Nuclear program at stake in Scottish independence vote

[John Connor]

HELENSBURGH, Scotland — For decades, Britain’s contribution to the threat of global Armageddon has found a home on the tranquil shores of Gare Loch, where soaring green mountains plunge into murky gray waters plied by sporty kayakers, weekend yachtsmen — and nuclear-armed submarines.
The subs slip past this garrison town as quietly as sea monsters. Their dark hulls breach the water’s surface on their way from base out to the deepest oceans, where British naval crews spend months poised to unleash the doomsday payload.
But if Scotland votes “yes” in an independence referendum next month, the submarines could *become nuclear-armed nomads, without a port to call home. Washington’s closest and most important ally could, in turn, be left without the ultimate deterrent, even as Europe’s borders are being rattled anew by a resurgent Russia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...987b40-b41b-4edb-9ae8-064533b143b0_story.html


This is scary. They are an ally and help deter countries like Russia from pushing the button.

 

[davie jambo]

Nice scaremongering

If Scotland does become independent , the nukes will be moved to a naval base in England

We don't want nukes in Scotland

 

[irishScott]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...987b40-b41b-4edb-9ae8-064533b143b0_story.html


This is scary. They are an ally and help deter countries like Russia from pushing the button.

1979 called, they want their mentality back.

In all likelihood the independent Scottish government would let the subs stick around until England could build suitable ports. In any case I'm pretty sure the Russians, were they for some idiotic reason inclined to nuke anyone, would be sooner considering the US's vast arsenal and worldwide reach as opposed to Britain's Tridents. We could easily deploy nukes via the 6th fleet in the Mediterranean.

Frankly I'm more scared that you couldn't figure this out for yourself.

 

[Exterous]

In all likelihood the independent Scottish government would let the subs stick around until England could build suitable ports.

If thats the case then Scotland could very likely see a nuclear presence continue for a number of years (6-12). It would be interesting to see if the 'no nukes' campaign runs out of steam by then. On the positive side it gives them some time to replace the 11,000 jobs that will be lost when the base goes. (Apparently the base is the largest single site employer in Scotland which means its pretty darn important to some local economies)

 

[irishScott]

If thats the case then Scotland could very likely see a nuclear presence continue for a number of years (6-12). It would be interesting to see if the 'no nukes' campaign runs out of steam by then. On the positive side it gives them some time to replace the 11,000 jobs that will be lost when the base goes. (Apparently the base is the largest single site employer in Scotland which means its pretty darn important to some local economies)

I'm not too in touch with the issue but I wouldn't be surprised if the "no nukes" campaign is more slogan than substance, at least as far as that port is concerned. Right now the independence movement is trying to scrape up every vote it can, I wouldn't put exaggerated promises past them. As you point out that base is of substantial economic importance, likely enough to make it damaging to the movement if they did just shut it down without any transition.

 

[John Connor]

1979 called, they want their mentality back.

You really don't think the cold war part II is here? Better rethink that Obama thought to Romney.

 

[MongGrel]

We've had US subs moving out up there pre 80's yeah.

I doubt it's a real issue to be honest.

 

[irishScott]

You really don't think the cold war part II is here? Better rethink that Obama thought to Romney.

Romney being right about Russia being our "top geopolitical rival" is a far cry from stating "the next cold war has started". Call me when Russia sends armored columns into Eastern Ukraine and offering the resulting puppet state nukes.

 

[xBiffx]

You would think if England has mastered the technology of submarines carrying nuclear weapons they might have figured out a way to relocated them.

I mean, WTF is this shit?

 

[StinkyPinky]

This is a redundant thread since a quick look at the polling suggests the "yes" vote is only hovering around 40% compared to 50% for the "no". That's a significant gap. I doubt that's going to be pulled back in three weeks, especially in such an emotional type of decision where people have most likely made up their mind years ago and nothing will change it for them.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It's a damn shame that England was able to build nuclear submarines with no method of propulsion and no technology to build a new facility to house them. That's why you never throw away the blueprints!

 

[zinfamous]

You really don't think the cold war part II is here? Better rethink that Obama thought to Romney.

No one knows what the hell you are blabbering about here.

 

[MrPickins]

You would think if England has mastered the technology of submarines carrying nuclear weapons they might have figured out a way to relocated them.

I mean, WTF is this shit?

It's a damn shame that England was able to build nuclear submarines with no method of propulsion and no technology to build a new facility to house them. That's why you never throw away the blueprints!

:biggrin:

 

[bignateyk]

It's a damn shame that England was able to build nuclear submarines with no method of propulsion and no technology to build a new facility to house them. That's why you never throw away the blueprints!

Yeah that's a shame. Guess they'll just have to scuttle them all now...