Trident

The epic levels of ignorance are quite astounding

Why? What does it really matter what you or I or John next door thinks? Unless it was put to a public referendum the politicians will do whatever they like.

This pro-Trident speech from Labour MP John Woodcock is getting a lot of praise. His delivery is rather nervous - understandable, really, given the truly bizarre circumstances of having to defend official Labour party policy in the teeth of opposition from his own leader and the unedifying clique around him. But the arguments he makes needed to be engaged with. Listen to the speech, though, to find out what this 'engagement' amounted to from Corbyn et al.

Incidentally, the woman sitting just to the left of him is Ruth Smeeth, the Jewish MP who, while being abused at the anti-semitism report press conference, was 'defended' by Corbyn with the sum total of a knowing smirk.

This pro-Trident speech from Labour MP John Woodcock is getting a lot of praise.

Why do you think only Eagle and Smith have put themselves forward as leader? Neither could win a General Election imo - but plenty of other Labour MPs might be able to.

Am I right in thinking that the new Subs will be built in Scotland?

 

Scotland don't want Trident to be renewed, so I'm sure they won't mind if they're built in Portsmouth then?

Built in Barrow-on-Furness, based in Faslane.

Am I right in thinking that the new Subs will be built in Scotland?

 

Scotland don't want Trident to be renewed, so I'm sure they won't mind if they're built in Portsmouth then?

Can't just be built in Portsmouth. Barrow will be the place.

Faslane will be their base

If the crackpot in charge doesn't give a **** then MAD would not work so we would still be nuked and then just kill hundreds of thousands of innocents in crackpot's country - great plan!

So you would feel safe with North Korea being the only country with nuclear warheads?

Would a better plan be to give up all of our nuclear weapons and therefore take away our ability to launch a 'preventative' strike?

I think a better plan would be to equip our troops better so that when they end up in some Middle Eastern ****hol they don't have to borrow kit from the yanks.

Being part of NATO an ally of the US and in Europe is enough to warn off any imaginary bogey men you think is about to nuke us. Sure we don't have crystal ball but there are other greater risks out there that could be minimised with £30 billion. There are hundreds of countries that don't have nukes, are they all in danger?

Built in Barrow-on-Furness....

I can see the pens from our sea wall.

There are hundreds of countries that don't have nukes, are they all in danger?

They don't have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

They don't have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Then again neither do Pakistan, Israel, India, South Africa not to mention all the old Soviet states where there must be a few hanging about..

Nuclear weapons are spread about everywhere, there are even about 40 or 50 in Turkey so if the Incirlik base ever got overrun it would be a bit of a shambles.

They don't have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

They are probably not bothered about that either.

I can see the pens from our sea wall.

Then you must be top of the list of targets

Then again neither do Pakistan, Israel, India, South Africa not to mention all the old Soviet states where there must be a few hanging about..

Nuclear weapons are spread about everywhere, there are even about 40 or 50 in Turkey so if the Incirlik base ever got overrun it would be a bit of a shambles.

South Africa doesn't have nuclear weapons.

South Africa doesn't have nuclear weapons.

Interesting. I saw your comment and thought 'oh yes they do'

Turns out they did, but they were dismantled after SA signed the non-proliferation treaty in 1989. To date, SA is the only country to have ever voluntarily given up nuclear weapons.

I have learned something new today.

Then again neither do Pakistan, Israel, India, South Africa not to mention all the old Soviet states where there must be a few hanging about..

Nuclear weapons are spread about everywhere, there are even about 40 or 50 in Turkey so if the Incirlik base ever got overrun it would be a bit of a shambles.

Thing is, people might get very wound up about the thought of the Incirlik base being over run and automatically assume that would mean IS getting their hands on nuclear capability. It's just not that simple. The delivery systems are incredibly complex and require constant maintenance the cost of which is quite prohibitive. These things are not all kept fuelled up and ready to fire at a moments notice.

Not only that, moving the warheads is a complex and delicate operation that requires huge logistical effort - it's not like Abdul could turn up with his Halfords budget tool kit and unscrew the lid on a warhead to nick the contents.

It's one thing getting your hands on enough material to create a viable weapon, it's quite another to actually create that weapon. Why else do you think that these things created and handled by nation states?

Interesting. I saw your comment and thought 'oh yes they do'

 

Turns out they did, but they were dismantled after SA signed the non-proliferation treaty in 1989. To date, SA is the only country to have ever voluntarily given up nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

 

I have learned something new today.

so they say.....

Thing is, people might get very wound up about the thought of the Incirlik base being over run and automatically assume that would mean IS getting their hands on nuclear capability. It's just not that simple. The delivery systems are incredibly complex and require constant maintenance the cost of which is quite prohibitive. These things are not all kept fuelled up and ready to fire at a moments notice.

Not only that, moving the warheads is a complex and delicate operation that requires huge logistical effort - it's not like Abdul could turn up with his Halfords budget tool kit and unscrew the lid on a warhead to nick the contents.

 

It's one thing getting your hands on enough material to create a viable weapon, it's quite another to actually create that weapon. Why else do you think that these things created and handled by nation states?

Thing is Mr Biscuits there are a lot of very bright people in places you'd really not expect to find them.

Thing is Mr Biscuits there are a lot of very bright people in places you'd really not expect to find them.

Yep. And those bright people STILL need the logistical ability to handle these weapons. Which they don't have.

Yep. And those bright people STILL need the logistical ability to handle these weapons. Which they don't have.

It's amazing what you can buy with the odd barrel or two of oil, even at today's prices.

Interesting. I saw your comment and thought 'oh yes they do'

 

Turns out they did, but they were dismantled after SA signed the non-proliferation treaty in 1989. To date, SA is the only country to have ever voluntarily given up nuclear weapons.

 

 

I have learned something new today.

Not true. Ukraine also voluntarily gave up its nukes after they inherited them from the Soviet Union. In exchange we signed a treaty promising to defend them from outside aggression - a commitment we have let them down on.

Looks like we may well need some new sub drivers as well.

Yep. And those bright people STILL need the logistical ability to handle these weapons. Which they don't have.

Surely all you need is a Toyota Hilux an arc welder, odd bits of angle iron, some nuts and bolts, and hey presto an instant nuclear missile delivery system.

Yep. And those bright people STILL need the logistical ability to handle these weapons. Which they don't have.

I expect it is a very complex and delicate operation to handle these weapons safely. That wont stop a bunch of suicidal maniacs trying though.