the navy and get a few armed coppers to do circuits of the coast in pedaloes? Could happen. Air force done away with and tramps paid to run kites with hand grenades taped to them around strategic locations? Not out of the question.

But abandon nukes? Never. At least not until photon torpedoes become the weapon of choice.

Nukes are not weapons. They are political poker chips. Conversely in order for them to be of value they have to be militarily credible. The more credible the higher the value.

The last weapon system in the possession of her Maj. will be of the unscheduled sunrise variety.
 
#10
Did the fact that these particular nukes are on a submarine platform and therefore deployed to pre-determined positions at time of conflict pass you by?
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#12
Did the fact that these particular nukes are on a submarine platform and therefore deployed to pre-determined positions at time of conflict pass you by?

Cor blimey, luvvaduck! Look what you've gorn an' dahn nah, eh? You've tak'n the rug from aht under their feet!
 
#13
Yes, I for one can't wait to have a feck load of nukes dumped on my doorstep and become a prime target for every potential enemy's nukes.
Except that our nuke boats would probably go to an area that would already be a likely nuclear target anyway IF we ever actually faced nuclear war. If we ever faced a real nuclear stand-off against a real nuclear opponent again then chances are that most people have a few nuclear targets within fallout distance of their house. I think there were something like 8 or 9 within twenty miles of where I grew up as a kid (on Merseyside).
 
#14
Well - if the issue is an independent Scotland, it would depend on whether they remained allied to the remains of the UK on defence or wanted their own Army and Navy. If they remain, no change, if they split, the hiving off the Scottish regiments would be easy, less so other Army elements and the other Forces. I guess sub bases would have to move south, with all the consequent loss of employment.

I think it comes down to whether you seriously believe we might ever have to use British Forces to defend British soil. For nigh on half a century, we've had a backstop of nuclear deterrence that made it pretty unthinkable that anyone would invade. Even at the height of the cold war, we had the comfort of knowing that if Ivan started rolling across the North German plain, we could go nuclear, and that thought perhaps prevented it from happening.

But my Dad, for one, looks at things differently - he remembers the threat of invasion here in 1940, the Russians rolling into Hungary in '56 and Prague in '68. Who is to say that oil and gas funded Russians won't one day fancy controlling more of the UK than the odd Premiership club? That the Germans and French won't lose patience with our negative attitude to Europe and stage a little coup backed by Euro troops? The Americans are set to cut back on their defence commitments to Europe, and if it came to a shooting war, I wouldn't want to be reliant on French assets to defend these islands, so whether Scotland goes its own way or not, we need armed forces capable of deterring would be opponents.
 
#15
Well - if the issue is an independent Scotland, it would depend on whether they remained allied to the remains of the UK on defence or wanted their own Army and Navy. If they remain, no change, if they split, the hiving off the Scottish regiments would be easy, less so other Army elements and the other Forces. I guess sub bases would have to move south, with all the consequent loss of employment.
.
OT - but are you sure all those F&C 'Jocks' will want to join the 'Scottish Army'?
 
#16
Except that our nuke boats would probably go to an area that would already be a likely nuclear target anyway IF we ever actually faced nuclear war. If we ever faced a real nuclear stand-off against a real nuclear opponent again then chances are that most people have a few nuclear targets within fallout distance of their house. I think there were something like 8 or 9 within twenty miles of where I grew up as a kid (on Merseyside).
The amount of money they have spent on facilities at Faslane over the recent years means that the only sensible option is to leave them based exactly where they are now.
 
#18
"Surrounded by camps full of economic migrants looking for a way through the wire and an escape from their failed state. It'll be like Sangatte all over again."

Personally I think everyone voting in the referendum should put their name on the ballot paper. Then record the results. When the inevitable failure of scottish services comes, and the many unemployed folks, desperate for the English taxpayer to provide them with funding for a deep fried mars bar, come south of the border and beg for asylum, we can check the list and say 'you voted for it, your problem, access denied'.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#19
Personally I think everyone voting in the referendum should put their name on the ballot paper..
Hopefully something along the lines of;

Do you fancy continually having illegal weapons based here because England doesn't want them in their vicinity?

1. Yes
2. No


Think I can probably predict the outcome of that one.