"Anti-nuclear Protesters To Blockade Guzz Dockyard 01/11/10"

Discussion in 'Bases / Shore Est' started by soleil, Jul 20, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Re: Herald: "Anti-nuclear protesters to blockade Guzz dockya

    ''Devonport is the UK's only base with the specialist facilities and skilled workforce to maintain the submarine fleet.''

    i may sound like an idiot but isnt that faslane/clyde's job?
  2. Re: Herald: "Anti-nuclear protesters to blockade Guzz dockya

    They mean refits. Faslane isn't big enough for that kind of work, it has a ship lift but no dry docks.
  3. Re: Herald: "Anti-nuclear protesters to blockade Guzz dockya

    But you are right, it is a terminological inexactitude on the part of the Herald, and so they are, technically, wrong.
  4. Re: "Anti-nuclear Protesters To Blockade Guzz Dockyard 01/11

    Bring on the water cannons ! 8)
  5. Re: "Anti-nuclear Protesters To Blockade Guzz Dockyard 01/11

    Ron Dewdney better start doing Veg Oggies like Ivor, with a shop just outside St Levans gate he could make a fortune with the tree huggers :)
  6. I sympathise with the protesters's feelings. Maintaining the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent is expensive, and realistically its probably never going to be used in anger; and arguably our NATO membership is an effective deterrent against would-be aggressors. However, scrapping Trident means trusting politicians to spend the £76,000,000,000,000 saving wisely.

    Would we really see the money being spent in improving national infrastructure, or would we see an increase in banker's bonuses and more unnecessary bureaucracy?

    Until every country agrees and complies with a global nuclear disarmament programme, disbanding the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent is foolish. As much as these people would like to pretend that the United Kingdom is an international trend-setter, I doubt that Russia and China would suddenly decide to decommission their warheads simply because we can't afford them anymore.
  7. Rarely have I seen a less compelling argument for the retention of nuclear weapons.
  8. Re: "Anti-nuclear Protesters To Blockade Guzz Dockyard 01/11

    Then perhaps you will be kind enough to demonstrate something more persuasive?
  9. Isn't that the point? Deterrent?
  10. Something more persuasive than
    "Lets continue to fund nuclear weapons, 'cos the politicians can't be trusted to spend the £76,000,000,000,000 saving wisely."

    How about
    "Lets keep nuclear weapons, 'cos there are third world countries with the capability."
    "Lets scrap nuclear weapons, 'cos they cost lots, and there are better things to spend the money on."
  11. Re: "Anti-nuclear Protesters To Blockade Guzz Dockyard 01/11

    I considered that, but nuclear weapons aren't really the solution to this, but actually the antagonist. Trident isn't going to defend the UK against nuclear attack. We need to develop some form of anti-ballistic missile system for that comfort (I don't believe we actually have one, but hope I'm wrong).

    I would hope that Third World are only trying to develop a nuclear weapons programme of their own to compete with NATO members. Is the US as likely to invade if there is a threat of nuclear attack? I'd also like to hope that if the UK scrapped the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, that the Conservative-led coalition Government would invest the savings into developing an anti-ballistic weapons system (if we don't already have one), but quite frankly am not that optimistic.

    My main argument for keeping Trident was really one paragraph down from when you stopped quoting: "Until every country agrees and complies with a global nuclear disarmament programme, disbanding the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent is foolish."
  12. Re: "Anti-nuclear Protesters To Blockade Guzz Dockyard 01/11

    Every country? There are almost 200 countries, and you want them all to sign up to a multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation treaty?
  13. You're neglecting the fact that, with ever decreasing numbers in our Armed Forces, the only thing keeping us on the UN Security Council is our nuclear deterrant. Lose it, and we could lose the seat - then we really would be a second-rate country.

    Saying you have sympathy for the anti-nuclear people because Trident is expensive is naive to say the least. The anti-nuclear people don't care about cost - they are basically CND Socialist Worker types who are trying to use mainstream arguments to garner more public support. If you think they really care about how must the system costs then you are sadly misled.
  14. Re: "Anti-nuclear Protesters To Blockade Guzz Dockyard 01/11

    Even some that do sign up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty give it a stiff ignoring when they want to, Mr Dinnerjacket being a case in point.
  15. Re: "Anti-nuclear Protesters To Blockade Guzz Dockyard 01/11

    I think I am being misunderstood. I have sympathy for statements such as:

    The money can be better spent elsewhere, but realistically it wouldn't. Unfortunately the benefits of Trident far outstrip the costs, and I do believe it is fundamentally important that we keep it.

    I dislike nuclear warheads because of their ongoing destructive power. After the initial blast, there is the radioactive fallout which lasts for years. However, I recognise that they are a necessary evil, and unless every country agrees and complies with a global nuclear disarmanent policy, then the UK simply has to keep and maintain a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent.

    Unfortunately, every country signing up to, and more importantly keeping their word with such a programme is idealistic and extremely improbable. To coin a phrase from Martin Luther King, I have a dream. My dream is a world without the threat of nuclear war, but I have no delusions that this is nothing but a dream and will never be anything else.

    Although I hadn't considered the point about the possibility of losing our seat on the UN Security Council. But its simply another reason why Trident is a necessary evil. Although I have some sympathy for the protesters, I have no support for their blockade or their actions.
  16. Re: "Anti-nuclear Protesters To Blockade Guzz Dockyard 01/11

    I find myself 180 degrees apart from you. I have no sympathy for their cause, but I will defend their right ... blah blah to repeat an oft-used phrase (as opposed to 'coin a phrase', which relates to it's first use).

    I would also argue that the threat of nuclear war is diminished by our possession of nuclear weapons, making your dream one of those things which you should be careful of what you are wishing for.
  17. Re: "Anti-nuclear Protesters To Blockade Guzz Dockyard 01/11

    How can you defend their right to blockade a naval base? Its not peaceful protest if they're deliberately trying to stop persons getting in or out, but its a recipe for someone to get killed. The problem with these large crowds is that there is usually someone who just wants a fight, and when they start throwing rocks, petrol bombs, etc; then the situation escalates and its another Bloody Sunday.

    I agree with your point about diminishing the threat of nuclear war by possessing nuclear weapons. The fear of retaliation should ensure that nuclear weapons are only considered as a last resort. However, this can only work until a country with nuclear capability is desperate and is on the verge of defeat; then a nuclear attack becomes a very real possibility.

    Going back to the ideal: an anti-ballistic missile system needs to be implemented to serve as a shield against nuclear warheads. Its not foolproof, but its technologically possible. Unfortunately as the United Kingdom doesn't have that yet, then the fear of retaliation is the only defence we have to prevent nuclear war.

    But you're quite correct; as much as I would wish that a global treaty would prevent nuclear war, I'm not so naive to think it would actually work. All the treaty would actually do is strip the honourable nations of their ability to retaliate. Other countries with less scruples would continue to develop their nuclear weapons in secret, and would be less reluctant to use them because the fear of retaliation would have been lost.

Share This Page