Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Vengeance is her name and vengeance her only purpose

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
27 January 2007
SHOULD Armageddon come, its heralding scripture will not appear in any holy book. It will appear on a screen in front of two officers in the small communications room of HMS Vengeance, one of Britain's four nuclear submarines - launch orders; blood and rubble.
Here the debate over renewing Britain's nuclear arsenal is made real: 16 Trident missiles, each with up to 12 independently targeted nuclear warheads. Once airborne, the 60 tonne missiles travel at four miles a second. HMS Vengeance, like all Vanguard class Trident ballistic missile submarines, carries enough nuclear firepower to destroy 1,500 Hiroshimas within 15 minutes.

Resting at port at the HM Naval Base Clyde, the Vengeance resembles a prehistoric sea beast - flattened forehead, rusting spots like barnacles, squat, obsolete flippers from some abandoned evolutionary stage. A team of workers - their silhouettes framed against rolling, snow-capped hills - gingerly repair a few of the tiles on her giant bow, which have fallen off - there are 89,000 in all.

There are 1,600 people stationed at the base at Faslane to fuss around the Vengeance and her three sisters - the largest naval base in Britain, whose sole purpose is helping keep these doomsday boats at sea.

On board, 130 officers and men spend up to three months at a stretch at sea amid the wires, gauges, communication equipment, missiles and nuclear reactor of the Vengeance.

The ship's sole function is to rehearse, and execute if necessary, the launching of the missiles.

What strikes you immediately on board is the eerie hush. There are signs everywhere enjoining silence: "Noise kills". The nuclear reactor, which powers the enormous vessel, is no larger than a wheelie bin and is completely silent. The only noise is that of the ventilation system - the constant hiss of used air being filtered, treated with oxygen, then re-released.

One of Britain's four nuclear subs is continuously on patrol at sea, a routine that has been kept up for 38 years. According to deterrence theory, it is the ultimate weapon: even if all of mainland Britain is destroyed, the sub will be able to retaliate. The name says it all: Vengeance.

Although it is enormous by submarine standards - causing the same water displacement when under water as an aircraft carrier - space is at a premium. Men - there are no women - sleep in 6ft bunks, nine to a room. A sign on the washroom reads "no Hollywood showers": a continuous water supply is for movie stars.

This crowding has resulted in a strange intermingling of domesticity and destruction. Men shower in cubicles situated between the missile silos, jog on running machines positioned underneath them, and sleep in bunks a few feet from them.

Attached to each of the 16 onboard missile silos - massive, stolid, primed - is a detachable ironing board and an iron.

Despite this proximity, there is nothing to suggest intimacy with the weapons. While the first atomic bombs were given deceptively innocent sobriquets - Little Boy and Fat Man of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the Vengeance's arsenal is known to the crew as Missile 1, Missile 2; that is all.

This formality speaks of the sobriety of the Vengeance's mission, and the precision with which Trident missiles have been designed to cause mass destruction.

"They say the missiles are accurate to within 6ft, but it could be 30ft, or a football field, or a city; they are still going to level the place," the ship's Commander, Mark Lister, says. "The responsibility is awesome and the scrutiny is continuous. We take our mission extremely seriously, and serve the Prime Minister, whatever his or her orders".

To the officers - many of them engineers - the missiles are machines; it is their job not to ponder, but guarantee their smooth operation. Even so, the quietest place on board is the upper compartment of the missile section. There, crewman can stand within a few inches of nuclear warheads and place their hands on the cool exterior of their casing. There are no ironing boards here, only gauges, pumps, hatches, and the strangely soothing hum of the ventilation system.

It has the feel of a prayer room. Sometimes, the captain will come and stand among the rows of missile tubes, eight on each side like trunks of stately redwoods. He calls this room "Sherwood Forest".

Firing drills take place twice a week. In order for a missile to be launched, the captain must insert a small key into a slot on his control panel and turn it from "hold" to "fire". The weapons engineer, in a different room, then pulls a trigger modelled on the pistol grip of a Colt 45 revolver.

Launch orders come directly from the Prime Minister.

In a safe in the captain's quarters is a handwritten letter from Tony Blair bearing his instructions for nuclear war should Britain suffer a first strike that kills millions of people, including the government. The orders are to be opened and acted upon only if the Vengeance fails to receive communication for a set number of days and has other reasons to believe Britain has been destroyed. The contents of the letter are classified.

If everything is running smoothly, submarines are remarkably healthy places to work.

The air is pumped full of oxygen and the reactor is so well shielded that a three month underwater tour exposes a crewman to less radiation than a long-haul air flight. The flip side is that if something does go wrong, it is likely to be catastrophic. Every crewman wears a dosimeter on his hip to measure radiation exposure. There is a sign tacked up outside the on-board medical quarters: "God's Waiting Room".

The biggest threat to the crew on the long underwater tours is to their mental health. Life on a submarine is a potent mixture of the claustrophobia of cramped living quarters and the agoraphobia of being surrounded on all sides by a seemingly endless expanse of ocean. For some, the pressure is overwhelming.

"Men get 'coffin dreams'," Lieutenant Dan Wright explains. "They wake up thinking they are stuck in a coffin. The feeling usually passes in a few minutes. I've heard that some men lose it on board, but I've never witnessed anything more than the nightmares".

The crew work through their duties in a state of timelessness; with no windows and no natural light, the only indication of the time is the next meal. The menu is the same every week - curry on Wednesday, fish and chips on Friday.

DVDs, books and board games are the preferred distractions. One of the games in the officers' cabinet is "Risk: The Game of World Domination". Some take work towards Open University degrees. Once a week, each crewman can receive a 40-word message from his family, sent on a page with 40 boxes.

Although the captain will inform the crew in the event of a launch - "we take everyone to war with us," he says - not everything is shared. The captain vets personal messages. One that tells of a death in the family will be withheld from the crewman until the boat returns to port.

At the officers' mess, men don't mind discussing the geopolitical debate to which they are now central. Universally, they believe their submarine should be replaced with a boat capable of both tactical strikes - nuclear bunker-busters, say - and strategic deterence; a doomsday boat capable of nuclear-lite.

Hardly any of these men are old enough to have served during the brinkmanship of the Cold War; Cmdr Lister is 45. But to everyone on HMS Vengeance, the prospect of nuclear war remains only a key-turn away.

"With all the talk about emerging threats, the question of whether these weapons will be used is still relevant," Cmdr Lister says.

There is a terrible beauty to this submarine, the brain-child of a generation's brightest minds. It highlights a central issue for humanity: whether the gift of consciousness may also be our curse.

Somewhere in the depths of the Atlantic, the missiles of a Royal Navy submarine are silent and waiting.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 January 2007 12:28 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear defence , Faslane
 
1

Bill, Dunblane,

27/01/2007 00:46:40

An absolut obscenity.

2

Scullion,

Canada 27/01/2007 01:08:05

Si vis pacem, para bellum. This motto of the Roman legions means either "If you wish peace, prepare for war" or "My dog has one eye." I think it is the former.
In any event, this standard military way of thinking has to be reviewed in terms of the expense and the need in these post Cold War times. I'm not saying they aren't needed, I just think more discussion is in line.

3

Alistair Stewart,

www.snp2007.co.uk 27/01/2007 01:27:54

Move it to the River Thames or Portsmouth Docks ...

Why on Glasgow's doorstep?

4

Bill, Dunblane,

27/01/2007 01:32:11

2 - Scullion - your latin IS improving! ;D

5

,

27/01/2007 01:39:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Scullion,

Canada 27/01/2007 01:42:10

#4
I received a solid C in my one year of Latin in school and I could have kissed the teacher for that mark-except that he was as ancient as the texts we read.

7

2dogs in D.C.,

On the sled where the view never changes 27/01/2007 01:56:36

Sub duty bites according to the people I know who have done it. (Fact: A chief petty officer on subs once showed off his brand new chevy truck to his neighbors, then smacked it with a hammer, and said "Now I don't have to worry about the first dent") Yeah, attack boats.Very special breed to man them. Six weeks out, crack the eggs to see which ones are black. Man, after hearing this stuff, I'm glad I only got stuck w/the marines. All that said, I'd rather see people throwing words instead of missiles.

8

sheena,

in the hoose 27/01/2007 01:58:15

This article sends chills through me. Respect to the men who man the subs but I wish their sacrifices were for a nobler cause.

Many of them dream they are in a coffin. That is exactly where they will be if they ever have to 'turn the key'. If that day comes to pass and they unleash their retaliatory missiles then their final, final order will be to submerge to the greatest depth possible. Their sub will indeed be the coffin for the last men alive on earth.

9

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

27/01/2007 02:03:23

The Novus Ordo Seclorum Brigade are yet again giving us a wee hint that paying HUGE sums of money on Tridents a good thing..............while grannies operation on the NHS will just have to wait :)

10

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

27/01/2007 02:11:00

While i have the up most respect for submariners, who's skills in being able to manoeuvre thousands of tons of attitude round the globe undetected(mostly)......the costs involved in running this charade(when you realise the same people control all players in this game)
are a luxury, the people(who through sacrifice of other services to their detriment and misery) can no longer afford :)

11

Bill, Dunblane,

27/01/2007 02:11:22

7 - 2 dogs

I thocht ye were quotin' latin wi' the start o' yer post!

'Sub duty bites' - but realised ye wurnae! ;D

12

Bill, Dunblane,

27/01/2007 02:17:34

8 - sheena - slightly dark for you? Nonetheless true I suppose. You realise clostrophobics winna' like ye' too much? ;)

13

sheena,

27/01/2007 03:35:25

12 Bill
I am clostrophobic
submarine = nightmare (especially with what they are carrying)
I couldn't even watch Das Boot!

14

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

27/01/2007 03:37:42

Comment@13. Hi sheena, Das Boot was a brilliant film :)

15

Maddox,

27/01/2007 04:59:59

Another waste of billions and most likely inducing lovely cancer to everybody around it. What is the point of this "deterent?"

Whos being deterred? NAEBODY!! If somebody is going to nuke us they are mad in the first place and wont worry about the consciquences.

Just think, with the money we will save from nukes we can buy brand spanking new prisons and gallows. And a high tech wall so physically seperate us from "them" down south.

Aye am talking about Tony Blair and his gangbangers.

16

williamx,

Delta 27/01/2007 06:15:15

The reason the Tridents are there is quite simple. The base will be targetted first in the event of war. Hopefully the Trident at sea will respond before London gets blown apart. That way Glesga vanishes in a puff of blue smoke up its own rosy rectum while London has a chance of survival. After all this is what colonies are for-right?

17

Curious,

Lilliesleaf 27/01/2007 07:44:21

Blair has "his hand on the trigger" so to speak. I only hope he gets this decision right unlike Iraq.

18

chubby cheeks,

alberta,canada. 27/01/2007 07:52:51

if these subs put the fear of god into the minds of our potential enemy then let them exist. if they know that MAD exists they will think twice about launching their weapons. to the brave men on all nuke armed subs i raise my hat THANK YOU.

19

Hawkwing,

Lanark 27/01/2007 08:01:41

Re-17
You Sir are a PRAT OF VERY LOW INTELLIGENSE

20

Scaramouche,

27/01/2007 08:24:06

Ships with names of cities, ships with names of war, ships with names of objects, ships names of emotions or feelings. Why not ships with names of HOPE??

Apart from the Enterprise of course. Can't we have a ship named PEACE???

21

Andra, Dundee,

27/01/2007 08:29:02

This is our contribution to the protection and development of the freedom we enjoy. Thank you to the crew. Ignore the whingers above, there are plenty people who do appreciate you.

22

Ted,

27/01/2007 08:44:47

This is such a simple issue.

Should we ever use it? No, obviously not.

Given your answer, should we have it? No, obviously not.

You need to answer yes to the first question in order to get a yes with the second one. What would we nuke? Under what circumstances? Maybe that's why the officers want tactical nukes to play with: even they know the big boys should never be used?

23

Cadgers,

Perth 27/01/2007 08:52:08

Don't you just love the (not too subtle) little dig..........."Commander Mark Lister. The Vanguard submarines that keep up a constant patrol in the Atlantic are maintained by 1,600 people at the base at Faslane."
NO to trident, if Bliar wants his finger on the button let it be kept somewhere near him.
#8 Sheena agree entirely with you.

24

Media 1,

cape town 27/01/2007 09:01:52

And yet we attempt to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons..

We invented these destructive weapons, we really are quite stupid when you think about it.

If we lived on another planet and were witnessing the Earth saga develop on our TV screens in the format of a reality TV show we would be absolutely stunned and shocked at the total and utter lack of intelligence on display.

Since 1948 hundredsof thousands of people have violently perished for a piece of land no larger than Edinburgh. When one considers the size of the universe, it becomes clear that we are truly out of our minds. We kill for oil when there is other means of energy available to us. We fight war after bloody war and create ammunitions to destroy oneanother. We have a continent called Africa who is still some 1000 years behind the rest of civilisation and at the other end of the scale we have Europe and America as well as some other nations at the forefront of civilisation. Yet whilst those in AFRICA starve to death due to a lack of mindpower, those at the forefront of technology with the mindpower are using that power to destroy eachother as opposed to nurturing relationships with oneanother..

Its one helluva REALITY show for those people watching it from a far..

25

eric,

Lothian 27/01/2007 09:14:55

One cant have Nuclear weapons in a Huge built up area like Southern England,If Glasgow goes up Edinburgh goes up with it ,These weapons arent like Hirishima,

26

Steve here,

27/01/2007 09:15:45

"HMS Vengeance, like all Vanguard class Trident ballistic missile submarines, carries enough nuclear firepower to destroy 1,500 Hiroshimas within 15 minutes." I have to agree with comment #1. This is the darkest side of mankind. How could any sane human being want these weapons? This deterrent will not stop a terrorist or a madman. it will kill all the people that have nothing to do war or hate. How will we as humans move forward from this?

27

kameroon,

lanarkshire 27/01/2007 09:29:10

Whether they are based in Scotland or not,i hope we NEVER EVER EVER have to use them.

28

Media 1,

cape town 27/01/2007 09:33:19

Why are Nuclear weapons necessary?

If we NEVER intend on using them then there is no need to store them..In fact the only time they can be deployed is if another nation fires at us.

But if the other nation has already fired and we are all doomed, then whats the point in firing back only to destroy more innocent life?

29

chief-tiff,

Stavanger 27/01/2007 09:33:35

Having served 12 years on these submarines until 1998, I felt at the time they were a neccessary evil. That was then... However, since the end of the cold war I cannot see the need for them.

Yes the UK may be attacked by an unforseen enemy in future, but so too may Germany, Italy, Spain or indeed all other European countries. France is the only other European country to harbour these weapons. So what about the countries without these weapons? Well, most of them are NATO members and have proportionately sized armies to meet their needs. Most of them are not in bed with the US and therefore not dragged into wars that don't concern them. Most of them realise that nuclear warheads are a bit OTT when hunting down terrorists in their own cities' streets.

Surley the billions spent on the submarines would be better distributed on other causes including the NHS, repaying the pension funds and ensuring our troops have better equipment.

The fastest route to achieve normality in Scotland is to vote SNP.

30

Privateman,

East Lothian 27/01/2007 09:37:58

...and when the time comes for the US to threaten Iran, North Korea or whoever else gets up their noses, will our PM have the strength of mind not to allow our nuclear subs to become part of the threat? What good is a nuclear sub against Bin Laden?

31

Mcsnagpile,

S.E.Asia 27/01/2007 09:38:18

There are eight countries in the world with nuclear weapons. Most of the world’s land mass, like South America, Asia, and Uncle Tom all plods along without all the harnesses of these deterrents. Why does a little island in Northern Europe with a small population of 60 Millions see it necessary to police the world with an expensive USA designed bomb that can incinerate cities? Where does this obscure concept come they must defend themselves with WMD from somebody? To stretch my imagination to its limits I could never see a situation where any nuclear power would want to invade UK. Who will we have a Nuclear war against- USA? no they control our deterrent anyway, France? Non, they think the English Channel is not wide enough, Russia?, china?, we could possible flatten Iran or North Korea but the Yanks would not be happy. The Indians and Pakistanis, well they have successfully invaded already without a war. In a nuclear war within NATO we would be the first in line for a stootering. Good old UK.

32

td,

Highlands 27/01/2007 09:40:46

This appears to be a well researched article which attempts to explain the philosophy behind the existence of Trident submarines.

Put simply this is " Any attempt at world domination through the use of a Nuclear weapon will always signal total destruction for the aggessor nation".

With this "certainty" nuclear weapons are rendered almost impotent...and because these can never be used to gain any victory, everyone on earth remains safer than would otherwise be the case.

While we may all agree that nuclear weapons should be unnecesssary, in the gae of nuclear weapons there still does not appear to be any real alternative to the " hit me and I'll hit you back harder than you'll ever know...even if it is the last thing I ever do... " form of defence.

Mankind may evolve to some new way of dealing with this threat. But for the present as system like Trident is the one ultimate guarantee that no single nation should contemplate any sort of victory through nuclear war.

33

Gnasher,

27/01/2007 09:40:57

Scaramouche #21 - I completely agre. This boat should be renamed HMS Fluffy Bunny forthwith.

34

JimC,

27/01/2007 09:52:58

Moving Trident to any part of England would not protect Scotland in any way. Any Nuclear strike on the UK due to our small size would result in every major city, town, village being contaminated within days. On April 25th -26th, 1986 the World's worst nuclear power accident occurred at Chernobyl in the former USSR. To this day, there are still farms in Scotland who cannot sell their stock due to contamination. See http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad7b4.html for the facts.

35

Geoff,

South Africa 27/01/2007 09:58:50

Dreadful, yes obscene weapons invented by a Homo sapiens that in reality is more barbaric than his stone age ancestors. But with this in mind, now the the nuclear genie is out of the bottle there is no way to put it back, and these weapons become a necessary insurance for those of us who are perhaps less barbaric than les autres. It would be nice if the UK could do without them leaving it to others to shoulder the detterent burden but this ironically would be an immoral act, an act of abdication- leaving the Americans and French to shoulder the responsibility for our defence on their own. And this is where I take issue with the SNP view. We do not live in a world of logic and reason and whilst the sentiments you express encapsulate an ideal state towards which man may one day approach, the reality on the ground is harsh and brutal. You kid yourselves if you think you can retire into a peaceful enclave in North Britain where the problems of the real world will dissapear!

36

chief-tiff,

Stavanger 27/01/2007 10:05:08

#36
A well written piece Geoff.

Time to break out the genie hoover I say...

37

Geoff,

South Africa 27/01/2007 10:14:27

37chief-tiff -thank you for your kind words! The big question is, where do we buy this genie hoover? On the subject, do you think that a half way route would be to scrap the Trident and invest in a RAF bomber with cruise missile solution-admittedly not as effective as the subs but at a fraction of the cost?
Alternatively a European or NATO controlled joint force where the cost is more equitably shared?

38

td,

Highlands 27/01/2007 10:27:50

37 # Does the fact that James Dyson outsourced production of his vacuum cleaner machines to the far east count him out ? ;-)

38# I don't think that anything based on land could ever hold the same deterent effect. the simple fact that the Trident submarine could be absolutely anywhere ..in any ocean of the globe ...makes the certainty that it will retaliate so awful.

Putting the decision making into the hands of some Nato or European committee would render the whole deterent quite meaningless. Just imagine how the question of actually issuing instructions to the sub commander might be raised a week on Thursday as agenda item number...so and so. !

No, the stark reality of the standing orders issued to Trident commanders makes the submarine based consequent action deterent credible, in a way that no committee on earth has ever managed to be.

39

chief-tiff,

Stavanger 27/01/2007 10:28:12

#38 Geoff

Planes are easily shot down and submarines can be detected and sunk during a launch sequence if the enemy posesses enough hunter-killer submarines.

The solution would be to discuss a multilateral disarmament, and to do it more nations develop nuclear warheads.

This is the genie hoover...

40

Edward,

27/01/2007 10:28:34

Yet another piece of pro union crap from the Scotsman!
First of, much respect to the commander and crew of the subs.
But why is the Scotsman doing this piece?
The other question that needs to be asked is, who is the enemy?, cold war finished over 10 years ago, so why the need to destroy '1,500 Hiroshimas within 15 minutes'?.
Its about time this apparent toy ('trigger modelled on the pistol grip of a Colt 45 revolver') is put away for good as its not needed

41

chief-tiff,

Stavanger 27/01/2007 10:30:58

Woops!

.....and to do it before more nations develop nuclear warheads....

42

Tweedmouth,

Borders 27/01/2007 10:42:09

The title of the article is rubbish. The only purpose of this nuclear missile sub is DETERRENCE. The subs were built to deter the totalitarian Soviet state, which had over 2000 nuclear weapons targeted at every major city in Britain, Germany, France, America etc.

Why do we still need them (Edward 41) ? Last week it was reported that Iran is negotiating technology exchange and support to explode a subterranean test weapon with North Korea. They already have missiles with a 1500 mile range and the Koreans intend to extend that to 3,000 miles. How are you going to deter an Islamic super-power like Iran once it has nuclear weapons and a missile delivery system? Modern uranium bombs can fit easily inside a climbers backpack. Can you imagine an Islamic suicide bomber in the centre of London with a nuclear backpack? It is a distinct possibility.

Nobody 'wants' these weapons. Governments buy them because the alternative future, without deterrence, could mean the destruction of Britain and the death of tens of millions of people.

43

td,

Highlands 27/01/2007 10:43:00

42#

And the last one holding a hidden nuclear weapon somewhere , or the machinery to produce one swiftly, is left holding the ace ?? Can't see that the global vilage has got to this happy/ lovey state yet.

Hard to imagine mankind around the globe being totally honest about their ultimate nationalistic motive in this either. After all the first Atomic Bombs were not even the size of a small family car., and there are heaps of things - car sized - 'stacked' all over the globe.

44

Edward,

27/01/2007 11:00:37

#43 'Can you imagine an Islamic suicide bomber in the centre of London with a nuclear backpack? It is a distinct possibility.'
Yes that is indeed a possibility, but if that were to happen, which country are you going to bomb the sh*t out offf?, lets presume our Islamic suicide bomber comes from Leeds, does that mean we blow Yorkshire off the face of the map?
Get real

45

Agent 99,

27/01/2007 11:02:39

[33] td: "Any attempt at world domination through the use of a Nuclear weapon will always signal total destruction for the aggessor nation".

True, but only a part of the story. MAD only works [as a deterrant] when all "participants" are rational and act so.

With the spread of nuclear technology beyond the few that held it during the cold war you have the spectre of disaffected groups rather than nation states acquiring these capabilities. The well-publicised stance of islamic fundamentalists looking forward to their 72 virgins does nothing to inspire confidence that these players bring rationality to the table.

If a disaffected group succeeds in using one of these acquired devices, then the pressure will be on the attacked party to retaliate. But against whom? Since the international brigands do not constitute nation states it is very hard to see what use the destruction of real-estate and civilian populations in one-time hidey holes of the brigands will achieve. This then, is the new quandry facing the original holders of nuclear firepower.

td continues: "With this "certainty" nuclear weapons are rendered almost impotent"

Yes, but that's the rub. The key word is "almost" and that ain't quite enough in terms of guaranteed security. Because of this your whole argument breaks down. It will only take one exception to the "almost" to catasrophically bring about the extinction of human life on this planet. This is like saying playing with fire is OK, even when you know the consequences of being burnt are terminal.

MAD has had its day. The new order of rationality would dictate the destruction of all such capabilities. I doubt that it will happen.

46

Geoff,

South Africa 27/01/2007 11:08:25

40 Chief Tiff- the depressing reality is that multilaterral disarmament is unlikely per td's. comments. Also 43 Tweedmouth's comments re nuclear suicide bombers- an even more depressing reality is that such an eventuality may be almost inevitable. And when it happens, how do Nations respond to that? Even if the West could right the disastrous wrongs of their Mid-east policies to the satisfaction of Iran,Iraq,Syria,Palestine etc.there will always be the fanatics at the fringe who would be willing to carry out such a venture. Perhaps the unpalatable truth is that the End really IS nigh!

47

td,

Highlands 27/01/2007 11:25:07

46#

I totally agree that the " big stick" approach is now looking a bit outdated. But surely until we can arrive at some world wide consensus , that mankind will go intio the future without making nuclear weapons , the real deterrent should never be abandoned.

Nothing will ever stop individuals and groups from conducting terrorist type outrages. Limitation of the spread of nuclear technology was a real and achievable ideal. But sadly even for this there is now limited consensus worldwide.

No one knows how best to go forward from where we now find world affairs ..post superpower confrotation. But for sure until there is some real alternative we would be very ill advised to assume that the threat is over.

Building something like Trident is a long term strategy. We will doubtless need to replace like with like to safeguard our standards of life into the latter half of the 21st century. Throwng away all the technology and know-how now just could be the worst choice of all....and we would never know how the signal to abandon Trident type deterrents, had been received worldwide, until it was all too late to do anything other than accept we had got the " call" wrong.

48

Tweedmouth,

Borders 27/01/2007 11:25:53

45, Edward - A Leeds suicide bomber will not be able to acquire a nuclear device 'down Chapel Market'. The UK , European and American intelligence services know who is developing nuclear weapons - currently it is the Iranians and the North Koreans. The great danger is from Pakistan which appears to play both ways in the Islamic fundamentalist game - they have also come close to nuking India several times in their 'wars' of recent decades.

Keep watching what happens to Iran in the coming months; if they do press ahead with a nuclear test you can bet that America or Israel will bomb their nuclear facilities.

The only high card that the West still holds is the threat of nuclear deterrence. At least one can argue that Britain, America, Russia, France and India are 'secular' states with rational people in charge. The idea of a 'theocratic' state like Iran, run by mullahs - having a nuclear capability is truly frightening.

49

Neil,

9% Growth Party 27/01/2007 11:33:22

Vengeance could be an appropriate name if the UK was committed to no first use of nuclear weapons.

We are not.

50

Edward,

27/01/2007 11:44:07

#49 The leeds suicide bomber is ofcourse not going to get it down the market, that a bit idiotic to say that
our suicide bomber is more likely to be Al Queda trained and equiped, how to build a bomb can be obtained over the internet, the material can be smuggled in by Al Queda, so your assumption that it would be Iranian is a bit flawed. As for Pakistan again your arguement is flawed, Pakistan is exactly the same as India when it comes to these arguements. To state that America and Russia are states that have rational people in charge is way of the mark, I wouldnt say that Bush and Putin are all that rational, both are power hungry wanting dominance. I do agree however on your remarks about Iran, having a nuclear capabilty would be more than just frightening in the hands of thethere Islamic zealots. Its plain as day that Iran wants to be at the centre of an Islamic super state stretching from the Med to the indian ocean. Its playing fast a loose with Palestine and its support for Hamas, with Lebanon and its backing of Hezbolah, Iraq and its financing and backing of the insurgents there and probably getting involved in Afghanistan

51

Agent 99,

27/01/2007 12:03:18

[49] Tweedmouth: A Leeds suicide bomber will not be able to acquire a nuclear device 'down Chapel Market'...

That's not the point. A Leeds suicide bomber *may* be able to acquire nuclear tachnology by virtue of dirty deals done in Kiev,Istambul, or anywhere else for that matter.

Not all to long ago there were reports of "tactical" ex-soviet briefcase bombs that were nuclear devices. Some of these have apparently "gone missing" from the inventory. Readers here will fall into 2 camps, the paranoid, who'll believe the report, and the sceptics, who'll say it was a literary device by a hard-up journalist. No matter, and probably no smoke without fire. If these devices can be bought, you are right, it won't be down Chapel Market, but that's irrelavent to the central issue of global security. Location is in this case not important, its the "if" that is.

52

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 27/01/2007 12:06:05

I do wonder sometimes at the tone of posts from some on this site. The Trident's are what they are supposed to be, a defensive device. The Nuclear subs are as safe as any piece of equipment. As someone with a son who is a sub-mariner and a weapons specialist at that I can confidently say if something were to go wrong none of would need to worry.

53

Agent 99,

27/01/2007 12:17:46

[51] Edward: To state that America and Russia are states that have rational people in charge is way of [sic] the mark...

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that, but in any case you are right.

The original MAD "doctrine" or whatever you want to call it, would only work when the holders of the weapons, in this case nation states, behaved rationally. There is no provision in the doctrine for irrational behaviour, if security is to be upheld. This is perfectly illustrated by the both chilling and hilarious film Dr. Strangelove where a lunatic gets hold of the launch codes, and the rationally-behaving nations cannot adapt to cope with his out-of-band actions.

Fifty or sixty years after the cold war we find a new breed of idiots in charge who, seemingly, don't feel constrained by such trivial historical matters.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the US, led by the megalomanic Bush, is only succeeding in destabilising global security with attempts to militarize space and meddle in everyone elses affairs. The fact that others cannot afford to join this technology club will ultimately breed both fear and resentment [as if it hadn't already], with a knock-on effect of escalated risks of nuclear conflict.

54

IWright,

Edinburgh, its Monday, honest, a Labour MP told me 27/01/2007 12:25:19

Thanksd for the launch code the Scotsman, all we need to do now is hack into the computer system.
Osama McLaden.

55

Agent 99,

27/01/2007 12:32:03

[53] Bobfm: I do wonder sometimes at the tone of posts from some on this site...

The BBC runs an excellent web site for those that wonder...

Your feeble attempt at irony is wasted here. Who will care about your assertion that the weapons systems are safe when were all deid?

56

Ronnie Ray,

27/01/2007 12:32:13

what a headline "death and destruction and modern day scotlands part in it" what on earth is "the scotsman" doing with this non story....as well as being the "englishman in edinburgh" the scotsman now puts itself forward as jaynes fighting ships?.......this jingoistic nonsense ...as if we dont know enough about these abominations ...this insult to human intelligence ....and the people of Scotland.

57

Euan,

Edinburgh 27/01/2007 12:35:17

I think so many posters on this forum simply don't have a clue as to WHY we still maintain and operate these enormously powerful weapons.

They are a deterrent - albeit the most powerful of deterrents.

I'm sure the last thing any of the men on-board one of our nuclear submarines wants is to be ordered to launch a missile.

But if the need ever arises they will do their job.

All the whining and drivel some people are coming out with here saying it is 'an obscenity' or whatever is just garbage coming out of their mouths on a saturday morning after a heavy night the night before.

YOU CAN'T UNINVENT THESE THINGS, THEY WILL NOT JUST 'GO AWAY'.

LIVE WITH IT, DEAL WITH IT, ACCEPT IT.

58

Agent 99,

27/01/2007 12:39:03

[54] Reading Public: I tend to agree with most of you that tend to believe that we need to maintain out Nuke Arsenal

Who's this "most", white man? From reviewing the posts in this chain I have come to the opposite conclusion. Perhaps you would care to go and actually count them up, you know, pro... con... and let us know.

It comes as no surprise to me that the US is the most reviled nation on the planet when you spout off the kind of dross that you have in [54]. Try an attitude transplant; if you cease to regard the rest of the world as "your enemy", perhaps, just perhaps, they too will perceive you in a better light.

59

Agent 99,

27/01/2007 12:48:07

[59] Euan: YOU CAN'T UNINVENT THESE THINGS, THEY WILL NOT JUST 'GO AWAY' (your shouting, not mine).

No, but hopefully you will. Your attitude is summed up in 2 words: fatalistic self-delusion. (sorry, 3).

The english invented poll tax; that doesn't mean we couldn't get rid of it. The absurd argument about uninventing something could only be dreamed up by a child. No one's suggesting we uninvent nuclear weapons. I know, the analogy is far from flawless, the poll tax being superceded with an equally daft council tax. But my point is valid, you don't have to be "uninvent" something to desist from using it. Geddit?

60

fatboyslim,

scotland 27/01/2007 12:58:24

If it were true that we would be better off in the UK vis-a-vis worldwide representation and influence than as an independent state, then that must also apply to other small nations.

How come then, the Republic of Ireland hasn't begged to rejoin the UK and the Baltic states, the Ukraine, Georgia etc, haven't begged to go back in with Moscow, in a reactivated Soviet Union?No way on earth! Because once countries have tasted independence and enjoyed all the privileges and freedoms which come with it - there's no way back.

As an independent country, we could become a full member of the European Union, have the Euro as our currency, have a delegation at the European Central Bank, have EU Scottish passports, have the status of EU working language accorded to Gaelic, something the UK refused to do! Also, we could join the United Nations and
Gaelic would become a recognised language there too.

One of the most striking freedoms independence would give to individuals, would be the right to call themselves Scottish abroad, to be Scottish passport holders and not to have to hide their true nationality behind a bastardised, concocted one.

It matters not what lies Blair and Brown spew out at us Scotland is now on the verge of independence and Labour are running scared as never before - panicking in the process.

In an independent Scotland we would have no time for illegal wars or nuclear weapons either

61

Euan,

Edinburgh 27/01/2007 12:59:49

Whatever Boswell, whatever.

You might be able to un-invent a food processor, a design of lawnmower or the Poll Tax you mention, but you can't un-invent nuclear technology.

I'm not, as you quote 'fatalistic or self-delusioned' just accepting of the world we live in.

Why don't you take a look at the 'self-delusioned' part of your post?

You might wake up and see the light..

62

Bill, Dunblane,

27/01/2007 13:02:15

59 - Euan - no need to shout.

And I for one, will not live with, deal with or accept it.

'But if the need ever arises they will do their job.'

Job description? Fire missiles, kill millions of innocent men women and children?

For what? Revenge?

And because any of us hold a different belief to your own, (which you are perfectly entitled to hold and argue) we 'don't have a clue.... whine.... drivel... and are purly driven by alcolhol'

Very well argued point.

63

Neil,

9% Growth Party 27/01/2007 13:08:06

Boswell the ex-Soviet suitcase bombs seem not to be a threat. Such small bombs apparently used a certain amount of material with a fairly short half live as triggers. Because of the short half life after probably about 18 months enough of the material has transmuted so that it will no longer reach a critical mass & explode. Putin has clearly had Russia in hand for much longer than that.

Which is not to say that there is not a serious & growing risk from other sources, in particularl anthrax & nerve gases which have been called "the poor man's atom bomb".

64

Edward,

27/01/2007 13:11:59

#53 & #54
The need for a Nuclear arsenal is outdated un unwanted
The people of Scotland certainly dont have any desire to have the Nuclear subs based at Faslane
quicker they go the better
It will certainly be interesting, if as it may happen Scotland became an independent country what would happen to the Trident Nuclear subs, will England keep them? Could England afford them? would England want them?
Many in Scotland dont see the point in nuclear weapons and as an Independent country will have no desire to have any

65

Agent 99,

27/01/2007 13:23:09

[65] Neil: Thanks for your input. I knew I was on shaky ground bringing that one up.

I share your opinion as raised in the last paragraph. Because of their ease of availability, the concerns should be higher. That said, the actions of the current government in attempting to ratchet up public fear using such tools is to be deplored.

66

hughie 2,

27/01/2007 13:51:36

I read this somewhere:

The whole POINT of the nuclear arsenal during the Cold War was that they would never be used. You really don't want a nuclear weapon to be used, but most people think that having a nuclear arsenal to match that of the USSR during the Cold War would prevent either side's weapons from ever being used. The theory (which was pretty much accepted as gospel) was Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and the point was that both sides had to have huge arsenals in order to prevent them from ever having to be used. Deterrrence, not use, was the point of the weapons. The USSR knew that if they attacked the US then they would face a hail of nuclear weapons, and vice-versa. Neither side ever wanted to use their weapons, but both sides had to have them to ensure global stability.

So, the point is that the threat of overwhelming force (not its actual use) can have a pretty strong mesasge.

Today MAD is pretty useless, but the broad generalization that "deterrence is useless" is pretty weak.

Basicly Mutually Assured Destruction ensures the person who fires the first shot may get lucky and kill off his enemy, but they know that there is the vengence class subs out there who will do just that, and that is the purpose, in war thee are no winners

67

Agent 99,

27/01/2007 13:54:11

[63] Euan: Wake up and see the light.

Light of what, the nuclear bomb going off?

Let me ask you one thing which, I hope, will illustrate the absurdity of your position:

What threat to you, (or collectively, the UK) justifies initiating an act which will inevitably result in the death of [most of] the people on this planet, if not the extinction of the human race?

I'll be at work for the next few hours, so don't expect a speedy rebuttal to whatever gem you come up with.

68

Benjamin,

27/01/2007 13:54:17

Oh, well done. Well done indeed. The author of this article should be writing novels or inspirational speaches, not reporting the news. That is where his or her talent lies. As for the weaponry, just about every modern country has that sort of thing. We just don't use them.

69

hughie 2,

Death of a soldier 27/01/2007 13:55:42

Death of a Soldier
Death of a soldier
a soldier at war
The death of a soldier
From home so far

Loved ones will never hear his cry
Or hold his hand and watch him die
Do our leaders come to explain why?
They sent a soldier to war, to die

The death of a soldier
A soldier at war
He will never get older,
Or know the dismay
Of his family and friends
Who gather to pray?

A soldier is always welcome
At the pearly gates
And is soon in good company
With all, his soldier mates.

The death of a soldier
Brother, Father or son
Is still a dead soldier?
Of wars lost or wars won

The Death of a soldier
Who sends him to war?
Who sends him to die?
To fight for peace
Leaders may justify.

A soldier dies
A mother cries
Humanity then will ask you why
Before the war to maim or kill
Please try for peace for it has to be
And think of this if you will
That soldier could be you
Or worse still it could be me

By: Hugh C Gray 2002

70

Cynic,

Dalkeith 27/01/2007 14:01:36

Interesting story. These machines are truly beautiful and magnificent. Sad, how most people are blind to the fact that they have kept the superstates from sparking up WW111.

71

The Guzz,

Fife 27/01/2007 14:02:00

I have worked on previous generations of these submarines and have the utmost respect for the men who crew them. I can understand how we have progressed to the situation that we find ourselves in now. I even appreciate that 'Britain' feels that it has to maintain this deterrent. What has however changed for me is the desire to remain part of the 'British' solution to the defence policy. In May, Scotland could be in a position where she can start to negotiate her own place in the world and decide what her own defences need to be. My guess is that Trident will not be considered as an option. This piece of 'British' armament is only wanted by the Westminster government and if Scotland can untangle itself from that, then whatever remains can find a new base for their deterrent. Scotland does not have to police the world or feel threatened by potential insurgents any more than most of the other countries in Europe. We should therefore not set ourselves up as a target for those who wish to strike against this facility. Remove the Trident deterrent and its base from Scotland. If the unthinkable should 'then' happen then Scotland will still be effected by the fallout, but we will have a better chance of some existence if we are not at the centre of the strike.

72

Martyk,

SUSSEX SE ENGLAND 27/01/2007 14:14:08

tweedmouth; re. iran , n. korea etc. have you learned nothing from the downright lies we were told over iraqs non-existant wmd? 45 mins till launch and all the other baloney a la blair the liar. also someone said move them to portsmouth or the thames. well i live in sussex and i most certainly dont want these piles of crap 50 miles from me thankyou. not so much the threat from iran (haha) but the threat of an accident which would be covered up as with sellafield with a 1000% increase in local leukaemias or a deluded yorkshire moslem nutcase getting over the wall and close enough to cause real damage. no, you keep them. you need the work. 1,600 jobs not to be sneezed at these days. btw what happens in independent scotland? scotland cant afford these ridiculous penis-enhancers so would the base go south anyway along with the jobs? finally; why do we the uk taxpayer have to fork out £20 billion to the americanos for an update to these things if we have an independent nuclear detterent? doesnt seem very independent to me if the yanks hold the launch codes. if we are going to go down this road which will all be done on borrowed money then lets do it the french way and have a true independent nuclear detterent. there-thats me lot!

73

Abel Magwitch,

27/01/2007 14:20:30

For billions of pounds, Britain is getting "security". That argument might have worked in the 1950s. Around that time the Daily Express ran a photo of the hydrogen bomb test in the Pacific under the banner headline "Britain is great again!" Around that time also, the anti-nuclear movement got started.

But now we are in the 21st century. Our cold-war "enemy", the Soviet Union, has fallen apart due to economic factors rather than any war. Our cold war "ally", the USA, is running huge deficits and may very soon collapse, again due to economic factors. After the 2008 presidential election, the democrats (like old Mother Hubbard) will find that the cupboard is bare. The nuclear subs will not help to change anything.

What military threat do we actually face? Obviously the main threat comes from a few studenty-looking types with knapsacks, mingling with the crowds in the city centres. How will the nuclear subs at Faslane defend us against that?

74

Benjamin,

27/01/2007 14:25:49

Martyk #74, you do realize the chances of there being an "accident" are so slim as to be almost non-existant? I would feel no less safe if one of these subs resided 50 feet from me than 5000 miles.

75

Gleb,

North York Moors 27/01/2007 14:35:07

So Tony Blair can destroy 1500 Hiroshimas worth of innocent bystanders ?????????????????

76

Benjamin,

27/01/2007 14:39:35

Gleb #77, could; won't. It's that simple.

77

Gleb,

North York Moors 27/01/2007 14:42:18

So Tony Blair can kill 1500 Hiroshimas worth of innocent bystanders??????????????????

78

Gleb,

North York Moors 27/01/2007 14:56:36

78. Whether he will is debatable. Whether he can is a fact.

79

The Guzz,

Fife 27/01/2007 14:59:42

#76 Benjamin - you do realize the chances of there being an "accident" are so slim as to be almost non-existent?
This is true, but "accidents" do happen and although I think #74 Martyk's 1000% increase in leukaemias is a bit high, the rest isn't far off the mark. There is a 'known' % rise by ratio of population of 'various' cancer types surrounding all nuclear establishments, which of course are responsible for the emission of 'various' radiations to the environment. In the event of an "accident" the people nearest the incident and those unfortunate enough to be downwind of it, are the one's who will be most effected. 'If' Scotland is able to determine her own defences policies after May 3rd, then being 'nearest' to this source of 'possible' catastrophe should no longer apply to Scotland by sending it back to those who wish to have it.

80

Sedov,

Scotland 27/01/2007 15:46:40

An obscenity this surely is, and it is costly money wise. However, I have not really got a sensible answer to the questions - If the SNP do away with Faslane under so called independence:

a: Whats to stop the remainder of the British state buiding a new Faslane over the border at Barrow or Berwick upon Tweed and if so how would this make any differnece to the present situation?

b: What is the SNP alternative to the loss of 1600 jobs on the closure of Faslane?

These are practical questions which raise the absurdity of nationalism rather than internationalism which can get rid of weopons world wide and the economic straightjacket that independence would bring because of the stranglehold that the global economy would have on the policies of the SNP which are basically not that different from all the other parties.

81

td,

Highlands 27/01/2007 16:02:34

#81 <<<<<<'If' Scotland is able to determine her own defences policies after May 3rd, then being 'nearest' to this source of 'possible' catastrophe should no longer apply to Scotland by sending it back to those who wish to have it.>>>>>>>


The aim still remains for responsible nations to hold the ultimate of DETERRENTS. This capability by its very nature can only work if in the hands of politically stable regimes.

If Britain does not hold a Deterrent , precisely who do you wish ..around the world...should hold one on your behalf ? and if no one should hold one then what can possibly ensure that Nuclear first use is never part of sopme misguided political equation.?

We may not agree that the threat is the same one that led to the arms race and the 4 minute warning scare of the 1960's. But if under some alternative scenario the first wholesale use of nuclear devices was ever to be allowed to go unpunished, the argument for retaining something like Trident seems a very small price to pay for the " status quo" we have all been the beneficiaries of for the past 35 years.

By all means suggest that the bases should be somehwere else if you like...but do not overlook the fact that if the deterrent means anything , and it fails to impress some Gung Ho regime around the world it will be curtains for the majority of us enjoying western lifestyles anyway.

Such a deterrent force needs a secure and discrete deep water base. Bases have to be manned...and coincidentally ..for the west of Scotland Faslane provides skilled employment for many people in an area of the country otherwise not widely recognised as having a huge number of alternative employment opportunities.

Finally is it necessary to point out that even " remote" Scotland is downwind of..say ..the eastern seaboard of the USA. So the wholesale retreat by the "Independance for Scotland at all costs&quo

82

Benjamin,

27/01/2007 16:02:38

Gleb, yes, he CAN order the deaths of so many people. I highly doubt he would though. Though, as I write this, I begin to wonder whether Blair actually COULD order those missiles to be fired. Think about that.

83

Benjamin,

27/01/2007 16:03:13

#81, what is the emition level of a nuclear submarine?

84

zigzag,

TECUMSEH, ONTARIO 27/01/2007 16:03:46

DOCTOR STRANGELOVE IS ALIVE AND WELL.

85

Doomwatch,

Scotland 27/01/2007 16:07:56

76 and 81. "the chances are so slim as to be non existent."
This is not true I'm afraid. The nuclear engin that powers these submares is statistically designed to ensure maximum power and efficiency against a finite probabilty of an accident. As with all probabalities if the experiment is carried out often enough (we continue opperating the submarine) at some point the is probability one an accident will occur. Unlike Chernobyl this would not be a melt down accident. The engine is fitted with sufficient bomb grade material to cause a Hyrohima type explosion which given the hydrogen weapons on board could result in a chain reaction equilaent as the article states to 1500 htrosimas of the Scottish coast.

86

Ken,

27/01/2007 16:09:00

Lets get nuclear weapons out of Scotland.
The ONLY parties to othat are the snp, Solidarity, SSP and the Greens.
Also the only parties that have Independence in their manifsto, as that is the ONLY way to rid this country of weapons of mass destruction.
SHAME ON LABOUR, THEY ARE A BUNSH OF HYPOCRITES, CHAMPAIGN SOCIALISTS ETC........

87

Duncan,

Scotland free of liars and nukes. 27/01/2007 16:12:08

SEDOV.

What a fantasy world you live in.
No where in this article is the SNP mentioned. yet you wander of like a demented soul burbling about SNP policy.
Apart from your Marxist madness, you are obsessed by trying to discredit the SNP, a party you say you were once happy to be a member of.
They obviously hurt your feelings in some way to bring you to the sad ridiculous place you now find yourself. That is coming on to this forum and publishing lies regarding the SNP. I have been challenging you now for a couple of months to prove the slanderous allegations you have made, and you have completely failed to do so, despite telling me that you would. Do not tell me again to check the records I will not, you made the sleazy libellous allegations, the onus is on you to provide the evidence you say exists.
It exists only in your mind SADOV, you are a liar, put up or shut up. I will not go away. IT IS TIME SADOV.

88

Sedov,

Scotland 27/01/2007 16:19:16

#89 Duncan -- the questions are very relevant as the SNP are ahead in the polls for the May elections and are now seriously talking about an early referendum over independence. Are you frightened to answer the questions Duncan - can you Nats walk the walk, or is your bravado just empty talk? go on have an attempt!

89

Gleb,

North York Moors 27/01/2007 16:22:29

84. If he can't whats the point?

90

Alec in Chicago,

27/01/2007 16:28:43

# 89

Greetings, once again, Duncan.

Any new and interesting items online that you can recommend?

91

Neil,

9% Growth Party 27/01/2007 16:30:38

Sedov 82 & 90
A Nothing - so what.
B Saving £2 billion by not subsidising 1600 jobs producing nothing could instead be used to encourage the creation of many more jobs creating something.

92

Benjamin,

27/01/2007 16:43:46

91, Do you really think he has ultimate power? He's not a king, nor a dictator. He does not have the ultimate power to order the start of a nuclear war. That power lies in so many different hands (spread out, if you will). Stating Tony Blair has the power to do so single-handedly is categorically untrue.

93

Sedov,

Scotland 27/01/2007 16:48:53

# 93 As I thought, the SNP are all fudge. You claim to be better than New Labour, which is not hard really, but you fail miserably.

94

The Guzz,

Fife 27/01/2007 17:23:58

#83 td – I don’t disagree in general with what you have written. However - “If Britain does not hold a Deterrent , precisely who do you wish ..around the world...should hold one on your behalf ?” – is a decision that would be out of my hands. As I have said. “'If' Scotland (not me) is able to determine her own defences policies after May 3rd, then being 'nearest' to this source of 'possible' catastrophe should no longer apply to Scotland by sending it back to those who wish to have it.” I am also well aware of what Scotland can be downwind from and the effects of it should it ever happen. The proximity however ‘does’ make a difference however little it ‘may’ be.

#85 Benjamin - ???. I worked in Radiation Safety only.

#87 Doomwatch – I don’t think that we disagree on much here. Merely on the interpretation of probability built into the manufacturing, construction and operation of the nuclear device; and I don’t think that we disagree here either. However long the odds are against an accident of catastrophic proportion happening. The ‘actual’ time for that accident could be tomorrow.

95

Benjamin,

27/01/2007 17:27:05

#96 Guzz, My point is the real concern in nuclear powered subs is the waste they produce, not the operation. Nuclear subs have very little, if any, nuclear emissions and are, by energy and safety standards, perfectly safe, if operating procedures are followed.

96

The Guzz,

Fife 27/01/2007 17:30:48

#98 Benjamin - I agree.

97

The laird.,

leadhills. 27/01/2007 17:50:56

SO we can,t afford to give our pensioner,s a proper living pension when they retire and a shortage of cash to build new prison,s and provide better public services here,s an Idea do away with trident and abandon the illegal war,s in Iraq and Afganistan and use the money to benefit the nation as a whole If we dont want the rest of the world to have these weapons lead by example and do without these weapon,s as well If there was ever an accident at the clyde base I personally would be affected by proximity to the base as I live within range. If it is necesary to have this equipment why dont you park all the submarines on the thames embankment outside parliament after all, the government are really the only ones who really want these vessels. Itend to agree one thing , Not In my back yard thankyou.

98

Maxie,

27/01/2007 18:05:14

Of course people can only admire the crewmen that are put in this insufferable situation. No one has said otherwise and for some on this messageboard to suggest otherwise is disengenious.

The fact remains that "our" nuclear weapons are designed to kill hundreds of millions of innocent men, women and children and that makes them immoral.

Trident has already cost us £30 billion with the intended "upgrade" costing us another £25 billion and this at a time when we have people dying in our NHS hospitals for want of treatments that are deemed too expensive.

What surprised me is that only 1600 people work at Faslane. To listen to some you'd think there were millions!

The UK is already part of NATO, unlike France, and is therefore covered by NATO and its nuclear weaponry - much of which was based in Scotland until a few years ago.

The UK doesnt need its own "Independent" nuclear arsenal and having read this article, I am more opposed to it than ever.

An Independent Scotland can create many more jobs with the money we wont be contributing towards this nuclear obscenity in our country.

99

A treason trial in USA, not ICCC,

usa 27/01/2007 18:31:27

Regardless of the many valid points expressed previously, the author wrote a stiring [sic] piece of prose & should get credit as a master of the art of journalism. It may be propaganda, patriotic drivel, sophistry, objective reporting or whatever but it's also writing of the 1st rate. OK, I've had my say; let's go back to the fierce debate-most of which is well written too.

100

td,

Highlands 27/01/2007 18:49:27

Did anyone else notice a slight inconsistancy in the arguments from the " get the Trident subs out of Scotland" side of the debate.

It does appear from some of the posts above that many seem to be under some misapprehension that having Faslane in Scotland makes the west of Scotland more vunerable to nuclear attack. Surely Attacking Faslane could be seen as being the equivalent of locking the stable after the horse has gone. The whole point is that one of the Trident fleet submarines will always be at sea.... always has been for decades now... Just one submarine is a huge deterrent.

It could be that these anti Trident people just fear that eventually there may be some form of nuclear accident at Faslane. They may be right...who can tell ? But then is it not true that both they and we buy a large percentage of our electrical power from nuclear powerstations...( OK, usually its the same people who want to shut them down as well)... We should accept that the regimes and standards of operation at any of these British powerstations are much more rigourous today than those standards that were thought to have been adequate safeguards even five years ago.

But anti Trident campaigners appear to be muddling two " anti" nuclear debates. The need for deterrent is the one under discussion here. The need to provide low emission / carbon free electrical power is another seperate debate. Nuclear powerstations could easily be targetted by a potential first strike...but Faslane itself would hardly be a high priority, because the submarine would not be there and any submarine on refit would be disarmed. So the fear of the anti Faslane campaign is mainly concerned with a peacetime nuclear accident there is it. ?

Interesting to know the answer to this...Just so as we are all clear where the debate is going here ...

101

Euan,

Edinburgh 27/01/2007 19:11:41

Boswell(69)

I hope you had a good afternoon at work.

Obviously I or no-one else wishes to see ANY nuclear weapons ever again used in anger by the U.K., U.S.A. or any other nuclear-capable nation for that matter.

My argument(which you have taken to be the opposite of what I have just said)is that these weapons are here to stay since their arrival back in 1945.

Britain will never give them up, and why should we?, so some other nation will take up the technology? - of course not.

Should we scale down the spending and quantity of our nuclear arsenal? - yes, but get rid of them? - never.

OK, these things are so dangerous they can threaten the very existence of every living thing on earth, but the deterrent they provide is to stop any other 'rogue' nation from even contemplating to use them in anger.

You said 'you don't have to un-invent something to stop using it' - true, but that just cannot apply with the nuclear weapons in the world that we live in.

102

The Guzz,

Fife 27/01/2007 19:59:43

#104 td – Could this have been me? If you think so then let me put you right. I want Trident out of Scotland because I ‘personally’ am against anything to do with this or any other nuclear deterrent being based in Scotland.
Comments that I have made concerning ‘accident’ scenarios were in response to comments on other postings. However I also realise that the current nuclear power stations will be left to run their planned life. (Or longer as some extensions have been granted to some stations) I see this as a sensible enough solution while clean alternatives can be established. At the end of their lives, they will be decommissioned and their sites restored to Greenfield status. This I would wish to be the end of any kind of nuclear establishment in Scotland

103

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 27/01/2007 20:14:02

If my maths are correct..'enough nuclear power to destroy 15 Hiroshimas (pop 1.5 mill)' from only one of the sixteen subs, it means a killing power of ...
wait for it! 22.5 billion human beings all in 15 minutes.

Even worse...this apocalyspe would not be executed until Scotland itself has been rendered into a nuclear cinder. It's purpose is pure vengeance!

What a sick, monstrous obsenity this is! and this courtesy of Blair and Brown who wish to refurbish it.

Cynthia 22, Geoff 36, Chief Tiff 37,TD 48, Euan59 and Boswell 60..How you could possibly consider this delusion of safety, an acceptable choice under which rational people should live...is beyond belief!

The best point is made by Edward 45, despite his detractors...'the single suicide bomber' and others of that ilk, is what we must really fear. The U.S. and England has learned that it cannot escape this kind retribution for it's foreign adventures. We are becoming forced to introduce 'fortress like' security measures that can soon turn otherwise pleasant democracies into police states with disappearing civil liberties.

The best and only defence of our nation is an acute awareness of the impact of our foreign policies on other peoples of the world.

If the SNP is the only party who would remove weapons of mass destruction from our country then so be it...It's time!!!

The best point made is that by

104

livilion,

livingston 27/01/2007 20:19:23

Isn't it reassuring to know that when Great Britain is a smouldering pile of ash and radioactive dust, glowing in the dark, we'll have these subs ready to do the same to the rest of the planet?

The survivors will then be able to shout 'haha, got ye back!'

How long before the technology exists to make these vessels detectable underwater?

After all, this has only been No1 on the boffins' priority list for the last 40 years.

What then of our £25billion multilateral disarmament bargaining counters?

105

The Gorm,

Canada 27/01/2007 20:34:47

Totally agree with TD and Tweedmouth.
Hard to find trees to hug after a nuke attack.
We want to go non nuke but tell the others first.

106

Euan,

Edinburgh 27/01/2007 20:35:01

Graham(107)

We all are aware of the destructive power of nuclear weapons - pretty dismal thoughts really.

But you say 'How you could possibly consider this delusion of safety, an acceptable choice under which rational people should live...is beyond belief!'

With hindsight, if you were able to ask anyone before World War 2 this you would have unanimous agreement.

But that's not reality.

I'm not sure how old you are, but I HAVE been living under the silent deterrent of nuclear weapons all my life, and when I'm dead and gone they will still be there doing what they do best - deter against the firing of these weapons by any other nation stupid enough to even contemplate doing so.

The SNP do not get my vote if they are contemplating getting rid of these weapons.

107

livilion,

livingston 27/01/2007 21:01:30

We came within an hour of nuclear armageddon with Kennedy's Cuban Missile crisis.

How did it come about?

Ther USA had the USSR surrounded by nuclear missile sites in Britain Italy and Turkey as well as 'tactical' nukes in Germany.

The Soviets tried to counter by placing nuclear missiles on Cuba and nuclear cabable subs off the US coasts.

Some deterent, one guy with an itchy trigger finger and it's goodnight planet earth.

If a nuclear power feels it is under threat from a possible nuclear first strike the probability is that it'll want to get it's retaliation in first.

Then our terrorist threat, being bigged up as the reason to keep Trident, who do we target in the event of terrorist nuclear attack, Iraq? Iran? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia?

Bin Laden leaves a trail of clues for us to nuke?

Superb!

108

Sambo,

The deep south 27/01/2007 21:10:03

I hear the arguments about deterrance, however with a first strike against Trident I would'nt want to be living in Helensborough.
Station it at St Kilda or somewhere remote.

109

Steve Phillips,

Oz 27/01/2007 21:41:52

Yes I agree it cannot be nice living so close to such weapons. I did for 2 years while in Helensborough. But as one person has said we cant pretend that nukes dont exist. Nor that there arent mad despots or radicals who would use them if they knew that they could get away with it. They are with us now, the madmen and the weapons. We have had to find some way to manage the threat.
I know it would be nice if we could approach the islamic fundamentalists and zionists and african despots and american imperialists and say; "turn your weapons into ploughs and be at peace". However the most likely response would be a bullet in the head.
Try seeing the world and human nature with a realist's eyes instead of through glasses tinted by idealism.

110

Duncan,

27/01/2007 21:56:23

"82. Sedov, Scotland / 3:46pm 27 Jan 2007 An obscenity this surely is, and it is costly money wise. However, I have not really got a sensible answer to the questions - If the SNP do away with Faslane under so called independence:

a: Whats to stop the remainder of the British state buiding a new Faslane over the border at Barrow or Berwick upon Tweed and if so how would this make any differnece to the present situation?

b: What is the SNP alternative to the loss of 1600 jobs on the closure of Faslane?

These are practical questions which raise the absurdity of nationalism rather than internationalism which can get rid of weopons world wide and the economic straightjacket that independence would bring because of the stranglehold that the global economy would have on the policies of the SNP which are basically not that different from all the other parties"


"Sedov, Scotland / 4:48pm 27 Jan 2007 # 93 As I thought, the SNP are all fudge. You claim to be better than New Labour, which is not hard really, but you fail miserably."

SADOV. I blame myself for legitimising your mad rantings, it is the last time I will do so. You are a dinosaur. Your Marxist utopia will never exist because of people like you, who lie and smear decent honest proud Scots who will carry there country to independence, and give it back the pride and self confidence that sad dreamers like you will never have, you are fired goodbye.

111

DuncanCR,

Europe 27/01/2007 22:09:21

War has its' own laws.
We only have the power to start them.
Once they're started, control vanishes until one party wins outright.

Same with nukes.
Now that they exist, they have their own version of reality. Whether that reality dates from yesterday or a few decades ago matters not to nuclear reality/strategy.
We're stuck with it now & I would not want to be a citizen of a defenceless state.

Nor do I want to be a citizen of a warrior state, but I prefer to fell safe than sorry....

112

delphic,

Oz 27/01/2007 22:26:08

I think we should be concentrating most on the more immediate question of why it has been felt necessary to produce this pro-militaristic puff-piece at all at this particular moment.
Time to remind the 'enemies' anyone?
And does anyone really imagine that any so-called 'enemies' are really listening?
I just hope all the loyal citizens are suitably impressed with the willingness to be murderous demonstrated by the proponents of this 'deterrent'.

113

Martyk,

SUSSEX SE ENGLAND 27/01/2007 22:47:19

benjamin. never heard of the Kursk then ? also; would you happen to know about just how independent this detterent actually is ? the americanos i believe hold the launch codes so what on earth use are these subs anyway? anyway the issue here i think is should a minor,peripheral nation like scotland be making a target of itself just for the convenience of anglo-american strategists ? in fact american strategists really. the old scots problem of lack of self-respect. This time being bolstered by a minor part in big boys games.

114

The Wizard,

OZ 27/01/2007 23:48:52

Just been reading "On The Beach"

If it all hits the fan it looks like us down under could be the last to go except for a few Kiwi's.

Sitting in the sun, a bottle of Laphroaig and a pill, I suppose there are worse ways to go.

115

,

27/01/2007 23:56:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
116

The Gorm,

Canada 27/01/2007 23:57:15

Do you really think that Scotland would be spared if there were no Nuclear deterrent in Britain? You would be united with England once again in cinders.

117

Jeff, Surrey,

27/01/2007 23:57:54

It is imperative we keep and invest in more of these 'peace-keeping' submarines.

They have kept the UK and our neighbours safe from attack for decades from the soviet's and others in the past and will continue to do so now and in the future from rogue states.

Wishful thinking that there are no nasty foreign govts willing now and in the future to destroy our way of life, is just that, kindergarten wishful thinking.

The nuclear deterrent works and works well, it is the only effective method of safeguarding the UK and its neighbours.

The CND campaigners were shown to be wrong in the past and are wrong now, poor deluded things.

118

rbenevolo,

Brazil 28/01/2007 00:10:45

We have to be very afraid.
The future of the mankind depends upon the sanity of few men sat in communication rooms inside ballistic missile submarines, subject to overwhelming pressure and possibly believing that their countries have being destroyed.
Imagine if the Russian submarine K-141 Kursk accidental occurrence had happened with her missile launching system.
Recently the Doomsday Clock has been moved to five minutes to midnight. It would be adjusted closer to midnight, due to possibly insane men in ballistic missile submarines

119

The Gorm,

Cda 28/01/2007 01:12:27

Given the Kursk.Iran,North Korea, Not to mention the US weapons and Latin American dictators who have access to nuclear weapons (ie.Cuba).Do we have a choice but to provide a nuclear deterrant?
Perhaps the "insane men in the nuclear sub do exist but I prefer to take sides with the lunatics on our side and not rely on the goodwill of renagade states.
Yes Ben you do have a right to be very afraid.

120

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/01/2007 01:17:52

Jeff(122)

Could not agree more.

Well said.

121

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 28/01/2007 01:31:29

109 Gorm, 110 Euan, 113 Steve, 114 Duncan, 122 Jeff.

If you reduce the debate to it's essentials there are two main opposing groups.
Those who believe that Trident's existence and inhuman, destructive powers are an obscenity, and want the base closed and removed....
And those who are fearful of an attack by some radical state or despot and who would believe that Trident would be a deterrent against this happening.

The first group if wrong...would become cinders in any event but while waiting for this to happen they would enjoy immense social benefits at home resultant from saving billions of pounds: free themselves from the concerns of radioactive leakage and nuclear waste disposal: and with fewer enemies internationally could trade and travel more safely.

The second group if wrong...would become cinders in any event. Period...end of story!

Now which group are the pragmatists?

Of course if you cannot run your own country and are ruled by a failing world power who still wants another kick at the can...then all of the above is academic!

P.S. Euan..today is my birthday and I turned 72 and an off to a Burns supper tonight to ceelbrate . I do this thing...not for myself but for my children and grandchildren. Perhaps before I'm gone I will have a Scottish passport.

122

Voldemort,

Tiree 28/01/2007 01:35:02

The British Navy is woefully underfunded as are the rest of the armed forces.

The Scots should be proud, I am, of having this strategic base in our country - long may it continue.

The warheads have kept us safe for decades - to rid ourselves of them is madness, knee jerk fluffy left wing politics spreading through a community which should know better ... all mouth no common sense and certainly no pragmatism. Typical socalists ... vomit worthy, spinless, anti-ethics ...

We should be cutting dole money, the size of our government and 'social' services, the NHS should concentrate on core operations not superflous IVF or treatment for health migrants to pay for more subs, aircraft carriers, and the troops we need to protect our waters and our interests abroad. Not to mention the developing threats from the middle and far east ...

Churchill was called a madman when he asked Britain to re-arm to combat a re-arming Germany ... we have alot of problems in the world and we need to re-arm NOW .. our security counts on it. Doubtless this opinion will have it's critics now .. I doubt it will in ten years ..

123

The Gorm,

Cda 28/01/2007 01:45:45

Graham (126) How long would your utopia last?
Better 55years of relative stability with nuclear deterrent (since 1952) than an undetermined ,undefined,tern dependent on the goodwill of ungovernable 3rd world despots.
Sleep well Graham

124

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/01/2007 02:05:01

Graham.

Happy birthday!(seriously)

Just to say though, I would rather we spend the £billions you mention on keeping our country safe from harm rather than 'enjoy the immense social benefits' any day.

Remember, we all avoid becoming 'cinders' as you put it through the silent deterrent that is the world's nuclear arsenal.

Might sound crazy, but it's true...

125

The Wizard,

OZ 28/01/2007 03:00:30

One thing that has been with mankind throughout the centuries is war. It seems inevitable that another large conflict will come in the not too distant future, probably inspired by religous differences.
The worrying thing about nuclear weapons is the possibility that a small group of crazy's get hold of some and then everything escalates out of control.
The UK, USA and Russia are, by their own standards at least, reasonably rational(Bush and Rice excepted) and it's doubtful if they would start a nuclear war but would have to retaliate if someone else did. The results are unimaginable.
We are relying on our illustrious leaders to find a way to keep us safe but can they and do they really want to.
Like Graham, I have turned 70, lived as a boy through WWII, saw the destruction in German cities still evident in the early 50s while with the RAF and never want anyone to experience anything like that again.
Happy Birthday Graham, enjoy the Burns nicht

126

Billy Boy,

Los Angeles 28/01/2007 03:12:01

What kind of mentality do these military planners have? It seems the logic is, "we are going to destroy everything that you haven't". What is the point? What a waste of money, energy, time and resources. The British public are just as gullible as the "Yanks".
They are in Taxco, try reaching them at; http://www.amexicanvacationrental.com

127

Bill, Dunblane,

28/01/2007 03:35:00

126 - Graham

Happy birthday to you. (and many more I hope!)

A very succinct and sagacious post, (as was your earlier one) and I agree - it's not really for us, (although you're a good few years ahead of me) but for future generations.

I always remember just after the polls closed during the '87 election, a special election edition of 'Spitting Image' which finished with Thatcher, fading from colour to grey, singing the song from 'Cabaret' -'The future belongs to ME...' I felt then, and can never forget, a very cold chill running down my spine, and a despondancy that I cannot describe.

Bliar, Bush & co. give me pretty much the same feeling.

Some posters on this string worry me equally.

Mutually Assured Destruction was perfectly described by it's acronym.

128

Bill, Dunblane,

28/01/2007 03:48:51

127 - Voldemort

Sad, very, very sad.

129

Buck Buchanan,

CRETE, NEBRASKA, USA 28/01/2007 09:35:24

Offutt Air Force Base, StratCom, was the HQ of Strategic Air Command for frcsfrd/ The Nuclear seterrant worked then, works now. The idea of taking tha "final, final" order to
dive to crush deothm ir ome such, is out of Neville Shutr\d Novel, Om The Beach". You chaps wou;d much rather live safely on your knees, rather than risk standing erect. PM Neville Chamberlain's appeasement ideas survive to this fay. "Peac in your times"? R
lUCK TO YOU.

130

Buck Buchanan,

CRETE, NEBRASKA, USA 28/01/2007 09:39:16

One thing I must agree, It ia for you to decide, and you will, as you have in the past. You can always pull your head in, tuck your ears carefully, and keep mum. Maybe no one will notice you, if you keep very, very quiet.

131

daveserviceman,

Edinburgh 28/01/2007 10:01:04

Neil 50 you are wrong all my time in the navy britain has has not been a first strike nuclear entity it has always been a retalitary position they hit us first and we strike back but never have we been scheduled to strike first,
to the others yes we could move trident to Plymouth
and loose those jobs at faslane but scotland would be no safer everyone in scotland would still die if plymouth were attacked thats the power of the present day nuclear weapons even if we got rid of ours we would be no safer unless the world got rid of theirs as well

132

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 28/01/2007 10:47:37

Thankyou all for your good wishes. It's 2am in Vancouver and just got back from my Burns supper and had a quick check of the Mac before retiring.

Gorm 128...How long would my Utopia last. I don't know but we both live in a country blessed by democracy, good government and an absence of nuclear weapons. I yearn for the country of my birth to enjoy the same basic decencies.

129 Euan...I think you have missed my point. Only a madman in power would 'press the button' to incinerate another country. Given this, it really doesn't matter if we have a deterrant or not, we'd be all up in smoke anyway.

130 Wizard...The USA. UK and Russia are by their own standards 'reasonably rational'?. You've got to be kidding! The only country in the world who has used nuclear weapons is the US...Thatcher sent 600 young Argentinian naval cadets to their death in order to test Excotet missiles while waging a totally irrational war for a piece of miserable realestate four thousand mile away, claiming this to be part of Britain. Blair has been an accomplice in the death of 150,000 Iraquies whose only offence to Britain, was not to overthrow their dictator at a time convenient for British oil investment. Russia under Stalin massacred millions of Kulaks because they did not 'fit' his economic agricultural program. Reasonably Rational? and these are the people with the nukes!

132 Bill...thank you for the voice of sanity and your good wishes.

Good night all.

133

Robert Feal-Martinez,

swindon 28/01/2007 13:15:08

post 57. That was the point I was making.

134

The Wizard,

OZ 28/01/2007 13:30:39

#137
I said they were reasonably rational alluding to the use of nuclear weapons. Since WWII no nukes have been used except in tests so they have got that right so far although it has been a close run thing at times..
As for the Argentine episode, the Argentines invaded a UK possesion. The fact that the Falklands are a long way from the UK is not an issue. Would Canada sit back and allow someone to take over part of their territory however tenous their claim may be.
Sure, Stalin killed lots of people, so did Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hitler, Mugabe etc., and this seems to be part of "man's inhumanity to man' but so far another world war has been avoided whether through good luck or good management. Whatever the reason, I hope it continues.

135

PSHWV,

Charleston, WV, USA 28/01/2007 13:41:47

#134/135 Hey Buck! First, did you attend WVU in the 70's? If so, please contact me at: pshwv@yahoo.com. I'd like to catch up a bit with you.

(putting soap box in position for a quick bit to say)

I have to agree with you completely. What was it that England used to build the empire? A strong Navy combined with folks that were willing to risk everything to attain a personal or national goal.

Granted, some folks don't like what political leaders may say or do at home and it is their right to vent their collective spleens. I'm not now, or will I ever, attack that principle. However, at some point, the spleen-venting needs to stop and a little spine-growing needs to start.

There is too much at risk with enemies of every ilk in the world today to blithely sit upon our collective haunches. No, the enemies in the world today are not, for the most part, the readily-identifiable nation-state enemies of the past. A good many of the enemies today are the smaller, less organized, and harder-to-track zealots of divergent sets of thoughts, beliefs, and philosophies. These zealots are the hardest to wrap your hands around and require very specialized information/intelligence operations, precision interdictions, and a lot of hard work.

Can anyone overlook the saber-rattling of North Korea and Iran with their nuclear arms and delivery system developments? To do so would be completely naive and a simple exercise in self-destruction. Maybe not today or next week, but it could happen at some point. The dirty little secret is that the only way to keep such activities in check is through deterents like the Trident missile fleets and aircraft carrier task forces of the world powers.

Now, for the rest of the story. The only way to maintain such deterents is to provide for their maintenance and upkeep. Both, to combat the zeaolots and their plots AND the saber-rattlers in the world. That, unfortunately, requires pound-sterling

136

Martyk,

SUSSEX 28/01/2007 14:34:03

only country to use nukes was usa against a non-nuke power already on its knees. hmmmmm. seems to me like a lot of folk here are on a "our side must be right" trip. question for the nuke loving freaks. usa and friends defend the underdog in places such as iraq and serbia by bombing the hell out of them. So we can obviously expect an attack soon on china over tibet and russia over chechnya? or do bush and the disgusting blair not care about underdogs in countries which can hit back very, very hard.

137

delphic,

Oz 28/01/2007 14:52:18

A couple of things to point out:

#137 & #139 - As I recall it was 323 went down with the Capitano Begrano after the rules of engagement were altered between when she began to be shadowed (outside the declared exclusion zone) by the British nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine HMS Conqueror and when (after she had changed course and was heading toward the mainland) said submarine fired three 1920s design non-homing torpedos at her, of which two struck.
But I believe the point being made was not about the strategic value of the Malvinas Isands, but about the rationality or otherwise of military decisions as made by political leaderships.

Which bring me to the other matter - the September 2006 second study by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health put the likely number of Iraqi dead from the invasion and occupation of Iraq till then at between 426,369 and 793,663, with a probable median figure of about 600, 000. I don't believe anyone could reasonably argue that conditions in Iraq following the successful destruction of social order there can be expected to allow a more precise count than that, no matter what you think of its accuracy.

Excuse the pedantry, but I do feel it best when discussing massive atrocities to allude as accurately as possible to the probable actual scale of their immensity.

138

Maxie,

Clydebank- six miles from Faslane 28/01/2007 18:01:03

# Steve in Oz.

If you truly lived in "Helensborough" for two years you might have had the decency to learn to spell the town!

Being a frequent visitor to Helensburgh, I must also disagree with you lack of awareness on the matter of Trident also.

139

Maxie,

Clydebank- six miles from Faslane 28/01/2007 18:06:57

#Martyck.

The French have conducted their "test" nuclear explosions in Polynesia much to the indignation of local islanders whose opposition is crushed and kept silent to the wider world.

The British, on the other hand, exploded their nuclear tests in the gaze of unsuspecting British soldiers who were simply told to cover their eyes!

Veterans are still suffering and dying to this day!

140

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 28/01/2007 19:53:09

142 Delphic OZ...thankyou for the corrections. No I do not think you are pedantic...I welcome accuracy and truth in any debate. My poor excuse is that I posted at 2am my time and was to lazy to check my facts having just returned from a Burns supper. (No I did not drive home!). Thanks again.

141

Steve Phillips,

Oz 28/01/2007 22:08:05

My apologisies to Maxie I was there 30 years ago as a student and my splelling has not got betterer.
It seems to be generally accepted that "mutually assured destruction" has prevented a repeat of the world war phenomonen and resulted in the major nations conducting skirmishes by proxy throughout the world.
I dont know if this has resulted in fewer or a greater number of deaths as it would be speculative.
What is plain for all to see is the fact that we cannot turn back the clock and make the weapons disappear. Also we know that there have been and still are major nations who would cheerfully use either the threat or an actual nuclear strike to achieve their aims.
So now you all tell me cos Im ignorant and cannot even spell, how do we manage the presence of these massively destructive weapons?????


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.