11th December 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Outrageously misleading (Willie Thompson)

In Ian Tinkler’s letter of 6th March he refers to the UK nuclear missile submarines and his experience in the Royal Navy.

However, it appears strange that he omits to mention that the guidance systems for these missiles is entirely controlled by the USA and they cannot be fired without US permission – appropriately enough for a vassal power of the American empire.

The pretence of an “independent” British nuclear deterrent is outrageously misleading, to put it politely.

Since this kind of military virility symbol is not possessed by the Scandinavian countries – or the Irish Republic for that matter – presumably in Mr Tinkler’s view these countries can expect to be attacked and invaded by Russian forces any day now.

Willie Thompson
9 Barbary Drive,
Sunderland.

91 comments

  1. Iantinkler

    Willie Thompson, cut your disingenuous spin, you quote, “However, it appears strange that he omits to mention that the guidance systems for these missiles is entirely controlled by the USA and they cannot be fired without US permission” Sorry Willie, that statement is total tripe… The missile system I quoted was sub harpoon, programmed at sea, fire and forget. Now I believe replaced by sub Tomahawk, also programed and targeted at sea fire and forget, incidentally both are anti-ship, primarily, however tomahawk has a nuclear ability and can target land. I am not party to know whether The Navy has nuclear tips deployed for tomahawk. As they are deployed and target under water, by the submarine crews, just how could The USA control them? Regarding Trident missiles I would love to know your information source, about their targeting, so would Putin, SNP fantasy land perhaps alongside the SNP defines policy, pure fantasy? For your information the targeting and deployment of Royal Naval Submarines is not controlled by The USA, I think they The USA have their own deterrent! With regard to countries under threat from Russia, how about Ukraine, Latvia, Moldavia, Georgia, Estonia. Fortunately the NATO nuclear umbrella protects most, remember Salmond he wanted to join NATO and share that nuclear protection, now there is a paradox. Disband Trident and have NATO nuclear weapons in any Scottish port, including Lerwick, that was actual SNP policy, that is why Jean Urquhart quit the SNP, at least one nationalist with a backbone, unlike Sturgeon, whom was happy to have NATO nukes in Scottish waters, and said absolutely nothing about that prospect.

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      The Guardian quotes :

      “The financial albatross called Trident is neither independent nor credible. Control was handed to Washington when the decision was made to use a missile delivery system designed, manufactured and overhauled in the US. Even submarine-launched test firings are conducted in US waters near Cape Canaveral under, needless to say, US Navy supervision. It is inconceivable that No 10 would fire Trident in anger without prior approval from the White House”.

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98607.htm

      Reply
      • Steven Jarmson

        Its also inconceivable that the USA would laugh a nuclear strike without its allies approval.
        The Nat policy of no nukes in Scotland is a fantasy, the Amricans use our bases, as do the French. NATO allies by treaty, have the right to use each others military bases to help maintenance and training.
        If the nats want in NATO, then there will always be nukes in Scotland.

      • Robin Stevenson

        While I don`t doubt that the US would “Like” Scotland to babysit their nuclear weapons it simply, isn`t the case that NATO members are obliged to have their own nukes.

        Of the 28 member countries, two are located in North America (Canada and the United States) and 25 are European countries while Turkey is in Eurasia. All members have militaries, except for Iceland which does not have a typical army (but does, however, have a coast guard and a small unit of soldiers for NATO operations). Three of NATO’s members are nuclear weapons states: France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. NATO has 12 original founding member nation states and from 18 February 1952 to 1 April 2009 it added 16 more member nations.

      • Ali Inkster

        As ever you reply with a statement that has no relevance to the original statement. You replied “While I don`t doubt that the US would “Like” Scotland to babysit their nuclear weapons it simply, isn`t the case that NATO members are obliged to have their own nukes.” Where as Steven merely stated the fact that without having its own nukes Scotland would still have to play host to American and French nukes to remain part of NATO. I would also add that it would be on a “don’t ask don’t tell basis and the government in Hollyrood would be powerless to stop it. What I find really amusing is that as part of NATO an independent Scotland would have to play host to rUK nukes on a don’t ask don’t tell basis.

      • Robin Stevenson

        I`m afraid I`ve know real issue with your statement Ian?…I agree that IF Scotland wanted to be a member of NATO it would have to play it`s part,…. but like Norway, Spain etc, it would allow NATO members to use our ports, However, that`s Quite different from Holding Nuclear weapons on our soil, and therefore being a permanent target, Scotland doesn`t want its “Own Nukes” was my point. I`m really not quite sure why this is [somehow] amusing to you, it makes perfect sense to me?

  2. Gordon Harmer

    I sincerely hope Willie Thompson’s letter will be published in Fridays paper as his claims have been made before by an ex SNP convener, who was made to look somewhat silly. To prove he was wrong, like Willie and one other commentator, I wrote to Westminster for the true explanation as to who has the power to launch a British Trident missile .

    I was not at all surprised to find under the agreement with the USA, the UK lease 65 Trident II D-5 missiles from a larger pool of such weapons based at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in the United States. The US would retain responsibility for the maintenance of the missiles, and the UK would manufacture its own warheads and submarines. I was informed that the final decision on firing the missiles is the responsibility of the British Prime Minister. Under the terms of the missile lease arrangement, the United States does not have any veto on the use of British nuclear weapons, which the UK may launch independently.

    Reply
    • Brian Smith

      Brilliant, Gordon. I feel much safer now.

      Reply
      • Gordon Harmer

        I am sure you are Brian, only the difference between you and me is I generally research what I say so if someone was to ask me about fishing or crofting I can answer with accuracy and confidence. A letter from the government who control our defence systems is better than any disingenuous rhetoric copied from wings over Scotland.

      • Mark Ryan Smith

        If these apocalyptic missiles are ‘defence systems’, it’s hard to imagine what an attack system would be like. A biblical plague maybe? Floods called up at will? Top-secret biological weapons dropped across the Middle East? The Death Star?

        The real issue, of course, is not who controls the bombs, but the fact that they exist at all.

      • Steven Jarmson

        The sad fact is these weapons DO exist.
        The nats want to pretend that by making Scotland nuclear free then the problem goes away.
        It doesn’t.
        Its just that simple.

      • Robert Duncan

        Nuclear weapons aren’t a “nats” versus Unionist issue, as much as the party policies seem to align that way. There are many members of the public strongly against their presence and more so against the money spent on them.

        The argument certainly isn’t “just that simple”. The UK is in the significant minority in having these weapons, and yet the other countries around the world without them aren’t racing to stock up, despite many having considerably more money available than the UK with which to do so.

    • Robin Stevenson

      Gordon, who cares who fires trident, the UK, simply can not fire it without first receiving the codes from the US, who presses the actual button is immaterial, what`s more important is this :

      “Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.
      Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
      The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website”

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html

      Reply
      • John Tulloch

        @Robin,

        The internet is an amazing resource.

        The other day, I “chanced upon” the following snippet of information:

        http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98607.htm

        I’m sure you’ll agree, it’s very interesting – and informative!

      • Gordon Harmer

        Robin the title of this thread we commenting on is “Outrageously misleading” which describes your comments above.

        Under the terms of the missile lease arrangement, the United States does not have any veto on the use of British nuclear weapons, which the UK may launch independently and that includes the codes you speak of.

        They are our warheads, nothing to do with the USA, they lease us the missiles only. I think you have been watching to many films with nationalist playing the lead roll, films such as Red October.

      • Ali Inkster

        So wikileaks is party to a deal concluded only next week, how do you suppose Julian managed that from the South American embassy in which he now resides?

  3. Iantinkler

    The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic Did they really Robin, Strange behavior indeed, to bargain with a weapon you claim the USA controls in any case. For goodness sake, Robin Stevenson, Grow up!

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      I Didn`t write this Ian, The Telegraph did, based on information from “Cables” sent from the US to Russia, IF you think it`s nonsense and the Telegraph should “Grow up”, maybe you could send them a wee note to that effect?

      Erm…Ian IF the US didn`t control UK Trident codes, then how exactly could they bargain with Russia in the first place?

      Reply
  4. Gordon Harmer

    Robin once again your information is incorrect here is the letter from HM Government on this matter.

    A constituent has asked if the UK needs to ask the permission of the United States’ before deploying the UK’s nuclear deterrent. The short answer is no. The Ministry of Defence has argued many times that the UK Trident system is fully operationally independent of the US or any other state. The MOD has stated that “decision-making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK. Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, even if the missiles are to be fired as part of a NATO response.”l The Government made these comments in response to a Defence Select Committee report in 2006. The Defence Committee raised concerns about the independence of the UK’s nuclear deterrence in its report The Future of the UK’s Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (HC 986 2005-2006). The Government’s responded to the concerns raised in their response report (HC 1558, 2005-2006). The section in bold is the committee’s conclusions followed by the governments response.
    The MOD also provided the following answers to similar questions asked in a Freedom of Information Act request in 2005: Your freedom of information request about the UK nuclear deterrent. Specifically, the MOD said: […]1 can confirm that UK political control is maintained over the UK nuclear deterrent at all times, and that in particular only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of UK nuclear weapons […] 2. Does the government of the United States of America have any involvement in the use of nuclear weapons by the British government? No. But in the event of the contemplated use of UK nuclear weapons for NATO purposes, procedures exist to allow all NATO Allies, including the US, to express views on what was being proposed. The final decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons in such circumstances, and if so how, would, however, be made by the nuclear power concerned. 3. Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own nuclear weapons? No. 4. Does the British government have to tell the US government if it intends to use nuclear weapons? No. But the US would be involved in any consultation process at NATO as described in the answer to your second question.2 I’ve provided more general information about the UK’s nuclear declaratory policy below: The 2006 White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent (em 6994) set out five enduring principles which underpin the UK’s approach to nuclear deterrence: 1. our focus is on preventing nuclear attack. 2. the UK will retain only the minimum amount of destructive power required to achieve our deterrence objectives 2 Text of letter to individual in response to a Freedom of Information Request about the UK Nuclear Deterrent, MOD website, 19 July 2005 . 3. we deliberately maintain ambiguity about precisely when, how and at what scale we would contemplate use of our nuclear deterrent 4. the UK’s nuclear deterrent supports collective security through NATO for the EuroAtlantic area. 5. an independent centre of nuclear decision-making enhances the overall deterrent effect of allied nuclear forces.

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      Gordon, before you get all excited my information comes from Government cables, NOT governments making speeches, or producing documents to appease the reader, but governments sending secret information that we [the public] aren`t supposed to know,…. NOW!…you may wish to believe whatever`s written on behalf of those government bodies, and as we know ALL governments are legal, decent, honest and truthful, [haha]…Anyway, much like your politics you tend to only believe what you read in the MSM, [which was the reason I linked the Telegraph],…however, IF you can be bothered to delve a little deeper then
      I`ll leave you to make your own mind up as to who to believe.

      Here`s a snatch :

      Whistle-blowing website Wikileaks has dominated the news, both because of its steady drip feed of secret documents, but also because of the dealings of its enigmatic front man Julian Assange.

      The recent release of thousands of sensitive diplomatic cables is just the latest in a long list of “leaks” published by the secretive site, which has established a reputation for publishing sensitive material from governments and other high-profile organisations.

      In October the site released almost 400,000 secret US military logs detailing its operations in Iraq.

      They followed hot on the heels of nearly 90,000 classified military records, which gave an insight into the military strategy in Afghanistan.

      And in April 2010, for example, Wikileaks posted a video on its website that shows a US Apache helicopter killing at least 12 people – including two Reuters journalists – during an attack in Baghdad in 2007.

      A US military analyst is currently awaiting trial, on charges of leaking the material along with the cables and military documents.

      https://wikileaks.org/cablegate.html

      Reply
      • Gordon Harmer

        Robin, if you believe Wikileaks, your credibility is nil, I have a letter in reply to my question and I would believe that before anything said by Wikileaks. If this is the kind of research you do I think I would question every singe statement you have ever made on here, you may as well get your “facts” from the Dandy comic.
        What an admission, it puts you on a par with Nixon with his massive faux pas all those years ago.
        Its a wonder I can type this as I am laughing so much, ah well at least you cheered me up.

      • Robert Duncan

        “Robin, if you believe Wikileaks, your credibility is nil”

        What on Earth is this even supposed to mean? Wikileaks publishes actual governmental documents that have been leaked. It is not a source in and of itself.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Tell you what Gordon, Don`t believe Wikileaks, join the many others that have been trying to shut them up for years, please feel free to believe the spoon-fed nonsense you`ll read in the Daily Blah, or from Government sources, [let`s face they never lie?]
        Like the McCrone report, I`d imagine that was just nonsense too? [despite the government burying it for 30 years]
        With regards to your association with Nixon…erm…He WAS the government at the time?
        [thank you for reinforcing my argument]

      • Gordon Harmer

        @ Robert, Wikileaks organisation which publishes secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources. It has up to 800 anonymous unpaid people who run an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking. A totally unaccountable group of people where any one of them with an agenda against a company or government issue supposed leaked documents. Robert you are having a laugh there is no verification that what they publish are actual documents. As Ian says they are a bunch of criminals, and conspiracy theorists, anyone who uses what they say as evidence in a debate and puts its value above a letter from our government has lost any credibility they had. You actually surprise me coming to the defence of an anonymous group who issue documents from anonymous sources.

        Robin; A year after Professor McCrone had written his report, civil servants in London (including McCrone himself) met to discuss its implications. They concluded that Scotland’s “economic problems would disappear”, and it would become “the Kuwait of the Western world”, though this was balanced somewhat by the opinion that Scotland could risk “disaster” if the oil price collapsed. The civil servants summed up by finding that there was “a good case for the continuation of the Union. In this they were correct something which is proved by government figures released this week, kicking his original report into touch.

        Nixon’s faux pas was the way he conducted his debate with Kennedy in 1960, as big a mistake as using Wikileaks as evidence. You spin has actually reinforced my argument, thank you.

      • Robert Duncan

        It is nonsense to denounce the entire website in the way you have. Of course some wariness is required but people should judge each leaked document on its individual merit.

        You might as well write off all information found online for the level of rationality you are showing here. I find yours and Mr Tinkler’s comments regarding this nothing short of bizarre.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Aah!..So by your “Greater knowledge” Gordon, You`d imagine that these “whistleblowers”, presenting secret documentation for the public to make their own mind up whether it`s fact or fiction, and this information has led to themselves and their sources being hunted down and discredited, along with court cases and prosecutions leading to convictions of government agencies should give their name and address and maybe even their e-mail?…LOL…good call,…

        McCrone was reeled in and was forced to backtrack when he realised that he had just admitted that Scotlands Oil had been systematically robbed by the UK government since discovery,…don`t tell me Gordon,…Your version`s right, cause you read it in…er…Daily Record or was it an official government report?..[much the same imo]

        You`ll probably have noticed, that I was “condemning” governments and their officials, including Nixon?
        So your point there doesn`t really make sense tbh?

      • Gordon Harmer

        Robin, not every claim, in fact 99% of the Wikileaks claims do not end up in court. What you say does not detract from the fact Wikileaks are a subversive organisation who’s aim is to undermine governments world wide. Their existence obviously suits some nationalists because bragging about policy which is non existent gives them no argument. Therefore they are content to undermine Westminster and those who work there with Wikileaks dubious claims as this panders to their theories. One thing that is true is that nothing Wikileaks produce can be verified as factual and there is no process to question it. A letter from the Government can be questioned is not anonymous and is 100% more factual than anything you have offered in this thread.

        How do you know that Mccrone was reeled in and forced to backtrack, do you have insider knowledge, were you there or have you researched Wikileaks for this information. You seem to like using your font of knowledge to condemn governments and their officials, so why not look a little closer to home and you will have a full time job.

        Oh and by the way Wikileaks are such a trustworthy and honest group that Wikipedia have gone to great lengths to make sure that there is no connection between the two organisations. Says a lot does it not.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Gordon, I know it`s pretty hard for you to believe in anything that you haven`t read in the Daily Blah, and I can only apologise for presenting you with the “Actual” leaked files and not some journalists/politicians interpretation of them, I am further amazed in your own inside information that 99% of these claims haven`t reached court, [please link evidence?]…

        Wikilinks is NOT an SNP organisation, in fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with the SNP, they are frequently quoted on your very own MSM, [but I guess that doesn`t really fit in with your ridiculous theory?]…I m truly sorry that you find that a letter from the government is 100% more factual, because 100% means there is not a shadow of doubt, sadly, there are many other gullible souls that will agree with you, and for each of them, they have my sympathies.

        Tell me Gordon, Why DID they bury the McCrone report for 30 years?…But hey!..let`s bring it closer up to date shall we? :

        “The pro-Union economist Professor Brian Ashcroft
        (husband of former Scottish Labour leader Wendy
        Alexander) calculated in July 2013 that had Scotland
        been independent since 1981, it would by now have an
        accumulated basic budget surplus of at least £68 billion
        The real figure, including interest and other benefits, would
        likely be an “oil fund” of well over £100 billion”.

        Oh…and by the way Wikileaks and Wikipedia are quite different [as you say] Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, which uses information gleaned from “acceptable” sources, [therefore deemed to be no threat]…Wikileaks – on the other hand – Scare the S**t out of those that have something they`d rather NOT share with the rest of the world.

      • John Tulloch

        @Robin,

        I saw a tabloid (Daily Express) headline the other day suggesting that Scotland is over £12 billion in the red this year, partly, at least, due to the low oil price.

        Do you accept that figure and does that now reduce Ashcroft’s estimate (be it valid or invalid) to £56 billion?

        At that rate, presumably, it would only take another 4.5 years to wipe out Ashcroft’s “surplus”?

      • Robin Stevenson

        A Good point John,…. Firstly, let`s not forget that the 2013/14 £12.4 Billion [black hole] is Scotland`s share of UK debt, because Scotland cannot borrow money the UK borrow on our behalf and we get the bill, but because Scotland has Never actually needed to borrow money [as they`ve paid more into the UK coffers than we`ve EVER received back] It does rankle a bit that we`re left with this debt in the first place.

        When we consider that in the previous year 2012/13 our “Black hole” then was £14.3 Billion, [then despite the present economic climate] Scotland has STILL managed to reduce £14.3 Billion down to £12.4 Billion.
        When we, further consider that the UK are running on a £1.5 Trillion deficit, and rising, Scotland are doing their best to lower our deficit, that is, [sadly] until the UK government need to borrow more in our name and we`ll [once again] be faced with our share of UK inflicted debt.

        We have to bear in mind John, that Ashcroft`s figures of £68 Billion were uninvested, in other words a big pot of money doing nothing, however, [like Norway] that surplus would have been invested, and a conservative estimate would have taken us to [at least] £100 Billion. [an Oil fund]

        As stated earlier, that £12.4 Billion could be upped with further UK borrowing, however, as an independent country, the LAST thing we want to do is use our oil fund to pay off existing debt…. Scotland has done rather well at paying off it`s debts and there is NO reason why it couldn`t continue to do so, WITHOUT delving into it`s oil fund, right now we receive 8.7% of Oil money, perhaps the rUK invests their
        92.3% in a UK oil fund already?….haha..IF only they`d thought of that 35 years ago?

    • Gordon Harmer

      Robin, I see you are back to your spin (a polite way of saying what I would really call it) again, first, never did I say that Wikilinks or as it is better known Wikileaks (and you have the nerve to pull JT up for his spelling) was a part of the SNP. What I did say was their ideology suits Nationalists argument,if you can call it that.

      You tell me why they buried the McCrone report, if that is what happened, if you don’t know I am sure Wikileaks will.

      You go on believing an organisation who published secret documents from the USA which raised concerns that the detailed logs had exposed the names of Afghan informants, thus endangering their lives. Plus they continue to put the lives of the US and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security. Don’t be sorry that I find my letter more factual than your souce of information I know it’s hard for you to get the bigger picture when you have such a small screen.

      Reply
      • Robin Stevenson

        Gordon, it would seem the only way that you would believe that the sun will rise tomorrow is, IF you read it in the Daily Blurb first?…and as such, let me link a couple of yer Favs…who knows you might not even believe THEM now?

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html

        http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-uk-underplayed-value-of-oil-1-2937003

        I`m really not quite sure why you`re the slightest bit bothered about whatever Wikileaks publishes?..after all, did you NOT believe that it`s all a lot of rubbish anyway?..in your own words :

        “Its a wonder I can type this as I am laughing so much, ah well at least you cheered me up”…

        .I DO wish you`d make up your mind Gordon?

      • Gordon Harmer

        Robin, your infatuation with the daily blurb is amusing as the only news paper to cross my threshold is the Shetland Times, but even if I did use the British press for my information it would be more accurate than the cesspit you use. Your links prove that you use whatever source agrees with your version of what happened, be it a Tory rag or that excuse for a news paper, The Sun of course that is if it is unavailable on Wikileaks.

        The fact that I said 99% of Wickedleaks do not end up in court is an admission by me that at least 1% of what they claim “could” be true and that 1% puts lives at risk. If that does not prick at your conscience it says an awful lot about you, and that does not make me laugh because I do have a conscience. I did laugh when you first used Wickedleaks and tried to pass of what they claim as facts because I could not believe someone who purports to be a credible debater could be so gullible.

        Now that you have reduced what was a serious debate to one-upmanship I am going to quit replying to your fiction in the knowledge that my letter is factual, from a reliable source, accountable and is not hiding behind 800 or more nameless, invisible subversives, and at least two criminals.

        It is such a fine day that I think i will go take my dogs for a walk and have an intelligent conversation with them rather than let your diatribe spoil such a lovely day.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Once again Gordon, you`ve missed the point [you really should read my posts all the way through?] The reason I link our 97% Pro-Union MSM newspapers is for the simple reason that, that IS what most people are subjected to on a daily basis, whether it`s on the internet in newspaper form or watched on our London controlled TV news.

        I DO take your point about Wikileaks, “What you don`t know won`t harm you”, attitude.

        Enjoy your dog walking Gordon, and remember, Everything`s Rosy 😉

  5. Iantinkler

    Robin Stevenson, it should be clear, even to the most simple minded, that “British nuclear secrets” extends to a lot more than “Trident launch codes” and probably has nothing to do with Trident at all… Has it not occurred to you there are many more nuclear weapons and nuclear secrets pertaining to the British forces than Trident. You are really showing a depth of ignorance which is staggering for one whom writes so profusely on this subject, rather typical of the SNP. Perhaps the secrets referred to in this article was warhead design and yield of nuclear depth bombs or some such tactical and non-strategic weapon. Had that not occurred to you? Your quotation of, Wikileaks wholly irrelevant to this argument. Much of WikiLeaks is deliberate misinformation, posted by non-other than NATO intelligence source’s to confound and confuse potential enemies. Wikileaks is hardly definitive, accurate or even contemporaneous now, certainly not a work of reference for anyone with an iota of common sense, just another red herring and perhaps now, a work of fiction and no more.

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      Ian, obviously Wikileaks can not offer their information as a “Work of reference”, they are simply, actual “cables” [legally or illegally obtained] leaked from governments in their raw state, NOT some government presenting you with the diluted, politically correct version, it is up to the reader to come to their own conclusion, IF the reader is having trouble with that they have one of two options, dismiss them as fictional nonsense? [which seems a bit strange as there are people facing prosecution because of their implications] OR believe them?…simples.

      It does beggar the question, why are these “Works of Fiction” receiving world wide condemnation from the very people they implicate?…perhaps they “Doth protest too much, methinks”.

      Reply
  6. David Spence

    I would be more interested in ‘ land based nuclear wreapons ‘ and do such weapons exist on the UK?

    I understand that there are 3 submarines which constantly patrol the british water, and are armed with the Trident missiles people are talking about.

    However, I am sure there would also be land based nuclear missiles as well. Who controls these, who has the overall power to sanction their use? One would presume these nuclear missiles are mobile or are they located in a fixed part of the UK? Does Scotland have such missiles, and would the launch of such missiles require the 1st Minister of Scotland as well as the Prime Minister of the UK, and possibly other International persons to launch such devices?

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      What`s even more interesting David is, what exactly is the UK`s Nuclear defence capabilities?…I don`t mean the “[so called] “Deterrent”,…but the actual defense in place, in the event of an all out nuclear attack on Britain?….How do we stop Nuclear Missiles heading our way?….Answers on a postcard?…..£4 Billion PA for Trident and we might not even get to fire them, and even IF they [some how] managed to shoot one off, what are our Sub boys coming home to?…

      Let`s hear it from the experts ex defence secretary Michael Portillo speaking to Andrew Neil on our great “Deterrent” :

      http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/trident-thisweek-4nov2012.mp3

      Reply
      • Ali Inkster

        We stop them flying in this direction by ensuring we have the capability to wipe from the map anyone daft enough to fire them at us. MAD but it has worked since the damn things were invented, no nuclear power has ever been attacked by a nuclear power. You may wish to put the genie back in the bottle but it just that a wish. The only thing that may take nuclear technology out of the hands of man is probably a nuclear war so maybe you should be careful what you wish for.

      • John Tulloch

        @Robin,

        Why Would you say there hasn’t been another war in Korea?

        Why would you say there hasn’t been a war between India and Pakistan?

      • James Watt

        “We stop them flying in this direction by ensuring we have the capability to wipe from the map anyone daft enough to fire them at us.”

        @Ali. That’s the problem, Trident isn’t capable of wiping anyone from the map without leaving Britain exposed to the same treatment, and if Britain is targeted where do you think that first missile is going to hit as they attempt to wipe out the remaining nuclear weapons?

        Trident would only be effective when used as an aid to an American attack, as each Vanguard boat is only armed with a maximum of eight missiles and forty warheads (five per missile), and at 100kt each warhead is six times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima but significantly smaller than the 750kt warheads on the Russians RM6 (SS 18) ICBM, Russia also has an anti-ballistics defence system so even with America leading the charge it would be pure suicide to try and wipe them of the map.

        To be able to wipe any other nuclear threat of the map without American assistance would require a guarantee you could nullify the threat posed to Britain using a maximum of 16 missiles from 2 subs ( usually only 8 as we usually only have one sub at sea at any time ) and without them returning fire. I’d say it’s highly unlikely we could know the location of and destroy another country’s entire nuclear threat without facing any retaliation, which begs the question, why have one? I suspect it’s so we can sit at the grown ups table when America has the other countries around for lunch.

        Trident doesn’t keep us safe, it makes us a target. Why do you think Russia keeps nosing about, Russian subs have even been located of the west coast of Scotland as they attempt to record the acoustic signature of the Vanguard subs so they can track them at sea.

        As an independent system Trident isn’t capable of defending us or attacking another country so it should be scrapped and the money should be spent on ships and planes to monitor our waters, then maybe Russia won’t find it so easy to encroach on our boundaries.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Please guys, you`ve gotta be kidding?…You seriously think that Russia are concerned in the slightest with our “Peashooter” [which would more than likely be brought down almost immediately with Russia`s Nuclear defences] ..My question was, what are OUR “defences” NOT deterrent?…erm…none.

        John, IS there a war going on at the moment with [Nuclear] Russia and Ukraine? are [Nuclear] America at war with ISIS?…..Are ISIS giving a jot what country to attack with or without Nuclear weapons, [IF that country took part in Western aggression?]…….IF you answer yes to either, then your point is moot.

        Described by current vice-president of CND Air Commodore Alastair Mackie, as Britain’s “stick-on hairy chest”.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Spot on James 🙂

      • Ali Inkster

        James Watt, in times of peace Britain has at least one of her four Vanguard subs at sea at any time each sub carries 8 missiles (though they can carry more) each with five independently targeted warheads, I’ll do the maths for you that’s forty cities or make damn sure of a few, more than enough of a deterrent for any one, and that is just one sub. In times of high tension more subs armed with even more missiles will put to sea.

      • James Watt

        @ Ali, without a anti-ballistics defence like Russia and America have it is pure suicide to launch our nukes against another nuclear threat.

        Without Trident, Britain would still be safe from attack as a member of NATO, and would have more money to invest in real defence like boats and planes to monitor our coast l.

    • Ali Inkster

      There are no land based missiles but the UK does have a complement of bombs that can be launched from Tornados. These are held at various RAF bases but there whereabouts at any particular time is supposed to be top secret, Maybe Julian knows where they are.

      Reply
  7. iantinkler

    Enigmatic front man “Julian Assange.” hiding in a foreign embassy trying, to avoid deportation to Sweden on a sexual assault charge. “Edward Snowden”, wiki leaks other front man, granted asylum in Russia, a quest of Salmond’s pal Putin. What a champion of civil rights and what an unpleasant group of people, not the most credible group, not any of them!

    Reply
    • Robert Duncan

      Their personal credentials have no bearing on the vailidity of information from the site, and it is frankly idiotic to suggest they do.

      Reply
    • Brian Smith

      Er, Julian Assange didn’t write that stuff ,,,

      Reply
  8. iantinkler

    James Watt, understand Trident is a deterrent, a weapon of last resort. It would only be fired after, yes after, an attack on other NATO countries or the UK. It is not hard to understand MAD (mutual assured destruction) , to put it simply, it means if any country or power that launches a nuclear strike against the UK or UK’s allies (NATO), will suffer a retaliatory nuclear attack that will annihilate that country, and its leaders. Trident is a defensive weapon, not much use for attacking anyone, that was never its purpose. It is a deterrent, no more

    Reply
    • James Watt

      ” It would only be fired after, yes after, an attack on other NATO countries or the UK. It is not hard to understand MAD (mutual assured destruction) ”

      And why do you think the UK or another NATO country would face an attack, what does the UK have that would make another nuclear capable country want to target us?
      I do understand the concept of mutual assured destruction, the key word there is mutual, Russia and America both have missile defence systems that will intercept an inbound attack, Britain doesn’t so I’m not convinced the assured destruction is mutual. Why make Britain an unnecessary target in Americas ego trip because Trident neither has the ability to stop an in bound attack or effectively attack another threat without facing retaliation.

      Reply
  9. David Spence

    I am more intrigued as to Israel’s nuclear capability, and would they launch a nuclear weapon towards Iran? Would Israel require the permission of the USA, to launch such a device, or would the USA, have the security protocol to enable such a launch?

    If it did have nuclear capability, would Israel be mad enough to launch a nuclear strike on Iran if Iran was to threaten it or be in preparation for a none nuclear conventional war?

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      “Ifs and Buts” David,….What`s interesting is that the present leader of NATO [The current Secretary General] is Jens Stoltenberg, the former Prime Minister of Norway, who took office on 1 October 2014.

      (Reuters) – From his youth as an anti-war activist who hurled stones at the U.S. Embassy to his later years as Norway’s leading statesman and negotiator.

      With a pacifist like Mr Stoltenberg, I`d imagine the US would find if Very difficult to justify giving Israel permission to launch a nuclear strike on anyone, Israel AND the US would be condemned, not only by their fellow members of NATO, but of the entire world, it would be political suicide for both…[and they know it] Decommissioning of WMD should be priority.

      Reply
  10. iantinkler

    James Watt, further to your comment about of Russia having a defensive anti IBM system, Russia has nothing effective against a MIRV warhead system, such as Trident. Any anti missile system would simply be swamped by the number of independently target warheads being released in a cascade effect. Each warhead would be truly devastating and to result in total annihilation of the target, very few would need to penetrate a defensive net. You seem to still in ignorance of the term deterrence, just like the SNP and some of their followers. Truly extraordinary how ignorant such a political party could be, frightening really. Maybe not as ignorant as they pretend, just after the CND type ignorant and timorous voter . Rather like those in the 1930s whom craved disarmament and saw no threat from fascism and German Nationalism. Russian Nationalism is just as malign even if the SNP praise it and Putin. Ironic just how malignant a force “nationalism” can be.

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      The ABM-3 Gazelle program has around 50 missiles that carry a single 10kt nuclear warhead which travel at speeds of Mach 17 (about 3.4 miles per second) and act as a shield up to a radius of 100km. They’re designed to track incoming nuclear MIRVs, get close and then detonate, hopefully destroying the incoming threat. Only Russia and the United States have this defensive capability.

      The degree to which Trident could operate as a successful first-strike system, then – certainly against a large country like Russia – is zero. Russia has far more than 40 military targets which would have to be taken out for a first-strike victory, even assuming every warhead hit its target (some of which are very small or even mobile). All it could achieve would be to get the Russians really, REALLY angry.

      You seem quite comfortable to use the word “Ignorance” Ian, [mainly towards those that disagree with you ..erm…more preposterous notions]…It`s not often you`re right, but you`re wrong again.

      Reply
      • John Tulloch

        Perhaps, I can help you, there, Robin, the key word is “deterrent”, as in “deterring” a ‘first strike’ by someone else.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Really John?…You seriously think that with NO nuclear “defence” at all, they`d be anything left?…

    • James Watt

      “further to your comment about of Russia having a defensive anti IBM system, Russia has nothing effective against a MIRV warhead system, such as Trident. Any anti missile system would simply be swamped by the number of independently target warheads being released in a cascade effect.”

      Sorry Ian but Wrong again, The Russian ABM-3 Gazelle program has around 50 missiles that carry a single 10kt nuclear warhead which travel at speeds of Mach 17 (about 3.4 miles per second) and act as a shield up to a radius of 100km. They’re designed to track incoming nuclear MIRVs, get close and then detonate, hopefully destroying the incoming threat. This is the same style of system used by the Americans.
      And as for the rest of your post, well let’s just say it’s just as ill informed as your opinions on Trident.

      Reply
  11. Gordon Harmer

    Yeah, now sounds like a good time to get rid of Trident!!!!!!!!!
    President Vladimir Putin has said he was ready to put Russia’s nuclear weapons on standby during tensions over the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31899680

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      Last Feb 2014 Gordon?…This, ofc, is a game of politics, with NATO becoming larger and Russia becoming smaller, [not to mention the US placing missiles in Poland, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System,] Russia are terrified of losing more of their territory, …a bit like the the UK losing Scotland, only Russia have resorted to conflict to hang on to them, whereas England used another form of fear, ….NATO decided to put on a show of strength, so what did Russia do?…an even BIGGER show of strength,…playground games. “my Dad`s bigger than your Dad”….Russia know damn fine that a nuclear war is NOT the end of the enemy, it`s the end of civilisation,…however, IF you`re being threatened by ever encroaching enemy, I`d recommend Pouting your chest out.

      Ooh!…and btw, who would you attack first, IF it came down to it, IF you were Putin Gordon?…the guy With the big stick or the guy without?

      Reply
  12. Iantinkler

    “The Russian ABM-3 Gazelle program has around 50 missiles that carry a single 10kt nuclear warhead which travel at speeds of Mach 17 (about 3.4 miles per second) and act as a shield up to a radius of 100km. They’re designed to track incoming nuclear MIRVs, get close and then detonate, hopefully destroying the incoming threat. ” Now, Robin Stevenson, four SSBsubs, 20 missiles each, 5 plus MIRVs per missile (up to 5 megatons each). Simultaneous missile launch, cascading 400 warheads at multiple targets, be a brave man to expect for 50 10 Kton Gazelles to stop that lot. James Watt is that beyond your maths, you tell me how many megatons would get through, what would be left of the target? and that is just the UK Trident force. Now add NATO forces to that.

    Reply
    • James Watt

      “four SSBNsubs, 20 missiles each, 5 plus MIRVs per missile (up to 5 megatons each). Simultaneous missile launch, cascading 400 warheads at multiple targets, be a brave man to expect for 50 10 Kton Gazelles to stop that lot. James Watt is that beyond your maths, you tell me how many megatons would get through, what would be left of the target?”

      Four active deterrents at sea would be a far bigger threat but we don’t have four operational SSBN subs, we have at least one submarine on patrol to provide a continuous at-sea deterrent; with the others scheduled to maintenance, leave or training. At best we would have 2 active deterrents at sea at one time. Do you honestly think Russia would stand by and watch us scramble all four subs without making sure it had a few missiles carrying ten 750kt warheads aiming back at us?

      Let’s just say for arguments sake that we did have four subs at sea, they will not have 20 missiles each on board, under the terms of the UK 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, each Vanguard boat is only armed with a maximum of eight missiles and forty warheads. So that’s a maximum of 32 missiles, each submarine-launched ballistic missile is equipped with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV) each MIRV contains 5 warheads.

      After doing the maths I came to the conclusion that even with all four subs at sea we would still be unable to nullify the threat posed by a country like Russia as their defences made up of 50 Gazelles would stop the majority of our 32 MIRVs before they released their warheads.

      Now Ian maybe you could do some maths. Work out the damage a Russian R-36M (SS-18) ICBM, which can carry up to ten 750kt warheads per missile or alternatively one massive 20 megaton warhead (equivalent to 1,250 Hiroshima bombs), could cause if it landed anywhere near Glasgow.

      Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      Well of course Ian, we`d STILL be in NATO so let`s not cheat now?….The Russian ABM-3 Gazelle system does indeed have 50 missiles,…but that`s just one program Ian, how many do the Russians have?…one for every warhead we fire at them?..so IF one misses [highly unlikely]…they`ve always got another 49 back-ups?

      Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Between USSR, US :

      The treaty barred the parties from deploying anti-ballistic missile systems that could cover the entire territory of their countries, or providing a base for such broad-range defense.
      The Treaty obligated the parties to limit their deployed ABM systems to two sites: one within a circle of 150-kilometer radius around the national capital, and the other within a circle of 150-kilometer radius around intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silo launchers.
      Within each of these sites the parties could deploy no more than 100 ABM launchers and no more than 100 ABM interceptor missiles.

      On December 13, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that the United States was unilaterally withdrawing from the Treaty. On June 13, 2002, the Treaty became invalid.

      Jeez… UK Trident is like someone living in a tent living on bread and water while there`s a Rolls Royce parked outside with No keys to use it.

      Reply
  13. iantinkler

    James Watt, It would only be after an attack on the UK was under way that Trident would be used. Too late then to worry about Faslane being targeted by Russia. Not much of a target anyway as in all likely hood all subs would long-since have been deployed to their Q births out at sea. Hitting city targets as well as Shetland (3 megatons for Saxa) was a Soviet attack plan. Holy Lock and Faslane were targeted as secondary targets then as in all probability the eggs would have already left the basket. That is what MAD is all about. Deterrence is the name of the game, there is no defence agains SSBM attacks on cities, just assured destruction or no attacks at all. No one however stupid will start a war that guarantees their own destruction. Only the SNP would advocate leaving Scotland so weekend that it has no deterrent, or defence of any type against nuclear or conventional aggression. Ukraine went down that road when it decommissioned its soviet nuclear missiles. Now just what is happening to Ukraine?, Georgia, Crimea. Rather similar to what the Soviets did to all of Eastern Europe and Hitler to Norway, Europe. Nationalism, kills a lot of people, especially those whom have poor defences and no deterrents.

    Reply
    • James Watt

      “It would only be after an attack on the UK was under way that Trident would be used”

      And as I asked you before Ian, why would any other nuclear capabable country want to attack the UK, what reason would there be for a country like Russia to decide the UK was a threat to it and had to be attacked?

      “Nationalism, kills a lot of people, especially those whom have poor defences and no deterrents”

      Yet the majority countries have no deterrents and have no intention of getting any. It’s also a little ironic that you want to tar nationalism as ideology that has horrific consequences yet advocate Britain spending billions on a weapon of mass destruction, which if ever fired will assure Britain is anialated as part of the mutual destruction.

      Reply
      • Gordon Harmer

        Putin is not going to wake up tomorrow morning and think I am going to nuke the UK. There will be a build up of tensions before anything was to happen i.e. saber rattling, a war of words etc. During this time if it looked like there was going to be a nuclear war, all our nuclear subs would be at sea, fully armed and ready to retaliate. Not only that, all the other NATO countries with nuclear weapons would be as ready as we are and Putin or who ever was the agitator would go back to bed and forget it. Its called a deterrent, one which has worked for decades and will go on working for many more. If by some chance ours and other NATO countries deterrents did not work and we were attacked it would not just be Faslane that would be targeted, Sullom Voe, Flotta, Grangemouth as well as every major UK city including Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen and many other strategic targets would be hit so it would be goodbye from us and goodbye from them. which again says it would not happen. The technicalities matter not the deterrent works and the proof is there because we are here to argue about it.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Could I suggest James, that you immediately get in touch with the other 25 NON-nuclear member States of NATO and demand that they ALL get a big bomb immediately, rather than just the other 3 of us [US, France, UK] that have them?…… It`s just that, a good number of those [NON-Nuclear countries] can actually AFFORD a Big bomb and we really can`t, so it seems kinda unfair that we should have to have them on our soil in the first place?…unless ofc it`s a prestige thing, and we can pretend that we`re a super-power too?

        Do you think James, that these 25 [Non-Nuclear States] are any LESS safe than the UK because they don`t have a big bomb, or do you think that in the event of an imminent attack they`d be furnished with American Nuclear weapons? [pretty much like the UK has now, American Nuclear weapons, only we pay for them, for some obscure reason]?

        Just for talking sake, what do these subs do, [in the event of a first strike attack from Russia, or whoever] where would they go, after their country, friends, family, are annihilated? …just float about for a couple of years until the dust settled, or?

      • Robin Stevenson

        Appologies James, that last post was aimed at Gordon, my bad 🙁

      • Ali Inkster

        Robin can you take the time to read the nuclear non proliferation treaty and then take the time to wonder why on earth if no one wants the damn things there was a need for the treaty in the first place.

      • Gordon Harmer

        None of your rhetoric creates any problem Robin as the deterrent works and has done for decades so your argument, or lack of it is irrelevant. Countries like the UK and France use their deterrents as umbrellas for the NATO countries who have no nuclear weapons, we don’t need to minimise the size of that umbrella as works well as it is.
        A few more reasons to keep our nuclear deterrent.

        • Nuclear weapons have guaranteed our security for two generations. They remain the ultimate deterrent to any aggressor, and the best means of ensuring peace.
        • Time-lag in development means the decision to replace Trident can’t wait. The world is still dangerous. Nobody can tell how much more dangerous it will be when Trident is obsolete.
        • It is desirable to check nuclear proliferation, but probably impossible. So it would be folly to scrap our nuclear weapons when potentially hostile states like Iran are about to acquire a nuclear capability.
        • Possession of nuclear weapons gives us clout. Unilateral nuclear disarmament would “send a Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber” (Nye Bevan, 1957).
        • Every British government since 1945 has seen the necessity of having a nuclear deterrent. Tony Blair was once a member of CND. It is his experience of realities which now makes him call for Trident’s replacement.
        And before you say it no I do not support Tony Blair and this did not come from the Daily Record. There I have successful rubbished your usual comeback therefore disarming your usual routs of stifling any debate on here.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Look Gordon, we can argue about this all day, so let me try to put it another way?

        Are we [the UK] part of NATO?
        Can we afford to replace Trident?
        Which of the other [non-nuclear] members have been attacked in the last 2 generations?
        Can any of the other 25 members afford the deterrent other than us?
        IF so, why haven’t they?
        Do you think that the Billions of tons of oil off the West coast should be left alone because Trident is “In the way”?
        Is Tony Blair a murd….[better NOT finish that as the moderator would NO doubt delete my post]

      • Gordon Harmer

        There is no need for all NATO countries to have a nuclear deterrent because those who do have it are enough.
        Yes we can afford it if the alternative is Armageddon.
        Any oil that is on the West side and is not accessible because of Trident is a fabrication. With the kind of technology now available to oil companies they can drill down miles away from trident and then drill horizontally to get to any oil deposits which may be there and I stress “may be there”.
        And please do not look Gordon me as you are some kind of definitive genius.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Therefore, you do not see it as being in any way prudent that each and every member state of NATO should take “Their turn”, of holding US Nuclear weapons? and we [UK} should just continue to invest in the latest model despite the fact we cannot afford it?..[financially]

        Oil off the West coast of Scotland is a “Fabrication”?…Is it really?..So the tests carried out off the West coast [by the same people] that have discovered new fields just off of Shetland are wrong then?

        http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/1039/scottish-west-coast-untapped-oil-and-gas-reserves-worth-trillions/

        Apologies for “Look Gordon”, it was intended in a “Sigh” fashion Gordon… I’m certainly NOT some kind of “definitive genius”, [far from it] Merely someone trying to understand your logic with regards to trident?

      • Gordon Harmer

        Just how much would it cost if every member state took their turn, not only that but is every member state strategically placed to do this, I don’t think so.

        Seismic surveys of the west side of Scotland were conducted in the seventies and indicated that oil could be there, “could” being the operative word, nothing definite. With modern technology if oil was there it could be extracted as I said by drilling down many miles from the path of the Trident subs and then drill horizontally. There would be no need for a platform as a well head could be installed and operated from the shore via an umbilical cable. This is proven technology being used now at the Total gas plant at Sullom. An umbilical which is 143 kilometers long ( the longest in the world). Therefore Robin “IF” oil is there it could be extracted.
        But to be honest I know and you know this story was developed by the Yes campaign during the run up to the referendum, a story like, shared currency and EU membership somewhat disingenuous to say the least.

      • Gordon Harmer

        By the way Robin your link says nothing about Trident stopping the oil being extracted the oil in your link is miles off shore nothing to do with Trident.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Gordon,..you asked “Just how much would it cost if every member state took their turn”?…Erm…Nothing, we’re talking about moving the same WMDs from one member state to another, NOT every State having their own?…I suppose we could ALL “Chip in”,..but what’s the point? they’re American anyway and they’re the ones using all members airports/Docks already for their own WMDs.
        Location?…Anywhere in Europe is ideal, in fact some of the other States are in a far better location than the UK geographically.

        Oops, you’re right I linked the wrong webpage [interesting as it is] however, here ya go :

        http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/west-coast-oil-boom-was-blocked-by-mod-1.151449

      • Gordon Harmer

        Thanks Robin, you just made my point for me, that was back in the eighties when the drilling technology was not as advanced as it is now. So if there was irrefutable proof that oil is there why are they not doing what they do now drill down and then horizontal? It is also a possibility that they could do it with a land based rig, that is of cousre if the oil is where it is claimed to be. Give me an hour or two and I will check with Wikileaks.
        How did such a font of knowledge manage to post the wrong link? I would sack your researcher if I was you Robin.

        So it would cost nothing to set up the infrastructure to store maintain and launch there missiles in other countries. I suppose that anyone who works there would work for free and would the workforce move with the missiles or would they be sacked until it was their countries turn again to have them. Your ingestion sounds a bit to simple to be true, did you borrow Salmons fag packet to write your ideas down on.

      • John Tulloch

        Probably, written on a beer mat, by the sounds of things Gordon!

  14. Iantinkler

    James Watt, a few facts for you, just examples confirming my premises from our recent history. ““Nationalism, kills a lot of people, especially those who have poor defences and no deterrents”, for example; WW1, WW2, The Balkan Wars, Crimea and Ukraine. All wars that were stoked by Nationalist fervour, stoked by the belief of easy short victory, how many millions died and are even now still dyeing in Ukraine?
    It you had the courtesy, to actually read what I have written, I have highlighted the need for deterrence, no more than that. I have not advocated Britain spending billions on a weapon of mass destruction, as you claim. I would however state “Britain spending billions on a weapon of mass destruction, if that were to deter a war, would be money very well spent. Especially as Putin at this time appears to be mirroring Hitler’s behaviour during the 1930s. (Yes, Salmond’s pal is annexing territory, massively rearming and putting his nuclear forces on alert). Only during the next Parliament will a decision on a new Trident replacement be made. Then after hearing the arguments will that parliament make a decision. Mr Watt, you claim, “Yet the majority countries have no deterrents and have no intention of getting any.” Are you truly blind, every country in NATO has a nuclear deterrent and has signed up under NATO protocols to allow any and all NATO nuclear armed Aircraft and Ships to use their military facilities? Is it not ironic Salmond and Sturgeon proposed just that for an independent Scotland? NATO memberships with NATO nukes, including Trident, having Scottish Government permission to use all and any Scottish military facilities, without question. Salmond really believed his pro NATO nuclear, anti-Trident “con” would work,. Maybe he fooled you, James, fortunately the 55% had more sense. Even now, Sturgeon spouts the same rubbish, pro-Nuclear NATO and anti-Trident. Strange how the blinkered NATS cannot see, what is obviously a political con? You cannot be in NATO without allowing nuclear weapons on your territory, simples. Ask Jean, ex SNP MSP, she had the courage to desert the SNP as a matter of principal, the only Nat politicial, I know, with enough ba$$s to have my respect.

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      Ian, you`re missing Alex`s and Nicola`s point, Firstly, you`re quite wrong about “ALL NATO members have a nuclear deterrent”, this simply, is untrue, ONLY 3 members of NATO have, The US, France and the UK, the remaining members allow access [by use of their ports etc] but they DO NOT, hold or maintain Nuclear weapons on their soil.
      The UK cannot afford Trident, it`s as simple as that, nor do we need it to be a member of NATO, the great Imperial myth that the UK is some sort of world Super power. is just that, “a Myth”.
      Our “Stick-on hairy chest”, is merely an expensive waste of money that should be ploughed into essential needs rather than a Westminster Ego trip.

      Reply
    • James Watt

      I’ll ask you again Ian and maybe this time you will answer, why would any other nuclear capable country want to attack the UK, what reason would there be for a country like Russia to decide the UK was a threat to it and had to be attacked?

      Reply
  15. Iantinkler

    James, why did Hitler invade Poland and thus start WW2?. Why did Japan invade Malaya, Borneo, China? O yes, that was Nationalism, there was no threat to Germany or Japan here, just easy targets.. An attempt for master race to conquer the world. Now why is Putin in Ukraine, Georgia, Crimea, nationalism and the perceived destiny of Mother Russia. No possible threat to Russia her, just easy targets. Now just why did Salmond so praise Russian Nationalism. Why has Putin just put his nuclear forces on alert , why is he murdering his political opponents, as Hitler did? Putin has murdered on UK territory and the culprits sit in protection in his Russian Parliament, does that not give you cause for concern? If you can see no threat here you are not intelligent enough to argue with, go paint your face blue and shout freedom, carry on with Scots nationalism and live in fairy land with the 45%. Thank God 55% had more sense.

    Reply
  16. David Spence

    ‘ Nationalism ‘

    Interesting Ian. When you look at our so-called ally across the loch, you cannot get a more nationalistic society than this of the USA. When you start your first day at school until you leave, it is compulsory to sing the national anthem, at every public event the singing of the national anthem, at every sporting event the singing of the national anthem, every house has to have the american flag on a pole, the whole of that society obsessed with violence, guns and the military, the premiss to success is at any cost regardless to the negative impact this may have, a complete society totally and utterly subservient to its Government, a Government which advocates war, conflict for the benefit of itself regardless to the millions of people killed or murdered, a country which puts itself first in all international organisations it may be a member of, even if it contradicts the essence of what the organisation is for, a country which reeks of total hypocrisy and double-standards in its so-called morality and Foreign Policies (even if it means the death of millions).

    So, when it comes to a whole population utterly brainwashed to the extent of utter stupidity, our friends across the loch exemplify this immensely……………..and it is what this vile Tory Government would like to emulate.

    Reply
  17. Robin Stevenson

    Land grab and world domination [I`d imagine?] …So, do you think that Alex Salmond – being a nationalist – is after MORE land and world domination then Ian?….Hmm..seems odd, when he want’s to become smaller rather than bigger?….I think I said to you before Ian, that Russia are terrified of the ever encroaching West, Putin sees US Missiles in Poland and breakaway states making Russia smaller, sadly, he tries to deal with it in the only way he knows how, [ex KGB] bully them into submission, violence, threats, war, whatever it takes to keep them as part of the once great Russia. Flex his muscles to keep the West at bay.

    All this nonsense you talk about “Alex Salmond the next Putin”, unadulterated twaddle.

    Reply
  18. iantinkler

    …So, do you think that Alex Salmond – being a nationalist – is after MORE land and world domination then Ian? No Robin, he is a very small man whom is trying to boost his ego by becoming a “Robert The Bruce”. Sadly he has divided the Scots, caused immense ill feeling and achieved, division, derision and absolutely nothing of any merit whatsoever.
    David Spence, Yawn, Yawn Yawn, just play a different record please, you are becoming no more than a very bad joke..

    Reply
  19. Iantinkler

    So sorry, Robin Stevenson, I made a mistake about Alex Salmond and his achievements, alongside those of the SNP.
    The Scottish socialist are now so divided the chance of a Labour Government majority in Westminster is non existent. The cult of SNP socialism is uniformly detested by most of the UK south of the border and no sane Southern politician there would touch them with a barge poll. Yes, a paradoxical result, Cameron and his Tories are immensely empowered by the SNP. Funny old world is it not, they are the ones most likely to support The Trident replacement. Whoop Whoop Whoop!

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      Apology accepted Ian 🙂

      I`m afraid that the word “Socialism”, is ALL but gone with our 3 London parties Ian, so I`m not quite sure what you’re going on about?

      However, Labour still [amazingly] hold onto most seats in Northern England, and right now Lab/Con are [more or less] neck and neck, either way, whichever one wins, neither will be able to form a majority government, there are only 2 possible outcomes in MAY Lab/SNP or Lab/Con…the other parties won’t have enough seats to prop the Tories up, and SNP refuse to deal with them anyway….and ofc, with a “Grand Coalition”,[Lab/Con]…it would be political suicide for Labour.

      Reply
      • John Tulloch

        My granny used to “whaever lives langest’ll see maist!”

  20. iantinkler

    Seem to counting our eggs before they hatch are we not Robin. I well remember the polls and optimism of Salmond and the SNP just before the Referendum. Now just whom got stuffed by 10% after previously chanting all kinds of victory nonsense. Blue faces looked a little bit red did they not. The trouble with a cult like the SNP is any logic and intelligent thought is forgotten, a bit like the tribal mentality of a football hooligan takes over, gladly the majority are not that foolish.

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      Certainly not Ian, the SNP aren’t taking anything for granted and it’s still all to play for…. The excitement you talk of was, [I’d imagine], when the SNP [according to “one” poll] put them ahead for the first time?

      “Stuffed”…by 10%?….not quite, narrowly missed out would have been far more appropriate.

      The SNP isn’t a cult, unless you’d consider EVERY democratically elected political party a cult?…and by your own logic Ian [which seems to escape you fairly often] that 1.6 Million Scottish voters LACK “logic and Intelligent thought”?…If you’d like to consider, and see for yourself, the “Tribal mentality of a football hooligan”,…may I suggest that you look to the Scenes in George Square on Sept 19th when your Unionist Pals were beating up wee lassies that had DARED to vote “Yes”?

      Reply
  21. iantinkler

    Not my pals, Robin Stevenson, just thugs on both sides. What a brilliant example how Nationalism splits communities, and causes division. Two pathetic groups fighting, painted faces flags and all the usual crap and hatred nationalism creates. Rather bears out my arguments, does it not? Now, Robin Stevenson, I challenge you to tell me one good thing to come from Nationalism. I see wars, division, xenophobic hatred racism and a bunch of idiots fighting in George square. Now look to Scotland and Shetland. We have a devolved health service, failing us, a higher education system, starved of funds and on the international rankings, failing abysmally. Unemployment up in Scotland, down in the rest of the UK. A narrow centralising (SNP) Scottish Government. I challenge you, name one good thing coming from Nationalism, Scottish or any other. Use the whole of human history if you wish.

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.