Scots Trident plans 'must be made clear'

HAVE YOUR SAY

25 October 2012

Another nail in the coffin of Britain's pointless and outdated nuclear pretensions.
John - Leeds

25 October 2012

John - Leeds

Get real . . . I would love to hear why you think Britain should not have nuclear weapons, why are they pointless?, Why are they outdated?
Rob - Telford

25 October 2012

The irony is that most UK citizens outside Scotland would be happy to let Scotland go its own way and be delighted to stop wasting money on Trident.
Dave - Slough

25 October 2012

Never mind at what is the Governments official policy,I would be more than a little surprised,if other locations have not been looked at south of the border.
Indeed their cannot be that many that are suitable,and I am sure that the ones that are most viable have been shortlisted,and initial surveys carried out.

I have said before that the US would not like to see the UK lose its nuclear deterent,so I am sure that Kings Bay will arise in future discussions,if a temporary home is required for our boats.
michael - notts

25 October 2012

"retaining the Bank of England as a lender of last resort and financial regulator for Scotland."....... In other words not really independent at all and losing the influence they currently have on those matters as part of the UK!
(Of course the rump UK would not agree to the BoE being lender of last resort to Scottish banks anyway.)

You can also add to that Scottish voters need to be aware that they would have to reapply for EU membership as the rump UK with 91.7% of the population would retain the legal identity of the current UK and thus when an independent Scotland applies to join would not have any of the UK's opt outs that have been negotiated over the last 40 years.

P.S. Alex, you can forget a fiscal compact we've just rejected that from the EU so you would be on your own and using a foreign currency not in a shared currency zone as you pretend to Scottish voters.

Now I wonder why the 'Better Together' campaign has a 25 point poll lead Hmmmmm !
Graham - High Wycombe

25 October 2012

Devolution is unnecessary.
Let us go forward together.
Michael - Hertfordshire

25 October 2012

"pointless and outdated nuclear pretensions" smells of rose tinted glasses and a lack of knowledge, even in this day and age, of the realities of our very imperfect world.
Rather like the SNP I might add.
Norman - UK

25 October 2012

BTW on the question of Trident replacement there is a good Wikipedia article based on a RUSI study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_replacement_of_the_Trident_system#Alternatives

I favour the second option as I have stated before.
Graham - High Wycombe

25 October 2012

Ooops - John: you seem to have needled the pro-Trident dinosaurs somewhat! :-)

Maybe it's you guys who need to get real. You're the ones proposing to waste billions of pounds on new nuclear weapons. It's you who should be justifying exactly why we need them and what we get for our money, when most other nations in far more dangerous parts of the world get on by perfectly well without them.
Dave - Slough

25 October 2012

'..when most other nations in far more dangerous parts of the world get on by perfectly well without them...'

What is a more dangerous part of the world than North Korea or the border between India and Pakistan, or Israel and Iran?
RM - Abroad

25 October 2012

Dave - Slough,
It is not just a case of being pro Trident,but more of pro defence in general.As for justifying the need for them,it is getting rather tiresome and repetetive,as most of us on here who believe in a nuclear deterent must have spent hours doing just that. If you haven't bothered keeping up with events,I can't be bothered anymore.

The nations in what you call far more dangerous parts of the world (which you fail to specify) that don't have them,is for a number of reasons.

(a) They don't have the technology or the infrastructure to build them.
(b) They don't have the finance to buy them.
(c) Even if they did have the finance to buy,the vast majority of nuclear powers would not sell them. That is apart from a few rogue states such as North Korea.

Head burying,tree huggers are just so yesterday. What on earth will you lot do if Faslane has to close,You will have to relocate your tents and grubby lifestyle miles away.
michael - notts

25 October 2012

John - Leeds/Dave - Slough

Please will you tell us what magical crystal ball you guys have that can look 50 years into the future and guarantee that no power gains nuclear weapons that could possibly threaten us either directly or through a proxy.

When you can show me that the next 50 years are going to be safe from any potential nuclear threat I will be prepared to go without a nuclear insurance policy otherwise stop talking cobblers!

Lastly what the hell makes you Dave think that most people in the rest of the UK would like to see the back of Scotland! That's not the impression I'm under perhaps it's just you.
Graham - High Wycombe

25 October 2012

Will these defence ministers step down if Scotland does decide to go independent?
Why haven't they looked into possible sites for relocation, it won't do any harm?
Why should the Bank of England be a lender of last resort and regulator of Scotland?

Tune in next week for the next episode of "We have NO clue Minister"
JC - UK

25 October 2012

Tree Huggers comments....
Totally unneccessary but predicatable. Interesting documentary the other night about BAOR. Mainly taken from a family perspective, but what was most alarming was the acceptance that Army was there as a "Speed Bump". They would allow us time to use Deterrent.

No matter which way you look at it, that is the bottom line and some condoned nuking Germany.....

Point of consideration, The Berlin Wall barely outlasted the half life of Caesium 137. Are you willing to contaminate an area of Europe, Middle east or indeed your own country for decades rather than be "Blackmailed"...
I see no danger that UK could not reequip itself against in the short to medium term. Even if I did I am not sure the answer lies in contamination of land and death of millions through Nuclear exchange.
Indeed the proposal to start throwing nukes about would cause more civilian casualties than your average despot dictatorship.

You then will state that Warsaw Pact was detterred by our Nukes and categorically state that was the only factor.
I could ask, why did Warsaw Pact from a standing start not just invade to a depth and then halt advance. No way would US and UK/France have nuked the Soviets or risked retaliation in that scenario, and I am sure the Soviets would have known that.

No I think an irrational faith in Nuclear Weapons is adopted at an early age. We view it the same as the school bully scenario, but we do not really consider the ramifications to others and the disproportionate long term effects. We should debate the existence of them, the need for them, the effects and whether an ability to fight at a conventional level is more important and provides us with more security.
Degradable - UK

25 October 2012

Thank you for your comments gentlemen. It's easy to be sarcastic and rude, but it won't win you any arguments.

The fact that you choose to resort to abuse rather than logic shows just how thin the case for retaining nuclear weapons is.
Dave - Slough

26 October 2012

Degradable - UK

I was one of many who served as a "speed bump" and it is probably a true reflection of how events would have turned out.

You really think that NATO would not have resorted to Battlefield Nukes in a full on war? I think you are wrong, I don't think there would have been a mass exchange of weapons, I think targets would have been carefully selected, but if NATO had spotted a one or two division Operational Manouvre Group massing behind a successful Warsaw Pact attack that a few Lance Missiles would not have been thrown at them, likewise the targeting of hardened Command sites with Pershing IIA missiles.

I think you are correct in the assumption that the West would consider civilian casaulties before launching, I don't think you would have the same concern's from the Warsaw Pact Armies, you would have seen that with the vast amount of Chemical Weapons that they would have used in any conflict with NATO, if anything these are just as lethal to a civilian population, WMD takes on many guises.

The United States warned Iraq prior to Desert Storm about using WMD (Chemical weapons in Iraq's case) and stationed a Special Weapons ship in the Persian Gulf equipped with Nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

As Graham has stated, if you guys could guarantee that Iran, North Korea, or any other Nation would not use Nukes against the West (if we did not have a deterrent) then fine.

It is the devastating consequences that you mention in your post, is the reason why people do not use them against each other. They are a disgusting weapon, however they serve a purpose.
Rob - Telford

26 October 2012

Degradable - UK.
Likewise 'Pro Trident Dinosaurs', Totally unneccessary but predictable.

As for your post,you could have just gone with the last sentence.

Which would make some sense if the rest of the nuclear powers,and those still striving to become nuclear powers agreed.

Which as they all are updating their nuclear weapons,is patently not the case. Or perhaps you would suggest unilateral nuclear disarmament for the UK.
michael - notts

26 October 2012

Degradable - UK

I have read the IAEA estimates there could be a dozen new nuclear powers over the next 50 years. Neither you or I can guarantee that will not be the case or whether those states will have a benign view of the UK.

I simply want us to have an insurance policy against WMD (nuclear or otherwise *) being used against us either actually or by blackmail. If we had to use nuclear weapons then I would actually consider that nuclear deterrence had failed. Far from being a dinosaur I would be happy if there was global nuclear and other WMD disarmament but I am not willing to do so unilaterally.

I do agree that we are now being made to choose between conventional and nuclear weapons which is wrong and to me the worst part of the SDSR.

(* In fact Syria has stockpiles of WMD both chemical and biological so it is not just a matter of nuclear states but rather WMD states. This may at some point require intervention to secure them)
Graham - High Wycombe

26 October 2012

Dave - Slough

Nothing abusive in my reply the plain truth is you can't answer it and bailed with an excuse that doesn't stand inspection rather like your argument.
Graham - High Wycombe

26 October 2012

You have not answered my question relating to the use of Weapons.
US/UK would under your own admission use tactical Nukes to stop a limited aggression.

Therefore you have annihalated an area, not for a week, a year or a decade... Much as I agree an enforced "Government" is not desirable, it could be argued that it is better than death and contaminated lands, where no future hope exists. Or did you both belive "Better of Dead than Red..."

No okay, Bye Bye Germany.

Then we have Michaels comments of
"All the bad guys"... Please inform me why, we can not take a stance of "No first use" (Preemptive Strike)). China has indicated that policy. Yet we see Nukes as cheap defence and state a "First Use Option"
By your stance of allowing the Government to reduce spend on conventional weapons to pay for these devices you increase the risk.
North Korea and others have no vehicle for striking UK or US that we can respond with our Trident armed missiles

Rob answers with "US had Nuclear tipped missiles (Cruise...) yet we are told cruise is not good enough.....

Oh dear oh dear.
No the debate is needed, and more realistic view of the implications are required. I do believe many have been and are prepared to use Nuclear Weapons to further interests. We do live in a changing world, and pressures on resource do exist and will get worse. But Trident is no longer the only answer.
Degradable - UK

26 October 2012

Degradable - UK,
I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a link to official papers where it states the UK has as you put it a 'first use option'.

As for China stating that is their policy,that is about as believable as was Hitlers non agression pact with Stalin.
michael - notts

26 October 2012

Michael
You have me...
I only have "unofficial statements by "
Hoon on BBC in 2003 when he argued with other cabinet ministers on UK ability and right to respond with Nuclear weapons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2717939.stm

You do not need to purchase to get the assurance from China.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/24355/richard-h-ullman/no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons

NON First Use was signed by a number of nations of which China was efectively the initiator.

Also just do a Google/Bing Search on Non First Use
Interestingly it includes Indian and N.Korea.
But NATO of which US and UK are principle Nuclear states rejected that stance. They believe this gives them the ability to respond as they please.

UK goes further and is even more dangerous in that we will use Nuclear Weapons on "Rogue States"... What does that mean, but considering our conventional status I presume a cheap defence option (financially but catastrophic in Human and environmental impact).

So it does make you wonder who the beligerents really are.
Then we could look at history. I believe the BBC recently ran an article on China which you would do well to read and evaluate.
Of course China will research Weaponry, and missiles, but have you considered who historically the beligerents have been ....
THE WEST. We have been the only nations that have conquered the way we have taking depencencies well beyond our borders with aggressive forces.
China historically has more concerns about its own internal affairs. When you govern a nation with 1/3 (ish) of the worlds population, UK really does not have any standing. They will dominate through economic muscle and enough defensive capacity to stop an aggressor attacking them.
I would wager you that is how it will go in the next century....

Look forwards to responses on
Cruise Missile
Red or dead
from other discussions Launch of ballistic Missiles versus Satelites & Cruise....
The list goes on .....
Degradable - UK

26 October 2012

Graham
Agreed, and hence my more vocal position now, I suppose I fear a Nuclear response is no longer an effective option.

In any scenario other than a hit on UK they are worthless.
Even in event of "Blackmail" I assure you they are worthless against most of the beligerents we would come against.
Sadly UK is one of the few nations that can lose a nuclear conflict/argument.
Simply because we are so densely populated and such as small island.
Iran being 6 times the size and having a 1/6th of the population density would be a winner.
I do not feel we can rely on Nuclear Weapons in the forth coming years. I think we are all focused on old ways.
Example for your consideration.
How will we react to a massive Software based attack on our infrastructure / Accounts / & power generation. I do not really think a Nuclear response would be an option. Yet in the future this will be a greater risk than a Nuclear Strike
Degradable - UK

27 October 2012

Degradable - UK

You appear not to understand the term "yield". Not every Nuclear Warhead is a city buster, not every warhead would leave ground uninhabitable for years, look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Cruise Missiles in Iraq, where the air defences had been so eroded that cruise missiles (conventional ones) were striking with impunity, the argument about having our Nuclear deterrent as a cruise missile based system still stands, as a first strike weapon there is a high chance it would not get through a sophisticated air defence network, whereas a Trident is nigh on impossible to shoot down.
Rob - Telford

28 October 2012

Degradable - UK

With regard to cyber attacks we are investing in hardening ourselves, however as in most forms of warfare we can only do so much. A cyber attack would not warrant a nuclear response and is not really part of this debate.

However you are completely wrong in your analysis of the threats and our capability to respond. It doesn't matter that we are densely populated or a small island we don't have to inflict a similar level of damage only enough that it is not worthwhile that they consider attacking us. Really no matter how big you are having your capital city obliterated is enough to make them think twice about attacking the UK with WMD. If we are alerted to any hostile intent they or a proxy has towards us and can tell them they will be held responsible for an attack and our response.

In any case with regard China we will never go to war. This is the Chinese century and they will dominate it no matter. They are not the reason we will still need a deterrent rather it is that we can expect a number of countries to possess WMD of all kinds in the next 50 years and it only takes one to be hostile towards us. While they know we can launch a devastating response they must add that to any calculations they make.

The real problem is that the deterrent is now funded from core defence budget and that is devastating our conventional capability which is simply not sustainable. However as in an earlier post I can only state my preference for option 2 below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_replacement_of_the_Trident_system#Alternatives

Also let us be clear that despite never stating we have a no first use policy that would in effect be the case. I cannot believe there would be any circumstances whereby we would initiate the use of WMD. Trident is a deterrent and if actually used would have failed in its primary purpose which is to prevent any WMD attack on the UK. We may choose not to publicly state we have a no first use policy but surely you must realise this is the case in reality.
Graham - High Wycombe

29 October 2012

Rob
I do understand Yield very well. I have spent a number of hours on our Polaris boats. So I do feel I have a little of an understanding of these systems and the use.
Depleted Uranium was used as a localized weapon to kill armoured vehicles etc.
No one seemed to give consideration to the contaminants of this localized weapon. Wind blows, the contaminants are spread over huge areas. You yourself will know I am sure based upon your own NBCD drills the difficulty of decontamination.
So expecting a low yield warhead to stay "Contained " is truly a pipe dream...

Graham, I will agree to disagree with you on the willingness of UK to strike first. The very lack of conventional forces would force our hand on this matter. Use or lose. To use would have greater impact on the UK than other larger nations as I have outlined.
Interestingly John Hackett wrote many years ago his "History of the 3rd World War" and postulated an attack on Birmingham. The effects on UK would be devastating. Imagine trying to get to Scotland from teh South West without being able to go through Birmingham.
Then we have the issue of other nations not needing Nuclear Deterrent.
I do not believe we would "Go Nuclear" for Australia/New Zealand
thus the commonwealth argument is very debatable.

I do fully understand and accept many want to have a "Last resort". I do not know the answer as to what that should be, hence my belief a Cruise missile armed Astute and potentially land based Vehicles deployed in event of crisis. I fail to believe that could not be cheaper yet still effective against Roque states. I believe as you that the link of deterrent into the defence budget meant an effective cut in excess of 20%.
I believe Trident "Replacement" is a cost we simply afford at peril to our overall security.
Finally many learned and intelligent people who used to view Deterrent as the only option are now deliberating the unilateral moves. I do wonder if now is the time to make that gesture.
Degradable - UK

29 October 2012

Degradable - UK

On first use I do not believe we would be in a use or lose scenario with a submarine launched ICBM.

The problem with alternatives is that they don't stand up to scrutiny. Cruise missiles are vulnerable and range limited, anything land based would face fierce opposition.

The only two European countries that could possess nuclear weapons are France and the UK. Germany due to its history and proximity to Russia will not possess them nor will Italy or Spain so it is up to the UK and France to provide a nuclear deterrent for Europe. The US is going to become increasingly orientated to Asia Pacific to contain growing Chinese military significance particularly with regard Japan, Korea and Taiwan. That growing disengagement with Europe is going to become a reality in the next twenty years and Trident replacement needs to be seen in that context. I don't fear China but I do fear the direction Russia could take, it is becoming increasingly authoritarian and could regress further in the coming decades which is a concern for Europe as is the middle east which will descend into a nuclear arms race if Iran gets the bomb.
Offering ourselves up to unilateral nuclear disarmament is extremely naive in these circumstances.

However it has to be seen in a strategic investment and returned to a supplementary treasury budget to protect our usable and vital conventional forces. This is where we need to focus our attention not whether we need a deterrent.
Graham - High Wycombe

29 October 2012

Degradable - UK

I totally accept what you are saying about the spread of radioactive contamination and the inherent difficulties in trying to contain fallout. The scenario you were painting with the gradual escalation in a HNATO v Warsaw Pact, the low yield weapons available would have contained levels to an "acceptable" level (and I use this term in the context of a general war between Warsaw Pact and NATO).

I also understand your point about affordability of a Trident type system, which is where Graham is absolutely correct, the funding of CASD should come out of a treasurey pot and not the defence budget.

As to whether we should have to afford it, I believe that while Rogue states are developing both Nuclear weapons and effective long range delivery systems, we should not put ourselves in a position where we are not in a postion to respond effectively to these countries. Having spent time in the Middle East and seeing the lack of value placed on lives in the region, I would not trust them if we unilaterly disarmed, it is quite possible that I am being melodramtic and these countries have or would not have any intention of attacking us in the future, however I would rather have a deterrent than ever have to find out.
Rob - Telford

29 October 2012

Rob.
Your comments about time in the Middle East and the perception of value of life carries a significant weight, I would have to agree.
It is probably not "politically correct", but it is a perception.
But then you and I have been in the Middle East probably performing activities as part of force of dominant Western Powers, either influencing regional activities or imposing our will through force. That is the opposite of your argument I am sure many would come back with.
That, then leads us full circle to the debate of Imperialist aggression, which the West conducts. Which China has Identified and is possibly most aware of having spent a "Century of Humiliation"
Which then leaves us wondering are we the ones who feel we need the "Bomb", because we cause the "whiplash"
Degradable - UK

29 October 2012

Degradable - UK

The value of life comment can be justified, as you said not particularly politically correct but it is based on different ideals to ours, whats to say that we are right and they are wrong, (I think they are in the wrong but again that is only an opinion).

Which leads me nicely into your other comment, too right we have bought a lot of this upon ourselves, we (mainly the Americans but us Brits as well), went into the Middle East thinking that we could remove a dictator (Saddam), or remove a government we did not agree with (the Taliban)and then impose Western Style democracies in countries that neither wanted them and in many respects went against their beliefs. The Middle east needs Middles east solutions, not Western European Solutions, forces upon them, so yes I agree and perhaps they could use the excuse they are arming themselves with the ultimate deterrent to protect themselves from further Western aggression, fine I can sort of live with that argument, however I still think where you have that lunatic sitting in power in Terhan and with North Korea and Syria as unpredictable as ever, I would rather we had a detterent.

In a similar debate about 12 months ago, I got called a scared old man, perhaps I am, but throughout time there are records of leaders who would be willing to sacrifice millions of their people for no good reason, or to save their own skin.
Rob - Telford

30 October 2012

The british Realm is `sacrosanct`i`e no one party or individual member of the church or Armed Forces can offer a part or whole of any Member State to any "other" for any political or financial gain no matter how described as potentialy beneficial to any or "all" of the other member states to the detriment of a member.( Thats why we are a union ).To do so is TREASON.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is the Head of our realm and has been for nigh on sixty years.King James the sixth of scotland formed the Union and the members just fell into line!,The English payed a heavy price as hundreds of Scottish Nobles Headed south to claim English estates turfing out the lords and ladies who never returned.
For Alex salmond to stand on a soap box and declare that he has some form of devine right to break the REALM is unlawful and TREASON. Any politician that gives him and others a mechanism to dismantle the REALM is culpable. If the Scots do vote for a sepratist party (which is ilegal) then it can`t be a first past the post result, more like 75%,and that is only to allow discusions to take place,in any case we English can do nothing except watch the polaticians make a mess of things and the English will become independant by DEFAULT.
The nuclear weapons are British. They were designed to be british by british engineers payed for by all !to defend the Realm. You can`t dismantle this system or eighty percent of it on a minority vote and who has ever been given a vote on military hardware any way ?.Alex Salmond is a dangerouse man and many tears are going to be shed, because the more I listen to him the more he is begining to sound like Hitler.
When we do become indepedant we get out of Scotland as fast as we can we have to take care of our selves , our aircraft carriers can be finished in Belfast and barrow in furness, our subs can be reasigned to the Falklands. Lets us start being positive and move on. There are other Kingdoms such as Norway Sweden Denmark and Holland who would love to form a new United Kingdom a new common wealth of freinds with whom we get along with just FINE!!!.
Shaun Army - South Devon