Osbourne says no to currency union.

Nukes are great, probably the only reason why the Red Army never came crashing through Europe to kick off WW3.

It says something about humanity that the only time we are less willing to kill each other is when we are staring down the barrels of our own imminent destruction.

there’s the moral side of it too.

Take money away from weapons that you don’t intend to use, and instead spend it on ones that you do 😯

New Zealand is nuclear free. Didn’t stop the French bombing us.

Nukes are great, probably the only reason why the Red Army never came crashing through Europe to kick off WW3.

The Cold War is over, MAD doesn’t work any more.

Take money away from weapons that you don’t intend to use, and instead spend it on ones that you do

Scotland has no intention of getting involved in any more overseas adventures. We’ll need some fishery patrol vessels, a few things to keep an eye on the oil rigs, that’s about it. Instead we want to spend the money on schools, hospitals, things that help people.

The UK has less than 2% of the nuclear weapons in the world

There is more than enough nuclear weapons to blow up the World many times over. 2% is a massive amount of firepower. It could lay waste to an entire Continent at least.

Nukes are great, probably the only reason why the Red Army never came crashing through Europe to kick off WW3.

Agreed.

There is more than enough nuclear weapons to blow up the World many times over. 2% is a massive amount of firepower. It could lay waste to an entire Continent at least.

But in the scale of disarmament, it’s not enough to make any difference to the balance of power.

Why not arm the middle east so that peace may break out?

Scotland has no intention of getting involved in any more overseas adventures. We’ll need some fishery patrol vessels, a few things to keep an eye on the oil rigs, that’s about it.

So what are Scotland offering to NATO?

All the shortbread they can eat.

But in the scale of disarmament, it’s not enough to make any difference to the balance of power.

That doesn’t make any sense.

Ben – I pointed out before that you either can’t or won’t try and understand how a Strategic Deterrent works.

I can understand the unilateral disarmament argument, however I disagree with it, I strongly believe that we must keep a strong military or a situation similar to the 1930’s could develop. We all know what that leads to.

Nobody knows what the World is going to be like in 5 years time, never mind in 20 years.

Just let them use the Scottish pound no one in England bloody accepts it anyway ad I found out on my return to the Independent Republic of Yorkshire

Scotland has no intention of getting involved in any more overseas adventures. We’ll need some fishery patrol vessels, a few things to keep an eye on the oil rigs, that’s about it.

Just because you are not going to invade Afghanistan why do you think you are going to have next to no military?

As has been pointed out on here numerous times, nobody knows which political party will be leading your independant country.

Also, as a member of NATO you will be expected to contribute. Unless you don’t want to be in NATO, which would be the moral thing to do as NATO has a massive nuclear capability.

So what are Scotland offering to NATO?

The same as Iceland (who are in NATO) – we’re one end of the GIUK link. In fact a bit more than Iceland, as we’d have the capability to patrol the GIUK link.

Ben – I pointed out before that you either can’t or won’t try and understand how a Strategic Deterrent works.

I understand exactly how it works. A deterrent only works when the people you’re trying to deter believe you might use the deterrent. There’s no scenario where that’s possible with the UK’s nuclear weapons – either the enemies are so small they can’t be attacked with nukes (terrorists) or so big we would be obliterated without being able to inflict a decisive response (Russia).

I strongly believe that we must keep a strong military or a situation similar to the 1930’s could develop. We all know what that leads to.

SO nearly a goodwin…..so nearly

Yes if the Scots give up all their weapons then nazism will once more sweep through europe

A deterrent only works when the people you’re trying to deter believe you might use the deterrent. There’s no scenario where that’s possible with the UK’s nuclear weapons – either the enemies are so small they can’t be attacked with nukes (terrorists) or so big we would be obliterated without being able to inflict a decisive response (Russia).

Thus proving you don’t “understand exactly how it works.”

As has been pointed out on here numerous times, nobody knows which political party will be leading your independant country.

True, we could all paint our bums blue, take up arms, and try to take York again 😀

I think it’s reasonable to assume, as a small Northern European country, we’d have a military capability on the par with other small Northern European countries.

Speaking of which, the Norwegians have some very kick-ass patrol boats:

😉

Thus proving you don’t “understand exactly how it works.”

Okay, explain it to me.

Yes if the Scots give up all their weapons then nazism will once more sweep through europe

Loony Lord George Robertson, the man with the world’s smallest mouth, reckoned it would bring about the end of Western civilisation 😀

as we’d have the capability to patrol the GIUK link.

With what? What are looking for? I would suggest Russian submarines.

You need a bit more than a few fishery patrol vessels to achieve this.

A deterrent only works when the people you’re trying to deter believe you might use the deterrent.

Why do you think the UK would never use nuclear weapons?

so big we would be obliterated without being able to inflict a decisive response (Russia).

This is wrong. The RN submarines do very well at hiding from Russian subs. 1 Trident submarine could obliterate Russia. Even if the UK is destroyed the SSBN would still be operational. This is the whole idea of MAD.

We’ll need some fishery patrol vessels, a few things to keep an eye on the oil rigs,

That doesn’t match the white paper commitments:

12-16 Typhoon
6 Hercules
Rotary wing fleet
A second naval squadron to contribute to NATO and other operations outside home waters incorporating the naval command platform, and a further two frigates with tanker and support ship capacity
All Arms brigade’s capabilities to include three infantry battalions, light armour, artillery, aviation and medical

Headcount of 15k regular, plus 5k reserve

As I hinted at first thing the independece bonus issues highlights the extent to which the DO is prepared to deliberately mislead. Not only were the numbers made up but the extent to which he tried to hide the fact shows the contempt that he has for all of us. It’s as if this was a vanity project rather than an important issue!?!

The DO starts pretty much every brief with the economic issues (followed by an anti English Tory jibe) – plus we have seen how voters intentions are determined by financial considerations right from the outset. So to then dismiss them in favour of fluffy cotton wool dreams seems somewhat irrational.

deter means it stops them attacking you – well I think that is what they are getting at

Today poll from everyone’s favorite newspaper
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-no-lead-at-record-low-1-3507723

The Cold War is over, MAD doesn’t work any more.

Explain, theres a reason why Putin has yet to throw his weight at Nato countries such as Finland and Poland.

A deterrent only works when the people you’re trying to deter believe you might use the deterrent. There’s no scenario where that’s possible with the UK’s nuclear weapons – either the enemies are so small they can’t be attacked with nukes (terrorists) or so big we would be obliterated without being able to inflict a decisive response (Russia).

We have a second strike capability, Russia would cease to exist as a functioning country if we retaliated to a nuclear strike. Secondly, nuclear proliferation is very real. Hopefully non-state actors/small states would think twice about using them if they knew that the consequences to their use would be places such as Mecca becoming uninhabitable.

Explain.

MAD only works when there’s total destruction and it’s assured. 40 warheads would certainly kill millions of people, but against such a large country as Russia or China wouldn’t do more than make them very, very angry.

Nor is it assured – we’re pinning everything on the Russians not finding and sinking our one at-sea sub. Then we’re hoping the Russians’ anti-ICBM system doesn’t work.

Hopefully non-state actors/small states would think twice about using them if they knew that the consequences to their use would be places such as Mecca becoming uninhabitable.

We’d nuke Mecca in retaliation for a terrorist attack in the UK? That would, if anything, encourage the terrorists and would make us a pariah state – perhaps inviting attack from others.

MAD only works when there’s total destruction and it’s assured. 40 warheads would certainly kill millions of people, but against such a large country as Russia or China wouldn’t do more than make them very, very angry.

Nor is it assured – we’re pinning everything on the Russians not finding and sinking our one at-sea sub. Then we’re hoping the Russians’ anti-ICBM system doesn’t work.

40 warheads would overwhelm Moscow’s defences and besides, Russia’s ballistic missile defence is centred around Moscow only. Those 40 missiles would be enough to destroy 40 other major cities within Russia.

If anything, your argument just increases support for spending more on the military seeing as the world is going to become less stable and more focussed on agriculture and resources in the far north. Russia, in part due to the impact of climate change, is set to become one of the biggest economies in the world. To add to this dilemma that Europe finds itself in, we have seen that Russia like a Leopard cannot change it’s spots.

We’d nuke Mecca in retaliation for a terrorist attack in the UK? That would, if anything, encourage the terrorists and would make us a pariah state – perhaps inviting attack from others.

Do you think that a nuclear attack on the UK would elicit anything other than a retaliatory nuclear strike on a country such as Iran, or a group such as Isis?

Any chance we could get vaguely back on topic ?
Interesting PM that the polls are still in the balance and the dont know ditherers will decide.

Any chance we could get vaguely back on topic ?
Interesting PM that the polls are still in the balance and the dont know ditherers will decide.

Yes – a FB friend said she finds the whole thing really boring and she’s just going to vote the way her boyfriend tells her 🙄

Quick ben get on to the BF then 😉

I have often thought their needs to be a test before you can vote but I guess [ hope] idiots cancel each other out

Tom – its worth also pointing out that 40 warheads with one sub deployed is only the ‘flexible response’ load that has been carried in recent, relatively peaceful and low threat times

“A minimum nuclear deterrent capability that, during a crisis, is able to deliver at short notice a
nuclear strike against a range of targets at an appropriate scale and with very high confidence.”

Transition to a state of war is not an ‘overnight’ thing, tensions ramp up over a period of time, even during the cold war – full trident deployment with up to 160 warheads could take as little as a few days dependent on the urgency, however a longer period of world instability could see us ramping back up to 700 plus warheads if necessary – the point is that possession of the capability doesn’t require constant deployment at maximum capacity to retain its deterrent effect.

Which is why Nuclear disarmament is a load of complete crap Ninfan, Japan is not technically a nuclear state but as I remember is supposedly “1 turn of a screwdriver” away from being one. As they have the scientific knowledge, plenty of fissionable material and missiles capable of being converted for use as ICBM’s.

I guess that put’s their nuclear capability at risk of being destroyed in a first strike policy, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they had the plans set in place to knock out a load of weapons in a few weeks from underground shelters if need be.

I doubt Japan have a centrifuge cascade set up ready to go – they might do in a bunker somewhere, but seeing as it’s against their constitution to have nuclear weapons it seems unlikely. Especially as starting from zero it’s a bit more than “turning a screwdriver” to make a nuclear warhead, and they would need to make hundreds.

But, even supposing it’s true, so what? Any industrialised country could make a nuclear weapon if they wanted – hell, I could make a crude one in my workshop with to little help with materials. The point is we don’t need or want them, they have no useful purpose, cost a colossal amount of money, and are morally repugnant.

The point is we don’t need or want them, they have no useful purpose, cost a colossal amount of money, and are morally repugnant.

I agree that they are morally repugnant and cost a colossal amount of money.

I don’t really want them either, however, as long as the likes of Israel, India, China and Russia have them, then I would say we need them. Unfortunately.

Many countries within NATO don’t have nuclear weapons, yet all are protected under the umbrella of those countries with weapons.

I’d be very happy to see them disappear from Scotland, and head off to Pembrokeshire or Cornwall, which would be strong contenders for the role if Coulport closes.

The UK nuclear deterrent is terrifyingly powerful, it could easily lay waste to China and Russia. I am sure that they could very easily do the same in response. Having nuclear weapons allows us to stand up to countries like China and Russia knowing that they can’t use theirs against us. Russia has just supposedly shot down a civilian aircraft as well as invaded two European countries recently, we need a deterrent so that we can put them in their place if needs be.

Sorry, but if you think the UK could put Russia or China “in their place”, you’re deluded.

Just as an aside FNF .
When did Russia change from their story that it was the Russian sympathizers in Ukraine who shot down the aircraft?
Which 2 European countries has Russia recently invaded?

Ben Russia and China have poor outdated equipment, couldn’t nuke us and our troops have real combat experience.

Gordi, they invaded Georgia and slyly invaded Ukrainian Crimea as well.

Ben Russia and China have poor outdated equipment, couldn’t nuke us and our troops have real combat experience.

I’ll file that under “Yes” 😉

The point is we don’t need or want them, they have no useful purpose, cost a colossal amount of money, and are morally repugnant.

And conventional weapons are different how? conventional weapons and armies cost far more and have killed far more – 95% of the UK defence budget is on conventional forces that have no useful purpose, cost a colossal amount of money, and is the use of them not morally repugnant? Is not a policy of conventional weapons, with bombs raining down, with missiles, with aircraft, with submarines, torpedoes, tanks – Are not all weapons of war based on the possibility of threat and is not your response to any threat ‘Look! If you attack us you will have such a terrible time that you cannot win!’ ?

you cannot disinvent nuclear weapons -the knowledge, the information, the precedent – You cannot just act as if there had never been nuclear weapons. If conventional war started again, the race would be on as to who got the nuclear weapon first. in that one moment! That person would win!

There is another reason for smaller countries like us: the nuclear deterrent is the only thing which enables smaller countries actually to stand up to a bigger country. You could never do it on conventional weapons alone – if our armed forces were 20%, 50%, 100% bigger, they would not carry a fraction of the deterrent that Trident does – a smaller democratic and stable country standing alone can stand up to a bigger one only with nuclear weapons. And lets remember this, Historically, Britain had to stand alone. All of Europe was occupied by Hitler. We were alone, on the brink of defeat, hours from invasion. America had not yet come into the War. Hitler had not yet attacked the Soviet Union. We’ve been there before, at huge cost to our nation, and we nearly lost – Thats why Britain retains Nuclear Weapons, its the ultimate insurance policy