Jump to content

Coalition


Shropshire_killie

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Lorielus said:

It's not really a myth so much as a misunderstanding - it's targeted using GPS, it's guided in-flight by inertial guidance.   In theory it could be rendered less useful if denied use of US GPS, but only if whatever target was to move significantly.  Given if actually used they'll mostly be aimed at static installations with known positions, it's unlikely that would be an issue.

The bigger point is, of course, that the system is utterly redundant, given that should a nuclear power of some kind choose to invade the UK, the UK still wouldn't use it.

Plenty have tried to invade the UK and none since Norman times have succeeded.The Trident is a second strike weapon and is an insurance that any country thinking of a nuclear strike on the UK will face similar circumstances.Even if there was very little left of the UK it would still have the capability to strike back.It or similar has kept the peace in Western Europe since 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Killiepies said:

Plenty have tried to invade the UK and none since Norman times have succeeded.The Trident is a second strike weapon and is an insurance that any country thinking of a nuclear strike on the UK will face similar circumstances.Even if there was very little left of the UK it would still have the capability to strike back.It or similar has kept the peace in Western Europe since 1945.

If a real nuclear power wanted to take out the UK, the UK's retaliation would have little to no effect on any of those superpowers' ability to wage war or function economically.  Israel might be the exception there, we could impact their war production efforts.  China/Russia/US/India/Pakistan, barely an impact.

In terms of nuclear deterrance, only the balance between the major actors matters on a global level, and the minor actors (India/Pakistan/Israel/UK/France/North Korea (sort of)) barely matters locally except in the isolated special circumstances of North Korea and India/Pakistan.

The UK is a nuclear irrelevance unless we were to expand our arsenal by a couple of orders of magnitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Killiepies said:

Plenty have tried to invade the UK and none since Norman times have succeeded.The Trident is a second strike weapon and is an insurance that any country thinking of a nuclear strike on the UK will face similar circumstances.Even if there was very little left of the UK it would still have the capability to strike back.It or similar has kept the peace in Western Europe since 1945.

And that sir is it in a nutshell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Killiepies said:

Plenty have tried to invade the UK and none since Norman times have succeeded.

The UK didnt exist in Norman times, it occurred during the Stuart reign, and even then for over 100years Scotland and England were separate indepndent countries.

Therefore historically speaking nobody has tried to invade the UK, and really only one has properly attacked it, that being Germany in WW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lorielus said:

If a real nuclear power wanted to take out the UK, the UK's retaliation would have little to no effect on any of those superpowers' ability to wage war or function economically.  Israel might be the exception there, we could impact their war production efforts.  China/Russia/US/India/Pakistan, barely an impact.

In terms of nuclear deterrance, only the balance between the major actors matters on a global level, and the minor actors (India/Pakistan/Israel/UK/France/North Korea (sort of)) barely matters locally except in the isolated special circumstances of North Korea and India/Pakistan.

The UK is a nuclear irrelevance unless we were to expand our arsenal by a couple of orders of magnitude.

So the ability to take out any of there major cities would have no impact.Doubt that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

The UK didnt exist in Norman times, it occurred during the Stuart reign, and even then for over 100years Scotland and England were separate indepndent countries.

Therefore historically speaking nobody has tried to invade the UK, and really only one has properly attacked it, that being Germany in WW2.

Well to put it correctly.This island which is now the UK and I take it the Spanish Armada were just out on a cruise.Napoleon had no ambition to rule us either and who could forget a French backed pretender with his clansmen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Killiepies said:

So the ability to take out any of there major cities would have no impact.Doubt that 

What you doubt isn't relevant to the strategic reality.  Taking out major cities in decentralised economies doesn't have much impact (and that's ignoring the hardened military infrastructue that the major players enjoy that renders those assets fairly immune to nuclear attack).  EMPs, charged surge weapons, attacks on undersea cabling or software attacks to destroy electronic infrastructure would have significantly more impact.

Edited by Lorielus
Cannae spell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

Therefore historically speaking nobody has tried to invade the UK, and really only one has properly attacked it, that being Germany in WW2.

The axis attacks on the UK were never realistically prelude to invasion anyway, much as Hitler might have wanted it.  At no point did the UK lack significant air superiority here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Killiepies said:

Well to put it correctly.This island which is now the UK and I take it the Spanish Armada were just out on a cruise.Napoleon had no ambition to rule us either and who could forget a French backed pretender with his clansmen 

The Spanish armada was England and not the UK which did not come into existence until the 17th Century, where as the Spanish armada was mid 16th.  No french troops were involved in the jacobite rising lead by Charles Edward Stuart II.

The Island is not the UK either, it is called Great Britain.

If you are going to use history to support Trident (Which is an absurd idea, and well as the support for WMD based 30 miles from our major population zone being abhorrent), you could at least get it accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lorielus said:

The axis attacks on the UK were never realistically prelude to invasion anyway, much as Hitler might have wanted it.  At no point did the UK lack significant air superiority here.

Absolutely which is why I said attack and not invade.  The notion that the political nation state that is the UK has ever been invaded or even really in danger of such is absurd, and also a total rewrite of actual history, which we all know the UK elite have a ponchant and an uncanny knack for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

Absolutely which is why I said attack and not invade.  The notion that the political nation state that is the UK has ever been invaded or even really in danger of such is absurd, and also a total rewrite of actual history, which we all know the UK elite have a ponchant and an uncanny knack for.

Absolutely, apologies I mis-read your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bearing did the UKs nuclear deterrent have on Pakistan obtaining nuclear weapons? 

What bearing did the UKs nuclear deterrent have on Saddam Hussain"s use of chemical weapons in the first Gulf War? It was the Israels who told him if he used them they woukd nuke him.

What bearing did the UKs nuclear deterrent have on Iran's nuclear program?

What bearing did the UKs nuclear deterrent have on the mission in Afghanistan? The US said we are all pulling out and that was that. 

Apart from the last example these are real global events involving nuclear weapons the impact on which the UKs nuclear deterrent has been zero. IMO all of the above demonstrate the paperweight status of UK nuclear weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lorielus said:

Absolutely, apologies I mis-read your post.

No need for apologies.  I think Killiepies understanding of this islands history displays perfectly the tactic of the british states aporoach in rewriring some and eliminating knowledge of other history.

The conflation of English history with British or UK history is a deliberate tactic.  Scots history is simply or certainly was not taught to any huge degree, but you learned all about the Norman Conquests, hastings in 1066, the Magna carter, sir Francis drake, etc.  This is all English history.  We did not learn sufficiently about Bruce, Wallace, Darien, etc.

Many of us who chose to educate ourselves about our history are appalled at the lack of knowledge of our history and in particular the tactics used by the English lords to bring the Union into being.  Blackmail, propaganda, sea blockades all ised alongside the alien act.  Yes most unionists accept the pish version that England saved Scotland from destitution, despite Scotland paying Englands debts in the Anglo-French war as part od the deal!!

Anyway we digress and must get back on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seem to be quite a few countries in Western Europe who don’t have nuclear weapons and haven’t been invaded since they were first used either. It’s almost as if having nuclear weapons and not being invaded are merely coincidental factors rather than the reason we haven’t been invaded. I could equally suggest that being in the EU prevented us from being invaded. Correlation does not imply causation.
 

If we look at the two main nuclear superpowers - number of wars between the two countries prior to the invention of nuclear weapons =zero. Claiming you’ve prevented them going to war,  by them both having them seems a bit of a stretch. The probability of mutually assured destruction seems an insignificant factor when compared with centuries worth of peace between them anyway. If we extrapolate this, It seems more likely that an extended period of stability in the developed world is the real reason we haven’t been nuked rather than anyone worrying we’d get them back. Nukes have nothing to do with peace and everything to do with corporate profits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zorro said:

There seem to be quite a few countries in Western Europe who don’t have nuclear weapons and haven’t been invaded since they were first used either. It’s almost as if having nuclear weapons and not being invaded are merely coincidental factors rather than the reason we haven’t been invaded. I could equally suggest that being in the EU prevented us from being invaded. Correlation does not imply causation.
 

If we look at the two main nuclear superpowers - number of wars between the two countries prior to the invention of nuclear weapons =zero. Claiming you’ve prevented them going to war,  by them both having them seems a bit of a stretch. The probability of mutually assured destruction seems an insignificant factor when compared with centuries worth of peace between them anyway. If we extrapolate this, It seems more likely that an extended period of stability in the developed world is the real reason we haven’t been nuked rather than anyone worrying we’d get them back. Nukes have nothing to do with peace and everything to do with corporate profits. 

I suppose the one "upside" to nuclear weapons is that they served as a huge catalyst (along with the space race) for miniturisation of electronics, both to drive guided missile systems and to allow for those systems to be installed on mobile platforms.

Edited by Lorielus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lorielus said:

I suppose the one "upside" to nuclear weapons is that they served as a huge catalyst (along with the space race) for miniturisation of electronics, both to drive guided missile systems and to allow for those systems to be installed on mobile platforms.

I’m gonna use my second film quote of the day - “Slap in the middle of absolute insanity people pull out the most extraordinary resources: ingenuity, courage, self-sacrifice. Pity we can't meet the problems of peace in the same way, isn't it? It would be so much cheaper for everybody.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zorro said:

I’m gonna use my second film quote of the day - “Slap in the middle of absolute insanity people pull out the most extraordinary resources: ingenuity, courage, self-sacrifice. Pity we can't meet the problems of peace in the same way, isn't it? It would be so much cheaper for everybody.”

In fairness, it does happen occasionally - eradication of smallpox, development of dwarf wheat, etc., unfortunately tends to be the exception rather than the rule, probably because they rarely serve market forces well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Shropshire_killie said:

Just goes to show there are knobheads across the political spectrum, as in all walks of life, as evidenced by Salmond and those that support him. 

Let me get this right! You reckon a highly trained and respected economist who supports Scottish independence is a knobhead because he says the process of creating a stable Scottish economy after independence will be a bit tricky and take some time? 

He's just stating the obvious and it's a vastly preferable approach to the SNP's fairy tales.

Edited by mackpomm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

Deary me, the main proponent of fsiry tales is the WM government, aided and abeted by the MSM, and in particular the BBC

....I understand who you feel naturally aligned to now, I imagined you'd be keeping better company. Get together and publish a book, I'm sure they'll humour you and allow
Sgeulachdan mu shìthichean on the cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mackpomm said:

Let me get this right! You reckon a highly trained and respected economist who supports Scottish independence is a knobhead because he says the process of creating a stable Scottish economy after independence will be a bit tricky and take some time? 

He's just stating the obvious and it's a vastly preferable approach to the SNP's fairy tales.

I'm clearly a dwarf in the shadow of his superior intelligence.

20 years? It's not "stating the obvious". It's complete guesswork. No one is saying it won't be tricky given the lies  propaganda which is increasing it seems on a regular basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beaker71 said:

Deary me, the main proponent of fsiry tales is the WM government, aided and abeted by the MSM, and in particular the BBC

There will be a major economic shock in the event of independence. Denying  this  may play well to the educationally challenged but has nothing to offer those of us able to think for ourselves.

That said both the WM government and MSM are putting in a power of work hyping up the impact into the realm of fantasy as you say. Again this does nothing to help the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mackpomm said:

Let me get this right! You reckon a highly trained and respected economist who supports Scottish independence is a knobhead because he says the process of creating a stable Scottish economy after independence will be a bit tricky and take some time? 

He's just stating the obvious and it's a vastly preferable approach to the SNP's fairy tales.

There is a very interesting podcast out there from Feb this year where Mark Blyth and his mate David McWilliams (a Prof at one of the Dublin university business schools) discuss independence . I found Blyth’s warts’n all take on the opportunities and challenges of independence refreshing. What interested me was their take on what a s**t-show the UK economy is for everywhere outside London and it will be better for Scotland  to get out soon before things get worse (paraphrasing a bit there)
With sovereignty we make our own decisions . MB is of the view it is better to make our own mistakes and learn from them rather than suffer the consequences of the ongoing bad decisions made for us.

apologies for being a Luddite incapable of posting the link. Bella Caledonia reposted it the other night on Twitter.  Blyth is pro-Indy, but the fact he does not shy away from the complexity makes him worth a listen to whatever side of the Indy fence you are on

Blyth has credentials to have an opinion as a Professor at an Ivy League uni in the states

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cheviotstag said:

What interested me was their take on what a s**t-show the UK economy is for everywhere outside London

Well that's been the direction of ravel since I started school and I see no reason to think it is going to change any time soon. Wen I started school Kilmarnock was a hive of industry, Saxone making shoes, BMK making carpets, Massey Ferguson making farming vehicles, Glenfield and Kenedy, Glaciar Metal, Barkleys not to metion Walkers. Now there is nothing. All that economic activity sucked don to the anus of the UK.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...