Originally posted by MerkThere are 4 subs. 1 should always be on 'active patrol', 1 is under maintenance and the other 2 are in port somewhere or under repair.
Yep. It's what I thought. I suppose it seems like no big deal top me because we have something like 14 Ohio class boomers.
As for where it's put, it shouldn't spend much time at home. Does this thing spend a lot of time in dock or something?
This means that at least one sub and the missiles for 3 are nearby.
Originally posted by shavixmirthe scots are seen as surly and ungrateful by a lot of the english now.
I was just reading a BBC article and it suggested that the vote in Britain today to renew Trident (millions of pounds worth) was opposed by most Scottish MP's.
Labour are already looking pretty bleak in Scotland as they become ever more integral with the conservative party.
Is this gonna be the nail in the coffin of the Union?
they like grumbling but in the end wont leave the union because they
get such huge handouts. (sorry scottish readers, im telling it like it is)as regards trident, why cant we just have some big hollow dummy missiles as a deterrant? as long as people think they are real they will do the job.
Originally posted by eamon oCan we put this nonsense about the Scots getting handouts from England to bed now?
the scots are seen as surly and ungrateful by a lot of the english now.
they like grumbling but in the end wont leave the union because they
get such huge handouts. (sorry scottish readers, im telling it like it is)as regards trident, why cant we just have some big hollow dummy missiles as a deterrant? as long as people think they are real they will do the job.
It is nonsense, and has even been discredited in this thread.
If England want the missiles and submarines, they can have them. And they can pay for them.
We don't want them. Yet we're expected to pay for them and have them here.
Originally posted by RedmikeThat makes more sense. I was thinking to myself "What do they do when the sub is in for maintenance?" "Then they have no mobile deterrent."
There are 4 subs. 1 should always be on 'active patrol', 1 is under maintenance and the other 2 are in port somewhere or under repair.
This means that at least one sub and the missiles for 3 are nearby.
Still sounds pretty bad though, 75% of the fleet being in dock at any given time seems pretty bad. I would think with 4 you should have two at sea most of the time. They must be more maintenance heavy than I thought. If only one at sea is what they want, I can't see why they can't get rid of 1 sub altogether.
Building the dock elsewhere would add considerably to the expense. If Scotland doesn't want these thing on their turf, they might have to declare independence. Take it from an American, once you do, you'll never look back. 😉
Originally posted by MerkSorry - my earlier post might have misled. As well as the one on 'active patrol', some of the others might be on excercise too.
That makes more sense. I was thinking to myself "What do they do when the sub is in for maintenance?" "Then they have no mobile deterrent."
Still sounds pretty bad though, 75% of the fleet being in dock at any given time seems pretty bad. I would think with 4 you should have two at sea most of the time. They must be more maintenance heavy than I thought. If ...[text shortened]... declare independence. Take it from an American, once you do, you'll never look back. 😉
But usually only one out and about with live missiles.
The upgraded system will only have 3 subs, as I understand it though.
I don't think there is any way Scotland will get rid of these things other than by going independent. But that's now a realistic option.
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeJust a thought, but could Scotland declare independence while one of these things is in dock? That way they can take it from the English and sell it back.
Sorry - my earlier post might have misled. As well as the one on 'active patrol', some of the others might be on excercise too.
But usually only one out and about with live missiles.
The upgraded system will only have 3 subs, as I understand it though.
I don't think there is any way Scotland will get rid of these things other than by going independent. But that's now a realistic option.
Originally posted by RedmikeImmoral and illegal?
It isn't about whether it is upgraded - we just shouldn't have one at all.
You'll not be surprised to hear that I'm for the UK, or an independent Scotland at least, unilaterally getting rid of any nuclear missiles we have.
They serve no purpose, they're immoral and illegal.
No nation can call itself civilised while it has weapons capable of wiping out millions of human beings.
Pffft, that's an argument for having nukes.
Originally posted by RedmikeOh shut up.
Can we put this nonsense about the Scots getting handouts from England to bed now?
It is nonsense, and has even been discredited in this thread.
If England want the missiles and submarines, they can have them. And they can pay for them.
We don't want them. Yet we're expected to pay for them and have them here.
You act as if we've opressed you or something.
When it was your bloody royalty that was responsible for the joining of the two countries in the first place.
You act as if the English were the agressors when it was your bloody nutcases who last invaded our country.
Waaa waaa...oil...waa waa....we only get twice as many votes as the English...waa waa...trident...
What Nationality is the next Prime Minister going to be?
Originally posted by RedmikeAre nuclear missiles illegal and immoral because they can wipe out millions of people?
It isn't about whether it is upgraded - we just shouldn't have one at all.
You'll not be surprised to hear that I'm for the UK, or an independent Scotland at least, unilaterally getting rid of any nuclear missiles we have.
They serve no purpose, they're immoral and illegal.
No nation can call itself civilised while it has weapons capable of wiping out millions of human beings.
On a scale then -- starting with weapons that can wipe out 1 person, 10 people, 1000 people, on up to a million people, etc. -- where is the cut-point for an illegal and immoral weapon?
Or are ALL weapons illegal and immoral, and nuclear weapons are just more so?
Originally posted by spruce112358I'm not advocating a pacifist position, so I wouldn't say all weapons are immoral.
Are nuclear missiles illegal and immoral because they can wipe out millions of people?
On a scale then -- starting with weapons that can wipe out 1 person, 10 people, 1000 people, on up to a million people, etc. -- where is the cut-point for an illegal and immoral weapon?
Or are ALL weapons illegal and immoral, and nuclear weapons are just more so?
But weapons which indiscriminately murder civilians on a massive scale are immoral.
Other weapons may also meet this criteria, or other military methods (carpet bombing or fire bombing of cities, for example). These would be immoral too.
It terms of legality, there have been all sorts of rulings that these weapons are illegal. Their upgrade breaches the non-proliferation treaties.
Originally posted by Diet CokeSo you'll no doubt be pleased to see us gone then.
Oh shut up.
You act as if we've opressed you or something.
When it was your bloody royalty that was responsible for the joining of the two countries in the first place.
You act as if the English were the agressors when it was your bloody nutcases who last invaded our country.
Waaa waaa...oil...waa waa....we only get twice as many votes as the English...waa waa...trident...
What Nationality is the next Prime Minister going to be?