‘Dangerous’ to remove Trident nukes from independent Scotland – former UK defence chief - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Removing the UK’s Trident nuclear submarine base from an independent Scotland would “add a dangerous period of destabilization” to the UK’s “nuclear defense posture,” warned a former defence chief. In an open letter to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said he is “very unhappy” with the SNP leader’s stance on the future of Scottish defense policy. The Scottish government has set out plans to remove Trident from Scotland if the 18th September referendum secures a ‘Yes’ vote. "With the referendum now imminent, I am writing to you to make clear what we believe would be the grave defense consequences of a Yes vote not just for the United Kingdom but for the people of Scotland themselves,” Stanhope wrote. The First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff from 2009 to 2013 said a recent warning from President Vladimir Putin concerning Russia’s nuclear capabilities meant the long-term security of the UK’s nuclear deterrent was essential.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://rt.com/uk/186732-trident-scotland-removal-dangerous/"]Source[/URL]

-snip- nevermind misread

Is this really such a good thing to announce so blatantly?

I can't think of any large modern post-industrial nations that don't have nuclear weapons, clearly the UK is of much greater value and in much greater jeopardy than backwater third world countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand :downs:

Well I guess we better hope and pray that nuclear war doesn't suddenly break out for no fucking reason whatsoever Mr Defence Guy.

[QUOTE=bravehat;45942165]Well I guess we better hope and pray that nuclear war doesn't suddenly break out for no fucking reason whatsoever Mr Defence Guy.[/QUOTE] There's a 99% chance that we will be nuked on 24 March 2016 to be honest

Better do it quickly then, old chaps - chop chop.

It's not dangerous at all, I live near Faslane Naval Base, and we see trident submarines go down the clyde all the time, I'd rather them out my area to be honest, being so close to a trident sub is unnerving at best, even if they are not armed, and I hardly doubt there will be a nuclear war when we get independence, sure it may take a while to move, but I'm sure the UK doesn't store every single one of their trident missiles up here in Scotland...

[QUOTE=zeromancer;45942465]It's not dangerous at all, I live near Faslane Naval Base, and we see trident submarines go down the clyde all the time, I'd rather them out my area to be honest, being so close to a trident sub is unnerving at best, even if they are not armed, and I hardly doubt there will be a nuclear war when we get independence, sure it may take a while to move, but I'm sure the UK doesn't store every single one of their trident missiles up here in Scotland...[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the Trident subs are the only platform we have for launching em. Don't really care though, they will literally never be fired.

I wouldn't mind England having the nukes. Much like I bet Ukraine regrets giving away theirs.

Nukes are so fucking stupid anyway. If one got fired at a major country, chances are the world would get blown to bits with the resulting fighting between the surviving nations.

Well it wouldn't “add a dangerous period of destabilization” to the UK’s “nuclear defense posture” if you didn't tell anyone about it.... [editline]10th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Duskin;45942588]Nukes are so fucking stupid anyway. If one got fired at a major country, chances are the world would get blown to bits with the resulting fighting between the surviving nations.[/QUOTE] well if it's only one it would just get hit by a SAM

Aye because having them sitting 30 miles from the biggest population centre in Scotland is MUCH safer...

[QUOTE=Duskin;45942588]Nukes are so fucking stupid anyway. If one got fired at a major country, chances are the world would get blown to bits with the resulting fighting between the surviving nations.[/QUOTE] They aren't for firing, they are for stopping others doing dumb shit. For example I would be willing to be that had Ukraine not giving up its nukes then Crimea would still be a part of Ukraine right now.

[QUOTE=Jsm;45942763]They aren't for firing, they are for stopping others doing dumb shit. For example I would be willing to be that had Ukraine not giving up its nukes then Crimea would still be a part of Ukraine right now.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction[/url]

If its so imperative the UK could help now independent Scotland out by renting use of the naval base for a couple of years.

I had heard the UK was looking at moving them to northern Wales if they have to be moved, because a) it's not too far to move them and b) there's not much in northern Wales to actually get nuked.

[QUOTE=Scotty.;45942734]Aye because having them sitting 30 miles from the biggest population centre in Scotland is MUCH safer...[/QUOTE] I don't really understand why having them within 30 miles of a major population center is significant?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45943214]I don't really understand why having them within 30 miles of a major population center is significant?[/QUOTE] Probably because the major population centre doesn't want to be near the place getting nuked Sherlock.

[QUOTE=bravehat;45943480]Probably because the major population centre doesn't want to be near the place getting nuked Sherlock.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the place getting nuked would be the major population centre

[QUOTE=bravehat;45943480]Probably because the major population centre doesn't want to be near the place getting nuked Sherlock.[/QUOTE] Major cities would always be a target for nuclear bombs regardless of whenever or not military facilities are near. After military targets, they would go for chemicals, industry, communications, finance, etc. Edinburgh and Glasgow collectively hold well over half the population and several of those, so they're fucked whenever or not nuclear bombs happen to be stored near them. Of course they wouldn't be primary targets, but secondary ones. This would probably give them a few minutes extra before the bombs landed, which in practical terms means about 3 million dead. I'm opposed to nukes in their entirety, but if you have to have nukes, it really doesn't matter where they are because as soon as they start flying you have to assume that half of the population will die in the first ten minutes of the war.

Thankfully there's no nation on Earth that's so retarded they'd start a mass nuclear war, let alone by dropping a bomb on Glasgow. Really though this assumes that people want the missiles gone on that basis, I imagine most folk cannae be fucked paying for them or their replacement.

[QUOTE=Scotty.;45942734]Aye because having them sitting 30 miles from the biggest population centre in Scotland is MUCH safer...[/QUOTE] Scotland was always a target for nuking in the cold war, even without the tridents there. But I'll happily take the nukes and leave Scotland with none.

[QUOTE=bravehat;45943596]Thankfully there's no nation on Earth that's so retarded they'd start a mass nuclear war, let alone by dropping a bomb on Glasgow. Really though this assumes that people want the missiles gone on that basis, I imagine most folk cannae be fucked paying for them or their replacement.[/QUOTE] you say that, but there is one nuclear armed state right now that has all out threatened to nuke everyone and is run by a pouty semi-insane oligarch and im not talking about north korea here

I doubt trident will be leaving Scotland any time soon. If the vote comes out yes, keeping trident will likely be one of the key conditions.

[QUOTE=Jsm;45942763]They aren't for firing, they are for stopping others doing dumb shit. For example I would be willing to be that had Ukraine not giving up its nukes then Crimea would still be a part of Ukraine right now.[/QUOTE] I dunno man, while nukes are good deterrence I feel like Putin would ride on the fact that no one wants to be the man to doom humanity.

[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;45946440]I dunno man, while nukes are good deterrence I feel like Putin would ride on the fact that no one wants to be the man to doom humanity.[/QUOTE] Having nukes or not having nukes doesn't matter against a nation that doesn't care about anything.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;45942053]I can't think of any large modern post-industrial nations that don't have nuclear weapons, clearly the UK is of much greater value and in much greater jeopardy than backwater third world countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand :downs:[/QUOTE] Oi, New Zealand isn't third world, merely second world.

[QUOTE=Duskin;45942588]Nukes are so fucking stupid anyway. If one got fired at a major country, chances are the world would get blown to bits with the resulting fighting between the surviving nations.[/QUOTE] That's exactly why they exist. They're a weapon of mass destruction to induce peace through MAD.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;45942053]I can't think of any large modern post-industrial nations that don't have nuclear weapons, clearly the UK is of much greater value and in much greater jeopardy than backwater third world countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand :downs:[/QUOTE] Sadly we only focus on universal healthcare, and other socialist mumbo :downs:.