David Cameron

[Doon frae Troon]

Hence why there will be a Trident replacement arriving and helping keep thousands of jobs safe whilst also creating a few more in Scotland - something I sure you're very much in favour off ( saves them having to go to food banks )



I'm pretty sure you are clever enough to understand why not every country is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I would be quite happy to see the nuclear bases/weapons [and associated jobs] removed outwith Scotland.
I am unsure if there are any nuclear bases left in Wales or England but, for me, they are welcome to them and the jobs.

Unsure as to what in your mind brings food banks into the equation, please expand.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I would be quite happy to see the nuclear bases/weapons [and associated jobs] removed outwith Scotland.
I am unsure if there are any nuclear bases left in Wales or England but, for me, they are welcome to them and the jobs.

Unsure as to what in your mind brings food banks into the equation, please expand.

So your quite happy to consign thousands of your fellow Scots to the dole when you remove Trident then ?

And if you consign a large number to the dole then the need for food banks possibly increases

 

[jp5]

So your quite happy to consign thousands of your fellow Scots to the dole when you remove Trident then ?

And if you consign a large number to the dole then the need for food banks possibly increases

Not the best reason to continue to produce WMDs though is it? Just to keep people employed.

Pretty sure the £100 billion could help people find other employment.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Not the best reason to continue to produce WMDs though is it? Just to keep people employed.

Pretty sure the £100 billion could help people find other employment.

Who said it was the best reason to keep nuclear weapons ?

 

[jp5]

Who said it was the best reason to keep nuclear weapons ?

It's a turn of phrase.... okay, not a valid reason.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's a turn of phrase.... okay, not a valid reason.

The country having a nuclear deterrent is something I believe we should have - that debate will go on forever

some people in Scotland would like them "moved" because they don't want them there without looking at the damage it will cause to people's lives in the area

 

[Doon frae Troon]

some people in Scotland would like them "moved" because they don't want them there without looking at the damage it will cause to people's lives in the area

Depends on your definition of 'some people in Scotland'.
The 'jobs lost' issue has been strongly debated up here.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Depends on your definition of 'some people in Scotland'.
The 'jobs lost' issue has been strongly debated up here.

And the answer they came up with was to have a "Scottish Defence Navy" there during the independence talk

Move trident and there is no need for Faslane and thousands lose there jobs - great thinking for your fellow countrymen

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Not the best reason to continue to produce WMDs though is it? Just to keep people employed.

Pretty sure the £100 billion could help people find other employment.

Might buy the odd school or hospital!

 

[c1973]

Might buy the odd school or hospital!

Up here they'd just make an arse of running them, fudge the figures to disguise their incompetence and laugh at the electorates inability to see beyond the propaganda and hold them to account.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Up here they'd just make an arse of running them, fudge the figures to disguise their incompetence and laugh at the electorates inability to see beyond the propaganda and hold them to account.

Think that's a country wide issue though. Incompetence has no boundaries. Think of the healthcare provision in a utopian Britain that would give. Get it back out into local communities. Beds not bombs!

 

[c1973]

The UK needs a deterrent and until there is multi lateral disarmament then I'm quite comfortable having them.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The UK needs a deterrent and until there is multi lateral disarmament then I'm quite comfortable having them.

My thinking exactly :thup:

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The UK needs a deterrent and until there is multi lateral disarmament then I'm quite comfortable having them.

But trident is ancient. A deterrent perhaps but when will we get anything better and does the cost really justify the obscene outlay

 

[Foxholer]

The UK needs a deterrent and until there is multi lateral disarmament then I'm quite comfortable having them.

Deterrent to who? And from what?

As I asked LpP some time ago - and there has been no reply....

Please explain exactly why having Nuclear weapons (that actually belong to the US) provides the UK with any additionl security over them being not Nuclear tipped! Details please, not merely the aspirational willy-waving of being part of the MAD club!

Does UK's permnent seat on the UN Security Council depend on nuclear capability?

Clearly (internationlly) non-proliferation is a good thing! But that hasn't been particularly effective either - though that is no reason to abandon the policy!

But as a defensive tool, Nuclear weapons are totally useless - and a complete waste of money!

And no-one has specified what percentage of Faslane would go if the Nuclear capability was eliminated. I'm pretty sure that the strategy involved would be amended, but not totally eliminated - otherwise, without ever having used them, the entire cost has been a complete waste of money hasn't it!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Hence why there will be a Trident replacement arriving and helping keep thousands of jobs safe whilst also creating a few more in Scotland - something I sure you're very much in favour off ( saves them having to go to food banks )



I'm pretty sure you are clever enough to understand why not every country is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

The whole Trident = Jobs thing should really not be part of the decision making. Trident renewal should be and is much more than about jobs. In the scheme of things jobs are a side concern.

 

[c1973]

Deterrent to who? And from what?

As I asked LpP some time ago - and there has been no reply....

Please explain exactly why having Nuclear weapons (that actually belong to the US) provides the UK with any additionl security over them being not Nuclear tipped! Details please, not merely the aspirational willy-waving of being part of the MAD club!

Does UK's permnent seat on the UN Security Council depend on nuclear capability?

Clearly (internationlly) non-proliferation is a good thing! But that hasn't been particularly effective either - though that is no reason to abandon the policy!

But as a defensive tool, Nuclear weapons are totally useless - and a complete waste of money!

And no-one has specified what percentage of Faslane would go if the Nuclear capability was eliminated. I'm pretty sure that the strategy involved would be amended, but not totally eliminated - otherwise, without ever having used them, the entire cost has been a complete waste of money hasn't it!

Imo. <<<< that's the key btw. Russia would appear to be the logical answer. Back in the day the Warsaw Pact were a worry, unfortunately an arms race ensued and we are now where we are. Unilateral disarmament is not a road I wish the UK to go down.

I'm quite content that our big guns are just as big as other nations big guns, that's my opinion and I don't feel I need to explain exactly, in detail, why. I believe it to be self evident.

 

[delc]

Imo. <<<< that's the key btw. Russia would appear to be the logical answer. Back in the day the Warsaw Pact were a worry, unfortunately an arms race ensued and we are now where we are. Unilateral disarmament is not a road I wish the UK to go down.

I'm quite content that our big guns are just as big as other nations big guns, that's my opinion and I don't feel I need to explain exactly, in detail, why. I believe it to be self evident.

As we don't seem to have much of an Army, Navy, or Air Force any more, Nuclear weapons are our only choice! BTW, the Air Training Corps now has more aircraft than the RAF, but most of them are currently grounded due to an administrative cock up! You couldn't invent this if you tried!

 

[Foxholer]

Imo. <<<< that's the key btw. Russia would appear to be the logical answer. Back in the day the Warsaw Pact were a worry, unfortunately an arms race ensued and we are now where we are. Unilateral disarmament is not a road I wish the UK to go down.

I'm quite content that our big guns are just as big as other nations big guns, that's my opinion and I don't feel I need to explain exactly, in detail, why. I believe it to be self evident.

I'm certainly not suggesting unilateral disarmament - though de-nukeing wouldn't be such a bad move imo. You haven't actually answered my question though! What benefit does having nuclear weapons have for the defence of UK?!

I still don't believe that possessing nuclear weapons helps in any way the DEFENCE of UK. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) perhaps, but that is certainly not a 'defensive' strategy! And remember that because UK doesn't own the warheads, it has to get permission from US to use them anyway! So why not let the US use its own delivery systems or MAD!

And no-one that I know of has quantified just how many jobs would be lost if the warheads were conventional as opposed to nuclear!

Now, I'm not saying that continuing to be a 'nuclear power' isn't something worthwhile - though I suspect it isn't! I'm merely questioning its actual value - and the cost of upgrading Trident in these times of austerity!

 

[delc]

Does it matter if I am killed by a nuclear or conventional warhead? I still end up dead! :mmm: