Different reasoning, same conclusion
We’ve just noticed a report published by Scottish CND on the 26th of February, detailing the likely results of the UK actually using the submarine-based Trident nuclear weapons system in the event of some sort of unimaginable global conflict.
While we share SCND’s revulsion at the very notion of such weapons of mass destruction, the report makes a compelling anti-Trident argument that we’re absolutely certain wasn’t the one it meant to, and which SCND will doubtless find highly distasteful. We have no such compunction, though.
The investigation concludes that a full-strength attack from one Trident sub – the most that would in reality be on active service at any given time – on Moscow (the second most heavily populated city on the European continent after Istanbul) would result in the deaths of around 5.4 million Russian citizens, from 40 warhead detonations.
That’s a horrendous prospect. And the number seems dizzyingly, incomprehensibly huge, until you glance at the simplest history book and realise that the Soviet Union survived the loss of 24 million of its people in World War 2, or approximately 14% of its population at the time.
Modern-day Russia is a much smaller nation than the USSR of 1945, with a population of just 143,000,000. Nevertheless, that means that even a Trident attack on its densest concentration of human beings would cost the lives of just 3.8% of the Russian people. Threatening a nation with a quarter of the casualties it already knows it can endure is not a “deterrent”.
(And in any event is centred on Trident being used exclusively as a weapon of vengeance, not military purpose. The unfortunate 50% of the citizens of Moscow would be incinerated long after we were all dead already, and we don’t know about you but that thought provides us with no consolation whatsoever.)
There are countless humanitarian reasons for the UK not to possess Trident, from the basic morality of slaughtering millions of innocents in pointless reprisals to the grotesque waste of billions of pounds as poor people queue at foodbanks and sleep inside the structure of city-centre bridges.
But those tend to cut little ice with the sort of hawks who advocate its retention and renewal, so instead we’re just going to point out how completely and utterly worthless the weapon is even at its grisly intended purpose, and ponder why any intelligent people continue to believe in the lie of deterrence even after they’ve been told the truth.
It’s so reassuring to know that our charity-run food banks are being guarded by WMD.
Perhaps if we just simply reversed a few wee things here we would not need food banks?
The Russians were and are rational people. That’s why MAD worked during the Cold War.
Now we have the “Mad Mullahs”… or so we are led to believe.!
You are so correct though. It is a waste of money and a symptom of a morally bankrupt Imperial perspective.
The use of such WMD is barbarism.
Rev S,
You make the comment about food banks which is what finally convinced me that even though I used to believe in the deterant argument, we cannot spend billions for decades on unusable weapons while basic needs are not met for the entire population. I am sitting on the train at the moment and noticed two articles of interest in the Metro that relate to this.
“Britiain slips down world death table” and “Food poverty blights 4.7m households”
But don’t worry people, all is not lost, “Queen goes home early after stomach bug scare” so all is well. Better Together indeed.
Note: Food poverty: 20% of a page, Queen has the shits: 50% of a page
Although I think if I lived in Iran, I might have a different view. I’d hope a country like Scotland didn’t need them.
You can sense the glee with which BBC Scotland tells us that the Luxembourg foreign minister doesn’t think Scotland should become independent. I’ll bet the champagne corks were popping in Pacific Quay when the email came in.
Glen Campbell: “YAYYYY!!! Luxembourg don’t think Scotland should separate from the bosom of the UK!”
Raymond Buchanan: “Where’s Luxembourg?”
Glen Campbell: “I don’t fucking know, they must be one of those shitty little countries we don’t care about. What does it matter?”
link to bbc.co.uk
Anyone want to join my new campaign group to demand Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands form the United Kingdoms of Benelux? Oh, Luxembourg is only a Duchy, so I guess they’ll just have to be subsumed into Belgium…
Reminds me of reading a wee book called Our Own Worst Enemy by Norman F Dixon, many moons ago. It frightened the living daylights out of me, to the extent that I became temporarily unhinged and almost drank myself to death. But we’re still here? It’s a miracle.
Sometimes wonder what ‘life’ must’ve felt like when these diabolical weapons didn’t exist, or feels like for those who know nothing about them. Unfortunately, it’s an experience none of us will ever have. So it goes…
“But those tend to cut little ice with the sort of hawks who advocate its retention and renewal“,
You’re right Stu, and I wonder who amongst those hawks would actually have the balls to ‘press the button’!
@ Doug
Yes, Campbell and the BBC really did excel themselves on that one.
Tomorrow I hear that Campbell will reveal devastating proof that a cheese salesman in Ostrava thinks Scotland shouldn’t be independent.
Did I hear the report on Luxemburg on Radio Scotland correctly?Something like Luxemburg being the richest nation on the planet and they would not like the competition from another such wealthy nation like Scotland. I choked on my porridge so only heard thereadjusted interview as they realised what had been said!
Nukes only deter the United States, the planet’s major aggressor. But wait a minute – our nukes are controlled by the US. So unless you believe the Yanks will nuke themselves if they invade us, Trident isn’t much of a deterrent.
@DMW42-
Exactly. The very idea that the likes of Cameron, Hague etc have any say whatsoever in the commissioning or deployment of these things is beyond satire – even Kubrick wouldn’t have dared go that far.
@Famous15 – aye, you wonder just how much Luxembourg prizes its status as the richest EU nation in terms of GDP per capita. After all, if Scotland truly would be the 6th richest in the world, then we’d be gunning for the top spot, since the next richest in the EU (Denmark) is around 6th in the world currently.
It seems a bit of a jump, mind. The sort of paranoid mutterings BetterTogether would come out with. But there’s certainly some dots not being joined when Luxembourg are not in favour of the UK having an in/out EU referendum, yet also against Scotland ensuring it remains part of the EU via independence.
Trident is first strike weapon as all nuclear devices are. Hit them first before they can launch. Only in a very limited way can it be a defensive weapon.
I thought that had been recognized a long time ago?
I thought this particular plook had been squeezed recently. I seem to remember some release mentioning that Scotland wouldn’t be allowed to retain nukes on its soil due to non proliferation issues. In which case wouldn’t that be job doubly done? We don’t want them and apparently we wouldn’t be allowed to have em on our soil anyhoo. Mind you I’d rather the neighbours saw sense and ditched the bloody things too whilst they have the chance. Independence for Scotland gives the whole of the rUK the opportunity to lose these vile weapons once and for all.
Is it not incredible that those very same Scottish Labour politicians, who spend so much time and effort criticizing the government about hospital waiting times and the price of alcohol, remain silent and sheepish when their London masters decide to support the tories in renewing ridiculously expensive, useless, dangerous WMDs on the Clyde?
The above is as always here, a good and sobering article.
However, hope you don’t mind but I want to raise another subject. Which is the growing conspiracy against Scotland and the wishes of the Scottish people.
I watch, read, and follow Stories effecting Scotland and have to the conclusion, that most of the stories, the propaganda, lies and utter deceit that is set against us on a daily basis, is too closely coordinated not to be under the control of a group or entity charged with destroying any thought of Independence.
There are shadowy groups everywhere, then there is the usual culprits, all seem to work in unison together to spin out their trash every day.
However, my real suspicion is that they are all acting under the instructions of either Mi5, Mi6, or both, having been given the task to stop Independence at any cost. It makes utmost sense, as rUK will be in deep doodoo if Scotland votes YES.
This is a strong feeling I have about the events that are meant to hurt and mislead our people on a constant basis. It just has to be a concerted effort with someone controlling their output and making the policies that they hope will destroy Independence. I think the evidence of this is all around us every day.
It needs to be exposed, any whistle blowers out there?
O/T Hats off to Glen Campbell and the BBC. After many weeks of hard effort and searching, they finally managed to find a senior European politician willing to speak our against Scottish independence. Luxemburg! That should be worth a few more yes votes.
Vronsky – exactly. I’m far more relaxed about North Korea and Iran having nukes than I am about the USA, because the USA has demonstrated its willingness to use them before. Are Iran or North Korea going to launch a nuke on Scotland? Are they fuck. Iran needs nukes because Israel has them, and North Korea needs them because it knows it’s next on the USA’s hit list. If the USA wasn’t so bloody belligerent, we could rid the world of nukes as soon as possible.
After all, it wasn’t nukes that stopped the Cold War or has led to 60 years of peace in Europe – it was trade agreements.
The way I read the Luxembourg article they are calling for unity within Europe during difficult times. Therefore Scotland wanting to stay in Europe is a bad thing???
The spin on this is ridiculous. The article barely makes sense.
Oh how much do I detest these loathsome scumbags?
Of course the resulting retaliation against the base the subs come from could also eliminate half of Scotland’s population..
If Russia lost 5.4 million citizens, 95% would survive. If Scotland lost 5.4 million citizens, how many would be left?
@Doug Daniel…
From wiki … Jean Asselborn, in 1989 he became head of the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party parliamentary group. He was also the President of the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party, the second-largest political party in the Grand Duchy, from 1997 to 2004.
It’s a case of the BBC asking Alistair Darling’s ‘International Socialist’ friends that they agree with their mate in Scotland. The script has been written and passed around. Same with Barrosso, ex-Communist Party of Portugal. I’ll bet if the BBC asked another Luxembourg politician from a different party, you get a different answer. But of course the BBC is not interested in differing views, only the one that fits the agenda.
On Topic … If you asked me in 1999 that within 15 years the UK would have thousands of families queueing up at foodbanks to feed themselves while the government ring-fenced £billions for a new nuclear missile system, I would say that is a country in the grip of an insane government and is descriptive of a Soviet dictatorship..
“Trident is first strike weapon as all nuclear devices are. Hit them first before they can launch. Only in a very limited way can it be a defensive weapon.”
I believe it’s been officially confirmed numerous times that by default Trident is targeted at Moscow. That’s not where the Russians keep most of their missiles. Its only purpose is to “deter” with the threat of mass civilian casualties in the event of an attack.
Doug Daniel says:
5 March, 2013 at 8:45 am
You can sense the glee with which BBC Scotland tells us that the Luxembourg foreign minister doesn’t think Scotland should become independent. I’ll bet the champagne corks were popping in Pacific Quay when the email came in.
Why do they persist in asking the EU lightweights who fear their tiny budgets will be cut if another country joins?
Why not ask the big guns like France, Germany and to a lesser extent Italy & Spain?
They know what the answer will be and it doesn’t fit their agenda!!
Anyhoo, I’m away out to start leafleting for our local Yes public meeting on Saturday. If you live in Milton Of Campsie then please feel free to pop along to the village hall at 2pm on Saturday.
We also have a local meeting in Lennoxtown this wednesday at 7pm in the memorial hall.
Sorry for the shameless plug Stu!!
There was a brilliant David Greig short play on last year at the Traverse – Letter of Last Resort – which covered exactly this.
Basically (not sure if this is true or fiction for the play) the British PM on taking up post has to write a letter to the commander of the Trident Fleet instructing him what to do in the event the UK is destroyed in a nuclear attack and no line of command continues. Should he retaliate or not retaliate? It totally dissects the pointlessness of holding nuclear weapons and the horror of using them. And is very funny as it does it. Well worth seeing if anyone gets the chance.
“Trident is first strike weapon as all nuclear devices are. Hit them first before they can launch”
All submarine-launched nuclear weapons are designed to be highly mobile and difficult to locate; that is, they’re intended to survive a first strike against static, land-based missile sites and then be used in retaliation. If they were simply first-strike weapons, there’d be no need for the ruinously expensive transport system. They – arguably – serve as a deterrent against an enemy’s first strike by providing a capability to survive, and respond to, that first strike.
@cath
Wikipedia
Retaliate with nuclear weapons;
Don’t retaliate with nuclear weapons;
The submarine commander uses his own judgement; or
The submarine commander places himself under United States or Australian command, if possible
[edit]
@Les Wilson – I agree with every word, anyone who thinks otherwise is being very naive indeed. That is why achieving a YES vote is going to be extremely challenging.
I dread to think what Monaco and Lichtenstein think about Scottish Independence. Could be a game changer. And the less said about San Marino the better.
@ LesWilson
There was a very interesting programme (document) on radio 4 at 8pm last night about how MI6 used the media during the cold war. I did highlight it on here but slightly past start time.
It’s well worth a listen by way of iplay or whatever the radio equivalent is.
“There was a very interesting programme (document) on radio 4 at 8pm last night about how MI6 used the media during the cold war. I did highlight it on here but slightly past start time. It’s well worth a listen by way of iplay or whatever the radio equivalent is.”
The radio equivalent of the iPlayer is, in fact, the iPlayer 😉
The programme you speak of can be found here:
link to bbc.co.uk
Re the Luxembourg story, let’s make sure we respond to what their Foreign Minister actually said rather than what Glen Campbell said that he said – remember Raymond Buchanan and the Irish minister. There’s a report on Newsnet about this which includes something Glen left out – that the Foreign Minister added that it was ultimately up to the people of Scotland to decide on independence.
See my 12:14pm ‘at Monsters live in the dark’.
I am not a great one for the monarchy in Independent scotland.
I do not want to be in EU and would prefer the ETA that Norway enjoys.
I would prefer a currency union with Norway to remianing in the Sterling zone.
However I accept all of these things as part of the price to pay for Independence.
Post 2016 I will choose my party against my list of wants for the New Scotland.
What I cannot ,and will never accept is if the WMD become a bargaining chip and we do not keep our committment to remove them as one of our first acts as an Independent Nation.
Germany ,Holland Norway ,Sweden ,Denmark , Japan , and countless other countries seem to have been doing rather nicely without such vile weapons.
Also out of UK we overnight become a safer place
Doug Daniel:
“After all, it wasn’t nukes that stopped the Cold War or has led to 60 years of peace in Europe – it was trade agreements.”
This statement is so staggeringly deluded that it makes belief in leprechauns seem sensible.
Has the author ever actually read anything about history at all? Particularly the stuff which has come out of Soviet archives since 1991?
Campbell:
“I believe it’s been officially confirmed numerous times that by default Trident is targeted at Moscow.”
You “believe”? Haven’t you researched it, “professionally” or otherwise?
There have been a number of developments re Trident warhead numbers and targeting in recent years. Don’t you know what they are?
“You “believe”? Haven’t you researched it, “professionally” or otherwise?”
Yawn. It’s of very little relevance, for the reasons already pointed out by others, namely that submarine-based systems are more or less by definition a retaliation-focused device. If you’re planning a first strike you don’t need to hide. But purely by way of example:
link to ft.com
link to ft.com
I’m also well aware that Trident saw a warhead/missile reduction under Labour, which is why the CND report uses a figure of 40. Again, the relevance of it to the argument escapes me.
You said UK Trident “is targeted” on Moscow. Is it or isn’t it?
“You said UK Trident “is targeted” on Moscow. Is it or isn’t it?”
No, I didn’t. I said I believed it was, which I do. Unsupported assertions of fact are your side’s department, not ours. Have you evidence that it isn’t? If so, happy to change my belief.
Hermione: “blah blah blah blah blah”
Thanks for another of your insightful contributions, free of evidence but high on bluster, as usual.
Don’t hit your arse on the way out.
@Rabb: “Why do they persist in asking the EU lightweights who fear their tiny budgets will be cut if another country joins?”
Let’s not use the “too wee” argument against other countries…
Has the author ever actually read anything about history at all?
Lol, probably not as when we went to school History was just another unionist propaganda machine. Scotland has a great and rich history, the culmination of which must be a great and unfeasible victory at Bannockburn and the last battle fought on Brittish soil at Culloden. I went to school mereley 20 miles from that site and what did I get? Peterloo, the great exhibition of London and the battle of Trafalgur.
Nah. You can stick your history where you and the rest of the Westminster dinosaurs belong.
Ahhhh, thought I remembered rightly.
link to scotsman.com
Basically we’d have to grant a nuclear power permission to base nukes in Scotland. Minus that permission they wouldn’t be allowed here anyhoo under the non proliferation treaty.
Article 1 states that countries such as Britain, which have nuclear weapons, must not give control over such armaments to non-nuclear states.
“The UK Government’s legal position on Faslane has now been clarified in its analysis paper on Scottish independence. It states: “The future of the UK’s nuclear weapons and facilities would be an important issue to be resolved. Under international law, an independent Scotland would not be recognised as a state entitled to possess a nuclear? deterrent.“
Or in other words, on day one of independence, without any prior negotiations having taken place or permissions sought, the clock would be ticking on removal. Last I heard pre referendum negotiation was off the to do list. Was it fifteen or eighteen months to conclude negotiations? SNP still in government on a firm Trident oot footing. I’d say Westminster may have a storage problem looming.
@John Lyons
Funny, I was on the phone to an English colleague yesterday and happened to mention (in relation to a project I’m working on) the battlefield site at Tippermuir (1644), just west of Perth, and said something about the Marquis of Montrose and all that. And without a hint of irony my colleage said “so you have history up there?” like it was a totally novel concept for foreigners to have history.
” And without a hint of irony my colleage said “so you have history up there?””
Lordy.
I often think many down south think “the union” is a never-ending thing and there was no British history before it. The whole “end of Britain” thing gives that impression. Were Henry VIII and Shakespeare not “British history” because they were before the hallowed union with Scotland?
Don’t you just love the way the BBC report. Following Hammond’s announcement of a vast reduction of troops being located in Scotland, with barracks being closed, the Beeb opens its report with “The number of Army personnel based in Scotland is to increase by more than 600″.
Probably drafted before the additional quotes though as the report now confirms that there looks like a rift in the Bitter & Twisted Together ranks:
Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy said the decision to base fewer staff at Leuchars than had been previously been planned would have a political cost.
Former Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Ming Campbell, whose constituency includes the Leuchars base, accused the government of basing its decisions on political rather than security concerns.
The above courtesy(?) of BBC link to bbc.co.uk
@MajorBloodnok
Sheesh! I hope you said “Yes yes of course we do. It all started in 1707 when we became part of a real country….”
You could see if your collegue is as good as Doctor Sheldon Cooper at spoting sarcasm.
@Doug Daniel
“far more relaxed about North Korea and Iran having nukes than I am about the USA”
No further questions M’lud.
I thought Niko was testing the envelope of absurdity.
Don’t hit your arse on the way out.
Les Wilson – press coverage of indy needn’t be a secret service conspiracy – though they would be neglecting their jobs if they weren’t trying to prevent the end of the UK – just the Scottish media taking press releases and direction from their pals in Labour and running with them.
DCanmore – Luxembourg has a socialist party? You learn something every day.
Luigi says, If Russia lost 5.4 million citizens, 95% would survive. If Scotland lost 5.4 million citizens, how many would be left?
I’m quite sure there would be a few Unionists left to be better together. They are apparently 6-15x more resistant to radiation than humans.
@northBrit – do you have any idea how many democratically-elected leaders the US has helped overthrow by putting its weight behind some puppet dictator who promises to comply with US foreign interests, only for them to decide to help oust him a few decades later when the same dictator becomes a thorn in the side of US foreign policy?
Central and South America is full of countries who have had dictators imposed on them thanks to the US – some more covertly than others – because the US didn’t like what the guy they’d elected was doing. Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras… All have been the victim of US interference, because it’s what the US does best.
North Korea and Iran have no interest in waging nuclear war on the rest of the world – they just know that when you’re on the US hit list, a nuke is the only thing to stop them deciding to impose “democracy” on you. If this world ever plunges into nuclear war, it will be the US and/or Israel who instigate it – not North Korea or Iran.
(Well, I suppose there’s always the off-chance that Pakistan and India finally decide to blow each other to bits…)
‘Our nukes aren’t even as good at killing Russians as the Nazis!’
Is that about the size of it? Not your best work.
@ Doug Daniel
I’m not convinced that you are right about Iran. There’s a lot of messianic thinking, and Ahmadinejad is right up there with it. It’s worth a trawl around some of the Shiite sites before you make up your mind. Plenty of religions – including Christianity, if you adhere to Revelations – believe their saviour will return in conditions of fire and chaos. To you and I, this may be luncacy. To many people, it is not. In most countries, posession of nuclear weapons is a bit of willy-waving. In Iran’s case, I’m not so sure.
To put it another way – ‘deterrent’ is a clean-living way of thinking about nukes. ‘Bringing on the last judgement’ is less palatable, but should not be ignored.
@kininvie – Perhaps, but I’m distrustful of the way Ahmadinejad is portrayed in western media. I remember reading something once that indicated that our image of him is very much a caricature. On the other hand, we’ve seen with our own eyes just how nutty the American fundamentalist christian right is.
But even if this was not the case, the fact remains that Iran is not the country which has spent the past several decades instigating countless wars and trying to impose its way of life on other countries. And, more importantly, it’s not Iran which holds the title of Only Country In The World To Nuke The Fuck Out Of Another Country.
“Perhaps, but I’m distrustful of the way Ahmadinejad is portrayed in western media”
I think this is one huge danger of the kind of coverage we’re getting on Scotland at the moment. I’ve switched off the mainstream media and entirely distrust it, the BBC included. But that distrust is now massively more widespread than just Scottish independence. I already know the coverage of Israel/Palestine is dire and one sided, and now switch off entirely to any foreign news coverage from our own media.
Basically, I feel that if something is worth knowing about, and I want to know about it, it’s necessary to read far and wide and assume there is a bias in the mainstream media. If I’m not willing or interested enough in the topic to do that, I’d rather know absolutely nothing than be spoon fed the mainstream media view.