The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The chocolate teapot

Posted on July 28, 2014 by

The UK Trident programme encompasses the development, procurement and operation of the current generation of British nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them. It was announced in July 1980 and patrols began in December 1994. Its stated purpose is to provide “the minimum effective nuclear deterrent as the ultimate means to deter the most extreme threat”.

It has also been described by former Vulcan squadron commander (the UK’s original nuclear deterrent) and current vice-president of CND, Air Commodore Alastair Mackie, as Britain’s “stick-on hairy chest”.


And yet other than “We should/shouldn’t get rid of it”, it’s rarely the subject of any serious debate or investigation. And as it’s the summer close season for politics, this seemed like a good time.

We know that it costs Scotland £163 million in running costs each and every year. We also know that only 520 civilian jobs at Faslane and Coulport (formally and collectively called Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde) near Helensburgh are directly dependent on Trident, despite claims by various Labour politicians that the system supports up to 22,000 jobs.

Of those 520 jobs, 159 are employed by the MoD and 361 by contractors Babcock Marine and Lockheed Martin. The remaining jobs cited by the No campaign are based on the military and security personnel present on the base for standard duties, but even here it’s estimated that 85% of base personnel do not live locally but travel south when not on duty, thereby contributing little to the local economy.

However as alert readers may recall, Faslane is intended as the home base of the Scottish Navy and as such the base, its personnel and associated economic benefits would remain active post-independence; with the main difference being the switch to a conventional defence role rather than nuclear deterrence.

But what exactly is Trident, what does it do, and how does it do it?

Trident is a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) equipped with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV). The Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) is armed with nuclear warheads and is launched from nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs, which if you were scratching your heads as we were actually stands for “Ship, Submersible, Ballistic, Nuclear”).

The UK system is based on the operation of four Vanguard-class submarines: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and the tellingly-named Vengeance. At least one submarine is always on patrol to provide a continuous at-sea deterrent; with the others scheduled to maintenance, leave or training.

Each is armed with Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles (built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, California); which is a three-stage rocket, each stage containing a solid propellant motor. Each missile is able to deliver thermonuclear warheads from multiple independent re-entry vehicles up to 7,840km away if fully loaded, or 11,300km if carrying a reduced load (coincidentally the exact distance between Glasgow and Buenos Aires in Argentina).

Since 1998, Trident has been the only British nuclear weapon system in service, following the retirement of the WE.177 tactical nuclear weapon (below).


Vanguard-class submarines can carry up to sixteen missiles with a maximum of twelve warheads per missile (192 warheads in total), with each warhead having a yield of 100 kilotons (kt). However under the terms of the UK 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, each Vanguard boat is only armed with a maximum of eight missiles and forty warheads (five per missile).

At over six times more powerful than the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima, each warhead is more than capable of causing immense damage, yet is still significantly smaller than the warheads on the R-36M (SS-18) ICBM deployed by Russia, which can carry up to ten 750kt warheads per missile or alternatively one massive 20 megaton warhead (20,000kt – equivalent to 1,250 Hiroshima bombs).

The high American content means that the system is not in reality independent. According to a US diplomatic telegram released by WikiLeaks, President Obama handed over the unique serial numbers of the UK’s missiles to the Russians as part of an arms reduction deal, despite the strong objections by the UK Government. As a result the Russians now know exactly what the UK has and what it can do.

The UK government maintains that the warheads used in the Trident system are “designed and manufactured in the UK at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), Aldermaston“. The final warheads have been assembled at the AWE facilities near Aldermaston since 1992, and are transported to the Royal Naval Armaments Depot (RNAD) Coulport in Argyll (part of HMNB Clyde) storage facility by overland convoys.

Trident is ostensibly designed to be used in three possible ways:-

  • First Strike – A pre-emptive attack that annihilates the enemy outright, hopefully before they have a chance to retaliate.
  • Counterforce – A pre-emptive attack that targets the enemy’s military and thereby disarms them by destroying their capability to fight.
  • Second Strike – Primarily as deterrence, by threatening their use in retaliation should an enemy attack the UK with nuclear weapons first. This is the MAD principle (Mutually Assured Destruction) and was the basis for the Cold War nuclear strategy of the USA, UK and other allies

However there are numerous issues with each of these proposed uses.

Strategy 1 – First Strike


The tiny red dots on the map above are all the damage that Trident can inflict on Russia, based on the present eight-missile, 40-warhead load-out and the single operational submarine at any given moment.

But even then it’s not clear Trident’s missiles would hit their targets in the first place. The Russians have a missile defence system, the ABM-3 Gazelle, designed in the 1980s for the Cold War but which only came into service in 1995.

The ABM-3 Gazelle program has around 50 missiles that carry a single 10kt nuclear warhead which travel at speeds of Mach 17 (about 3.4 miles per second) and act as a shield up to a radius of 100km. They’re designed to track incoming nuclear MIRVs, get close and then detonate, hopefully destroying the incoming threat. Only Russia and the United States have this defensive capability.

The degree to which Trident could operate as a successful first-strike system, then – certainly against a large country like Russia – is zero. Russia has far more than 40 military targets which would have to be taken out for a first-strike victory, even assuming every warhead hit its target (some of which are very small or even mobile). All it could achieve would be to get the Russians really, REALLY angry.

Strategy 2 – Counterforce

In nuclear strategy, a counterforce target is one that has a military value, such as a launch silo for ICBMs, an airbase at which nuclear-armed bombers are stationed, a homeport for ballistic missile submarines, or a command and control installation. The intent of a counterforce strategy is to disarm an adversary by destroying its nuclear weapons before they can be launched, thereby minimizing the impact of a retaliatory second strike.

This is a task for which Trident is even more poorly suited.


Firstly, the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces are estimated to have 311 operational missile systems, including missiles that can carry 1078 warheads. These include 185 silo-based and 126 road-mobile ICBM missiles like the Topol-M ICBM.

The Topol-M is a silo- and mobile-based ICBM put into service in 1998. The missile has a range of 10,500km – easily capable of hitting the UK from almost anywhere in Russia – and carries a single 550kt warhead. They are designed to be mobile to avoid detection and destruction in the event of a first strike or counterforce situation.

Secondly, the Russian strategic fleet includes seven SSBNs that can carry 112 missiles with nuclear warheads. Five of the submarines are based in the Northern Fleet with the other two based out of the Pacific Fleet base.

Just like the Trident system they’re designed to be on constant patrol, avoid detection and initiate a first strike, counterforce or second strike on an enemy. Once out to sea they’re essentially undetectable.

Thirdly, Russian strategic aviation consists of 66 bombers that carry an estimated 200 long-range cruise missiles and bombs. In order to neutralise these threats, the air bases would need destroyed before any plane could get airborne, which with advanced Russian early warning systems is unlikely.

So again, the problem for Trident is that there simply isn’t anywhere near enough of it to target all of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. In addition it can’t track the mobile parts, meaning that the missiles in silos and bombers would be able to get airborne and exact their retaliation on the UK.

Strategy 3 – Second Strike

A second-strike capability is a country’s assured ability to respond to a nuclear attack with powerful nuclear retaliation against the attacker. For the UK this is Trident, hidden below the Atlantic waters 365 days a year waiting to launch.


To have such an ability (and to convince your opponent of its viability) is considered vital in nuclear deterrence, as otherwise the other side might be tempted to try to win a nuclear war in one massive first strike against your nuclear forces.

Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

It’s based on the theory of deterrence where the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy’s use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium (better known as a Mexican stand-off) in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

However as we’ve already seen, the destructive force of Trident is not sufficient to ensure total annihilation of the enemy. But more crucially for Trident is the fact that unlike the Russians, it’s our only nuclear force, and there’s only ever one active sub, meaning the entire deterrent could be compromised by the loss of a single vessel.

In 2010 an adapted Russian Akula class submarine was caught trying to record the acoustic signature made by the Vanguard submarines in order to allow the Russians to track the Vanguard’s location. At the time the Navy commanders ordered a Trafalgar-class hunter-killer submarine to protect the Vanguard, with a senior Navy commander reporting to the Telegraph that:

“The Russians have been playing games with us, the Americans and French in the North Atlantic. We have put a lot of resources into protecting Trident because we cannot afford by any stretch to let the Russians learn the acoustic profile of one of our bombers as that would compromise the deterrent.”

So on a standalone basis Trident is insufficiently powerful to uphold the MAD principle, is vulnerable to attack, and in any second strike scenario would almost certainly be retaliating pointlessly against the enemy long after the population of the UK has gone up in smoke.

It’s therefore difficult to escape the conclusion that Trident doesn’t meet the needs of any of the three strategies for nuclear weapons. In fact, only through NATO – with the United States providing the main nuclear deterrence – has MAD ever been viable, and Trident makes no difference whatsoever to MAD, its piddly 40 warheads an insignificant contribution alongside the American stockpile of almost 8,000.

So given that Trident can’t be effective as a standalone deterrent and is incorporated into a NATO system that would work just as well without it, why do we need it? Wouldn’t the UK be better off transferring the money to conventional defence and providing more support to NATO in a conventional role?

It’s a question that’s cropped up before. Last year the New York Times claimed that:

“While the United States would like to be able to rely more on its European allies, many experts doubt that even the strongest among them, Britain and France, could carry out their part of another Libya operation now, and certainly not in a few years”

“The situation in Britain is so bad that American officials are quietly urging it to drop its expensive nuclear deterrent”

Before quoting a senior American official as saying:

“They can’t afford Trident and they need to confront the choice: either they can be a nuclear power and nothing else or a real military partner.”

And this line of thinking isn’t new either, with the US having called for the UK to ditch Trident as far back as 1995. Interestingly, at the time the UK government regarded 96 warheads per submarine as the “minimum credible deterrent”, yet each boat now carries a maximum of well under half that number – suggesting that it’s nowhere near a credible deterrent now, if it ever was.

Trident is a chocolate teapot: completely useless for the purpose intended, and more likely to see the user burned should it ever be utilised. It’s an unaffordable folly, openly acknowledged as such by both Tony Blair and former UK defence secretary Michael Portillo, yet all three Westminster parties are committed to not only retaining it but upgrading it, at a cost of tens of billions of pounds Britain just can’t spare.

September 18 is Scotland’s only chance to release itself from this madness.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

8 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 28 07 14 13:47

    The chocolate teapot | Scottish Independence News

  2. 20 08 14 17:20

    Blitz Spirit | banjoking

  3. 02 09 14 01:19

    Why I’m Voting Yes | Ossian's Dream

  4. 11 09 14 23:20

    Why I'm Voting Yes

  5. 20 02 15 19:12

    Not In My Back Yard | A Wilderness of Peace

  6. 27 04 15 01:02

    Nukes are too dangerous for England, but Scots are expendable! | Forever Yes

  7. 20 07 16 17:12

    The Case Against Trident. – Aye For Scotland

  8. 28 07 16 08:06

    Speaking for Scotland Against the Monsters | A Wilderness of Peace

102 to “The chocolate teapot”

  1. Excellent piece. In other words, the Americans and the Russians have been pointing and sniggering at successive UK Governments for years. And David Clapson couldn’t keep his insulin cold.

  2. Jim Thomson says:

    Excellent analysis and measured rationale Scott.

    Regardless of the outcome of the indyref, I’d love to see the end of our military, nuclear pretentions.

  3. Bigdrone says:

    What a fascinating and informative article!

    Summed up at the top and at the bottom by;

    “stick-on hairy chest”…..”Trident is a chocolate teapot”

    and finally…………. “September 18 is Scotland’s only chance to release itself from this madness!”

    That and other Westminster madnesses!!!!

  4. adrian Brown says:


  5. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:

    I just thought I’d point out that Russia has 319 cities and large towns that range from Moscow at nearly 40% bigger than london, to number 319 – Severomorsk – at roughly the polulation of Stirling.

    We have 40 warheads – with multiple needed to destroy the large cities like Moscow.

    The Russian population is 143.5 million… most of them, and most of their cities would survive a full out Trident attack.

    Nato is what defends us now… not Trident.

    Being an active, non nuclear partner in Nato is the future regardless of the Independence Referendum.

  6. Muscleguy says:

    I only count 34/5 red dots on that map. So unless there are more than 4 on Petersburg and Moscow there are some missing.

    I remember reading somewhere that the Americans basically plan to hit the same targets the UK does (and probably France’s as well) since relying on someone else to do it is military folly. The counterstrike potentials of just leaving them to UK are not worth risking.

    So not only is Trident worthless for the claimed roles, it is literally redundant. Since we can’t risk using it unilaterally and using it with the US is pointless there really is no reason to have it, beyond the willy waving Security Council Seat and observer status at the START talks. Whoop de do.

  7. Macart says:

    Nice one Scott and couldn’t agree more.

    People starving to death in our streets and they want us to beat our chests ‘punch above our weight’ and sit at ‘big tables’.

    I don’t want to punch anybody and I’d rather see folk eating at a table.

    Bairns before bombs.

  8. A. Kenyon says:

    I would love to see this article printed in the Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph etc., however I Wont be holding my breath.

  9. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:


    There are 5 on Moscow and 4 on St Petersburg due to the massive size of the sites and the limited (by US and Russian standards) 100kt warheads that the UK uses.

  10. Martin says:

    I have been looking into this a bit too (amazing how many no voters think trident is actually a good thing). In reality the only people trident weapons are a credible threat to are the people of Scotland’s central belt.

    The world has changed enormously since 1989. Would an independent Scotland be seen as an irrelevance in military terms? Maybe. Would that be such a bad thing though? If we’re not seen as hostile to anyone, nor as a potential threat, we’re likely to be ingored. The biggest threat to our country in the event of worsening tensions worldwide is the arsenal of mock nuclear weapons beside our largest city.

  11. Muscleguy says:


    Not only that you can bet that if a Trident sub got loaded up with the full complement the Russians will know about it through satellite reconnaissance watching convoys to/from Aldermaston and activity around the Coulport bunkers (clearly visible on Google Earth btw) as well as monitoring the time a sub spends in the Coulport facility.

    I wouldn’t mind betting that the 40 warhead configuration is a money saving thing along with a risk reduction strategy as removing/replacing the warheads is a potentially disastrous process.

    And finally is the new system designed to have the same missile/warhead capacity? if so then under the current configuration isn’t that incredibly wasteful?

  12. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:



    That is all.

  13. handclapping says:

    Ah. But, Mr Minto, these are part of the assets for which we have borrowed £1.5tn and if we stopped willy waving, I mean using them, then we would have to write them off and our credit wouldn’t be the same.

    Sorry about all that military and foreign affairs type analysis, very good though it was, when it comes down to it, it is only money that matters in the UK. OK?

  14. MochaChoca says:

    Makes you wonder why the MOD don’t just say they have it, without actually having it, if you know what I mean ;-).

  15. desimond says:

    Silly Game!
    Hows about a nice game of YES!

    Great read Scott, bravo.

  16. Willie Galbraith says:

    Trident is, and always has been, an expensive method of successive UK governments portraying themselfs as players on the big stage of international politics.
    It seems to have escaped them that the biggest threats we face are small scale retaliation from our interventionist policies worldwide.
    Did thousands of nukes prevent 9-11 ???????
    Did Trident prevent the London tube bombing ???????
    FFS we cannot create a system where serving soldiers can walk the bloody streets.

  17. Haggis Hunter says:

    What an incredible piece of journalism. Its something thats never talked about in detail, and should be.
    The UK is unable to change, better escape while we can.

  18. desimond says:

    Spookily went over for lunchtime read at Football365 and this appropriate Bill Hicks quote was front and centre

    “But it doesn’t matter, because…it’s just a ride, and we can change it any time we want. It’s only a choice. No effort. No worry. No job. No savings and money. Just a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy bigger guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one.”

  19. Papadox says:

    USA needs a dug to second all it’s madcap ideas for controlling the world. So it ensures it’s UK poodle has a wee pointy stick to ensure its place at the big table and barks on command, then it gets thrown a wee doggy biscuit to show how important it is.

    UK is finished as an important powerful military country in the world, Westminster has known that since at least 1956 they only hope that the electorate don’t notice it.

    None are so blind as those who do not want to see. (Could be the no voters)

  20. Craig says:

    There’s also another part to this, the Letter of last resort. Basically the sitting PM writes a letter to each sub commander with instructions detailing what to do if the uk comma d chain is wiped out. It could be, open fire, surrender to american control or use best judgement. So a retaliation isn’t even guaranteed!

  21. John says:

    So, with one sub out on the prowl, and as many as three in port, how would you go about eliminating, possibly as much as 75% of the UK nuclear deterrent? I’ll give you a clue – try dropping several nukes 30 miles NW of Glasgow.

  22. Alastair Wright says:

    there is one more strategic option for trident, in the event of someone invading Britain would they choose to do so from the North? that would secure the oil fields to support further invasion South, all Westminster would need is to wait for the build up of armed forces then nuke the entire area to save London. far fetched? Well Churchill thought along those lines didn’t he. Then again who would want to bother about a country that’s become an historical theme park full of bust banks?

  23. David MacLeod says:

    Wow. Not often I comment but that was a pretty powerful piece.

  24. G H Graham says:

    Exactly the same argument can be made for scrapping the House of Lords.

    Sounds good in principle & looks good on the telly but in reality, a wasteful & ineffective club that does little more than heat the arthritic bones of retired aristocrats.

  25. Les Wilson says:

    Here in Scotland, we should concentrate in high tech identifying and defense issues only.

    In truth we will need some capability to defend ourselves, in an event. Not nuclear of course, we are not in that game, but we need a way of prevention, however that is possible.

  26. Clootie says:

    I don’t want to destroy anybody!

    This is just men in suits wanting to be an Empire. It has nothing to do with defence and everything to do with top table ego.

    Every Royal has to parade in a uniform covered in medals. This is a militaristic nation who dwell on death and destruction. Who else would celebrate the 100 years from the start of the First World War.
    The ruling class sent millions to their deaths and all for what?

    Why do Westminster get so angry when they cannot gain a UN mandate for action?

    When Einstein was asked what weapons would be used in a Third World War he replied ” I don’t know but I do know which will be used in the Fourth – Sticks and Stones”

    Feed people not egos

  27. North chiel says:

    Is it the case that theU k’s “independent nuclear deterrent” can
    Only be activated with the “explicit permission” of the U S government?

  28. Luigi says:

    Wee ginger Dug has a great line in a recent article, about the establishment/MSM expecting us to be “proud of a country of foodbanks defended by nuclear missiles”. The delicious absurdity of it.

    I am voting YES, because I don’t want to live in a country of foodbanks defended by nuclear weapons.

  29. R-type Grunt says:

    Great article Scott.

  30. Murray McCallum says:

    A very informative article.

    What exactly are we seeking to defend – is it our way of life? Maybe we should concentrate on the “way of life” bit first to make it worthwhile for everybody.

  31. Clootie says:

    North chiel says:
    28 July, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    I don’t think it matters technically. The UK could never fire without a political call to several NATO members. Once this domino falls (first launch) then they all follow.

    You either die in a flash or painfully much later. Glasgow will go in a flash as a 20Mt detonates a few Km above Coulport.

  32. Dr JM Mackintosh says:

    An excellent article Mr Minto – very informative.
    It would have been interesting to see the effect of a Russian Strike on the UK. How many warheads would it take to wipe out the UK population in its entirety?
    I think the corresponding UK map would be red from Land’s End to John o’Groats – Better Together indeed!

  33. Clootie says:

    Luigi says:
    28 July, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    I love that – sums it up
    “…I don’t want to live in a country of foodbanks defended by nuclear weapons.”

  34. North chiel says:

    Clothe says :
    Is it a fact that the US government and not the UK government
    Hold the activation codes?

  35. Illy says:

    There’s one thing you missed: There’s only one red dot that matters: The one over the head of the guy whith his finger on the button.

    And he’s going to be in a reinforced bunker in the best-protected area of the coutry, so no, you’re not going to hit him.

    “It is never those calling for war, or their families, who they are calling to give up their lives, it is always other peoples’ lives, other peoples’ families, who are called to die for the plans of a few”

  36. Les Wilson says:

    Way back in time to a previous Russian “President”
    he said some have said it might take 4-8 of their nuclear bombs to totally destroy the UK, then added we have 200 aimed!

    That was before multiple warheads.

  37. Les Wilson says:

    Clootie says:

    Yes, that comment would make a great YES banner!

  38. stranger says:

    I’ve thought for a long time that trident fails on its own criteria. However this article focuses on Russia when perhaps the reason for trident is to bully smaller countries like Argentina and Iran.
    Still it’s too powerful to be useful in that way.
    You hear people saying that nukes are not effective against terrorism but I’d have bet that a small battlefield nuke directed against the Taliban, when they were cornered in 2001/2002, would have been effective.

    The point about weapons is that if the enemy doesn’t think that you’ll use it then it’s useless. If you really wanted nukes then a large fleet of small Hiroshima yield bombs on cruise missiles and ICBMs would tell the world that you’re serious about using them as an alternative to conventional forces.

    As it is, Westminster is wasting an incredible amount of money on a wily extension.

  39. wee_monsieur says:

    In other words, just as we all thought – a white elephant.

    Well done, Scott.

  40. CameronB Brodie says:

    I have actually met someone who intends voting Naw, mainly because he wants to KEEP Trident and it’s replacement. It gives us clout, you see. Funny thing is, he goes bright red when making such statements. He is also a student who intends returning to England after he graduates, so perhaps he is embarrassed that he expects us to keep them here.

    I bet he gets a job in Whitehall. 🙂

  41. msean says:

    A dangerous and pointless object parked near to Scotlands’ biggest city. That is madness,get rid of it.

  42. Illy says:

    “Is it a fact that the US government and not the UK government Hold the activation codes?”

    I thought so, but we had someone on here a while back who said that the individual captains are capable of launching independantly of any central authority (which does make sense for second-strike capability).

    It probably started with someone misrepresenting this: “President Obama handed over the unique serial numbers of the UK’s missiles to the Russians”

  43. Dcanmore says:

    That’s strange my comment has disappeared while trying to submit it.

  44. Clootie says:

    stranger says:
    28 July, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    “small battlefield nukes” It seems quite cosy put like that!

    Families (woman and children)/ nearby villages fallout drift onto other countries. We missed a opportunity 😛

    you must be a troll surely!

  45. X_Sticks says:

    Thanks Scott. The truth behind what we already knew instinctively.

    Trident is just a nuclear fig-leaf for westminster and the MoD so they can pretend to be one of the ‘big boys’.

    I have wanted Trident (and previously Polaris) out of my country since the late 60s. Lost count of the number of CND marches I went on. Membership recently renewed as part of the referendum campaign.

    IF there is a No vote (not worth contemplating) we should make the removal of Trident a focus point of the ongoing campaign.

  46. msean says:

    I always thought the uk would not be in total control of these weapons,like why would you sell such technology to anyone without retaining some sort of disarming code or something to cover any eventuality.

  47. James Westland says:

    there was an interesting and terrifying docu-drama done in the 80s called “Threads” which shows the effects of nuclear war, mainly on the citizens of Sheffield. It looks REALLY dated now but no less scary. Worth a look. Whole thing appears to be on YouTube. Heres the attack scene:

    Thing that makes “Threads” so scary is the down to earth visceral nature of the movie. Ordinary people, no super-heroes, no 7th Cavalry to the rescue. Just hell.

  48. McHaggis says:

    Sorry, but I think huge chunks of this piece are disingenuous.

    Many of the scenarios used in illustration are based on an extremely unlikely exclusive UK/Russia war or standoff. Trident is part of a much larger system and is carried by multiple countries of which the UK is just one piece.

    I agree 100% with the sentiment that the ‘whole’ would not suffer (much) by losing the UK ‘piece’, but this could have been expressed simply in those terms, not by using some contrived and unrealistic scenarios which isolate the UK position.

    I’d rather we got rid of Trident on the basis its an abhorrent weapon of mass destruction that should simply be banned, rather than ‘sorry, its actually a little bit useless’ i.e. the moral argument should trump any suggestion that we dump it cos its no good.

    Clearly, this piece suggests that if we can actually hold MORE of these types of weapons with a capability to completely annihilate a country the size and population of Russia, it would be a valid argument for keeping them!

    Sorry, Scott – your contribution to the cause is nearly always superb. This time, not so much :0(

  49. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Trident is a Willy waving exercise.

    It is their only argument for a seat on the UN Security Council, plus it guarantees photo ops with the US President and a hurl in Air Force 1.

    No wonder it was 3 days of trying before Putin accepted a telephone call from Cameron after the Malaysian Airlines destruction.

    I guess that Putin considers a canine bellend.

  50. Bugger (the Panda) says:


  51. Bugger (the Panda) says:


  52. Defo says:

    Those oligarch’s who effectively control Russia, under Putins patronage of course, are the Enemy that justifies the current threat to us that requires Trident ?
    Same guys who have bought up half of Londons posher residences, and send their kids to the best UKOK public schools ? Meh !
    One of the main drivers of the renewal going ahead, is it’s a means of stealing taxpayers money, to fund the lifestyles of those who gain the contracts, and eventually a nice wee Non-exec directorship or two for their enablers in power today, in return for favours given.


    Maybe it’s ISIS, their creation, that they should be more worried about.

  53. O/T
    Scotland going for gold in mens pairs bowling and BBC decide to stop coverage and switch to England playing hockey other side England playing squash other side England playing table tennis . They just seem not to give a flying F about the host nation.

  54. Is Drumchapel still a part of Glasgow ?

    Because Drumchapel is less than 20 miles from Faslane.

    We seem to be all too willing to accept this MYTH that Faslane is 50 MILES from Glasgow.

    Perpetuated by MSM,BBC etc for unionist propaganda.

    The historic Hiroshima bomb would “VAPOURISE” everything from Faslane to Grangemouth.

    Trident warhead (one) is umpteen times that power.

  55. Lesley-Anne says:

    I think I’d describe Cameron’s Tonka toy submarines as Britain attempting to whistle in the wind!

  56. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:


    The Hiroshima Bomb (Little Boy) was 15kt and had a destructive RADIUS from detonation of 1.9 miles for Thermal and about 1.6 miles for air blast.

    The russians have ICBMs with 25,000kt bombs… hit Faslane with one of those and even Stirling burns.

  57. Dcanmore says:

    @WantonWampum …

    Yeah it’s 50 miles by road, but only 20 miles as the crow flies. Half-truths again.

  58. Defo says:

    He discounted the simple For/Against arguement at the start of the piece.
    What’s here is an exercise in logic, on the stand alone capability really.
    And it makes pretty good sense to me.
    To me, MAD was the doctrine we were fed, to keep us sane throughout the cold war. It gave a twisted sort of reassurance.
    It WAS, and IS the elites bargaining tool to get us to fund the only realistic strategy listed above.
    1 & 2 can be discounted really, if it’s big boys your playing with.

  59. NewportDee says:

    Superb analysis which rarely gets an airing in the mainstream media. When I was involved with CND in the 1980s we knew that the British government had to drop their idea of going for the Trident C4 missiles when the American’s decided to upgrade to the more powerful and more accurate Trident D5 missile. So we didn’t have an independent choice on what missile to use.

    Secondly it was reported that the firing of the missiles depended upon targeting information from America, so that without the Americans providing this info we could not successfully use the missiles. Do you know if this is still the case?

  60. BigRik says:

    It’s just the UK gov wanting a big hat, because , otherwise they would have to admit they can’t fight. Too many public schoolboys still salivating for an empire. Surely there is somewhere in the Thames estuary it could go… oh wait , too close to a population centre , stick it next to Glasgow….. Bungholes.

  61. Lesley-Anne says:

    As with the previous thread I have spread the word about this over on Twitter. Between both articles we should be able to do some serious s***e stirring. 😀

  62. Robert Louis says:

    I saw Tommy Sheridan make a very good point about trident at one of his talks. He recounted seeing people in the street with collecting cans trying to raise fund for a scanner at Yorkhill. He said, wouldn’t it be better, if the hospital recieved enough money for the scanner, and those pople who want trident had to go out on the streets to raise money from the public for Trident.

    The point is, it is about priorities. Is a redundant, dangerous status symbol costing billions really more important than childrens healthcare?? London seems to think so.

    This is why independence is so important, not least because of the constant threat to most of central Scotland 24/7 from these cursed nuclear bombs just outside Glasgow. There really is no reason to have those stupid missiles in Scotland at all. If they are so damn safe, when Scotland becomes independent, they can berth them on the Thames – preferably just next to the Palace of Westmidden.

  63. Giving Goose says:

    Trident is just a big comfort blanket for those in the British Establishment who have trouble coming to terms with the fact that the current UK is just a small country on the western edge of Europe.

    Actually, there is nothing wrong in being a small European country, but if you are a small European country that used to have a world empire, then that is where the problems begin.

    The problem with Establishment thinking is that it is to embedded in a militaristic past. Things would be fine if the UK were to reset it’s expectations and decided to become a socially just, fair, well balanced economy that could serve as a beacon to others in this world. But that’s to difficult; well it’s difficult if you are a selfish, misogynistic, buffoon, with no political imagination, which sums up all the three main Westminster parties.

    The supreme irony of supporting Trident (probably the ultimate statement of militarism) is that it demonstrates the willingness to utterly betray the mainstream military. Ever wondered why historic army regiments have gone to the wall? Wondered why the Royal Navy can hold a regatta on a fish pond because it has so few ships? Ever looked at the sky and noticed that you just don’t see as many air force jets as you once used to? Why are so many service personnel thrown on the dole heap?

    The answer is “because of Trident” and those who support it are betraying the very armed forces that they would claim to support.

  64. stranger says:

    My point in taking about what an effective nuclear weapon system would be is that it could be an effective argument for a certain type of no voter.
    Scotland’s culture is militaristic – I have to really concentrate not to tell my boy that he’s a brave little soldier when hurt. So I reckon that the argument that trident takes money away from real soldiers, navy, air force etc would be a winning argument for our militaristic culture.

  65. Truth says:

    I remember a conversation a couple of years ago in England with some colleagues.

    I asked if you were in charge and learned that Russia (or any other country for that matter) had launched nuclear missiles at us, what would you do?

    To a man they all said launch our missiles at them.

    When I stated I would do nothing, they were flabbergasted. When I asked why should millions more innocent people die because of the stupidity of their leaders? Their response was something like, but we are going to die!

    Let’s just say there are a lot of people who should never really be given any great responsibility.

  66. Madir Mabbott says:


    Wouldn’t a first strike scenario be planned for ahead of time and deploy all 4 submarines in action simultaneously, so increasing the capability to 160 warheads? In fact, faced with the appalling scenario of impending nuclear war wouldn’t we say – “To hell with treaties” and arm to maximum capacity of all 192 warheads.

    So the practical consideration would be the (perhaps secret) matter of how many functional warheads the UK actually has in its stockpile.

  67. desimond says:

    Vote Yes, choose to get rid of Trident and just imagine the phone calls ringing into 10 Downing Street from angry US defence companies.

    These calls will be flying in while people like Jim Murphy and Anas Sarwar wonder just where their next Arms Deal Jolly Boys Outing is going to come from.

    Lets stop and get off the ride.

  68. X_Sticks says:

    Sorry O/T

    It has come to my attention that the MoD are trying to rent a flat owned by a friend for a six month period to start ASAP. The flat is just across the Clyde from PQ.

    It may be completely innocent, but if anyone else knows of similar happening in that area, or anywhere else for that matter then make it known.

    It just strikes me as a bit suspicious given that, apart from the recruitment office in Queen St, I don’t know of any MoD offices/installations anywhere near this area. Why would they be looking for properties to rent at this point in time?

  69. JWil says:

    The article makes N Korea, Israel and Iran’s attempts at being nuclear states look feeble.

    Ref: the Games. If it wasn’t before, it is now obvious where Scotland’s share of the BBC licence fee goes, viz., paying the salaries of all these London based presenters who have been jetted in to give the games their seal of approval.

    They obviously have been primed on what to say and to have a condescending approach to Glasgow and Scotland, (it’s a small price to pay for the reward of retraining Scotland in the UK).

  70. Robert Louis says:

    Giving goose,

    You make an important point regarding empire. It is this past, where Westminster effectively ran large parts of the world, which is the crux of their problems. There is a serious lack of recognition amongst the British Establishment, that the world has changed, their is NO empire, and really the UK is as you say, a small country on the edge of Europe.

    With indeopendence, Scotland has a chance to free itself of this baggage, and make choices appropriate for our own country, instead of still pretending, as people Like William Hague and David Cameron do, that somehow when they speak, the whole world listens. This I believe is at the heart of Westminster’s problems with the EU as well – they still haven’t grasped the reality of Europes, that the UK is just A.N.Other country, which has through its arrogance made an awful lot of enemies on its doorstep.

    Independence will set Scotland free from all of this, where hoefully pragmatism, free from Westminsters silly macho posturing, and ‘punching above our weight’ dellusory attitude, good coherent defence strategies will be formulated to meet the real needs of Scotland.

    It really is time Westminster and the ‘British Establishment’ sniffed the coffee and woke up to itself. Maybe the YES vote on Sept 19th will do the trick.

  71. packhorse pete says:

    @Scott Minto
    “Scotland going for gold in mens pairs bowling and BBC decide to stop coverage and switch to England playing hockey other side England playing squash other side England playing table tennis .They just seem not to give a flying F about the host nation.”
    Absolute disgrace. I’ve already complained on their official website about the appalling coverage generally and everyone should do the same, even if it seems futile. At least it’ll clog up their systems if you ask for a reply.
    BBC Scotland-such as it is-has been completely submerged in the coverage and they seem quite content with that state of affairs.

  72. Robert Louis says:


    Re MOD at Pacific Quay, a bit of info.

    It is widely rumoured (although I do NOT know for sure) that the base of MI5 in Scotland is the criminal records office, which is the office block between STV and the BBC (how convenient) on pacific Quay. I recall reading this in the Scotsman (of all places).

    NB in London, MI5 make their office address public, but refuse to reveal their base address in Scotland. Obviously don’t trust us Scots.

  73. Robert Louis says:

    Packhorse pete,

    Aye, Scotland was about to win gold, and they just stopped coverage, so they could show England play Australia at Hockey. Right in the middle of play, no warning given at all. And, as far as I know, the hockey match isn’t even a medal game. The Bowls are not on any other channel, but might have moved online, FFS!!!!

    No ther country in the world would ever put up with this rubbish. The BBC can go swivel.

    Sick and utterly fed up with the English people of the BBC, jetted up here, who seem to have taken over now at Pacific Quay.

    Absolutely raging about it. The sooner the whole lot of them F off, the better. And they can take their ‘home nations’ ‘team GB’ ‘mcleeeen’ and ‘lake’ crap with them.

  74. Lesley-Anne says:

    Madir Mabbott says:


    Wouldn’t a first strike scenario be planned for ahead of time and deploy all 4 submarines in action simultaneously, so increasing the capability to 160 warheads? In fact, faced with the appalling scenario of impending nuclear war wouldn’t we say – “To hell with treaties” and arm to maximum capacity of all 192 warheads.

    So the practical consideration would be the (perhaps secret) matter of how many functional warheads the UK actually has in its stockpile.

    That would appear to be a logical assumption to make Madir, however there is one wee itsy bitsy little problem with this scenario. As you’ll recall from the article there is only one nuke TRonka toy sub at sea at any one time, the other three Tonka toys are tied up in Faslans for training, repair etc. If Cameron were so stupid to set all FOUR Tonka subs out to sea at once I think you’d find that even before they all got to their allocated firing positions the U.K., and particularly Scotland (Faslane and Coulport) would have been annihilated. As Scott points out in this excellent piece we (Broken Britain) only have four Tonka subs carrying WMD’s the Russians on the other hand have WMD’s on submarines, in aircraft, in missile silos AND on mobile launchers. The second that Russia spots all four Tonka subs missing from Faslane what do you think they are going to do?

    What Russia will NOT do is just sit around and do nothing. They will put ALL of their WMD classes on full alert and the second a missile launch is detected all hell will break lose. Broken Britain, and particularly Glasgow, will be no more. Most of this will happen before even the first of Broken Britain’s first WMD has struck Russia!

  75. James A says:

    I disagree McHaggis though I can see the fundamental and morally sound point you are making. However, Britain’s Trident programme is billed as an ‘independent’ system. What this piece does – quite brilliantly actually – is to demonstrate on the MOD’s OWN terms that the military strategy does not support the business case for the programme. And, no, the UK is quite explicitly on a reduced programme course; not due to disarmament commitments but due to cost (we can’t afford to renew what we have!). Quite clearly the more arms you have at your disposal the more havoc you can wreak. However, for the UK to have a MILITARISTICALLY viable programme the stockpile and delivery mechanisms would need to be increased exponentially. The recent cross-party commission report on Trident renewal was a complete fudge on all these issues with one of the weakest business cases for spending £100bn on something unusable you’ll ever read. It includes such gems as (a) declaring the system non-first strike (retaliation only – we’ll all be dead so what’s the point??); (b) a useless £100bn bargaining chip if blackmailed by an unknown foreign power but not against that power using other weapons against us such as chemical or biological systems…though both threats could technically be delivered using a nuclear-supported system so not sure if the Establishment reporters figured on that anomaly (the spectre of Russia was once again floated in this report…Cold War II anyone?…one can’t help but feel our recent new-found morality re Eastern Ukraine helps them add to the case for Trident renewal); (c) if the Americans withdraw support for Britain’s ‘independent’ Trident programme it would be gone in a matter of months anyway!! Can we please put them out there bloody misery on this and vote Yes!!

  76. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:

    @Lesley-Anne and @James A

    You both saved me considerable writng there.

    Lesley is right about the boats. If the UK tries to launch more than one then Russia would know whats up.

    The boats have to fo from Faslane then sail up to Coulport to be loaded. More than 1 boat would be spotted doing this before they were even carrying nuclear weapons.

    As for the morality of Trident, I didnt take a stand (clearly they are abhorant). The article is on their viability on the UKs OWN terms, and they arent.

    However there will be no upsurge in nuclear stockpiles, not just due to price, but due to the START treaty that the US and Russia are signed up to.

    The UK will not be allowed to increase capacity, and given that the missiles are American they wont have any option but to agree.

  77. Lesley-Anne says:

    I’m curious. Where are Cochrane’s Texas students and professor hiding these days? 😉

    These students have witnessed so little public debate, REALLY? 😉

    Is Alan Cochrane actually certain he spoke to them face to face cause from where I’m sitting you can’t move for public debates! Is this Mr Cochrane doing his usual *ahem* stretching the TRUTH to beyond credibility here? 😛

    This man, Cochrane not Stu, is a complete incompetent Muppet. All he sees is his own little patch of “Little Engerland.” He will do, write or say anything to preserve his patch of “Little Engerland.” What a shame cause an independent Scotland has so much MORE to offer than his “Little Engerland.” 😀

  78. Lesley-Anne says:


    Spot the dunderheid.

    Right post … WRONG thread! DOH! 😀

  79. Dcanmore says:

    Hilarious to watch this again, pretty much says it all for Britain nuclear ‘deterrent’ …

  80. Dcanmore says:

    … meant to say it’s from Yes Prime Minister 🙂

  81. Lesley-Anne says:

    Brilliant Dcanmore! 😀

    How on earth did you manage to smuggle these tapes out of David Cameron’s defence meetings? 😛

  82. On the “Antiques Roadshow” some years ago, a man produced a small porcelain rice bowl that his father had picked out of the rubble and chaos in 1945 following the destruction of Hroshima.

    This small porcelain rice bowl was a mess and there were bubbles in the white Glaze.

    The expert (sorry, I forget his name) then explained that,to bubble the glaze, it required temperatures at 1,400 Degrees Celsius to melt and bubble porcelain.

    Humans have all the air sucked out of their lungs in a millisecond and they cook, bubble and blister from the inside-out.

    Extremities, like nose,ears, fingers, feet are vapourised by the blast-wave.

    ALL the muscles, even facial muscles – severely contract and produces the hideous malformed poses seen in history.

    This is the most graphic grotesque and gruesome illustration that stolidly confirmed my Opposition to Trident or NEW nuclear anywhere on Scottish soil.

    The AR Expert may have been Lars Tharp.

  83. Nigel says:

    It’s a folly when the conventional RN cannot protect Scottish waters and interests from unfriendly surface vessels as has been demonstrated in the outer Moray firth in the not distant past!

    Sadly, I come across voters who will vote no because they think Scotland cannot protect itself. I’s not protected anyway. They also see Trident as important when clearly it is not. They should read the Rev’s excellent analysis of the situation. Time to dump Trident…build a few more frigates and destroyers instead to better protect our waters. Roll on Sept 18th…

  84. Papadox says:

    @nigel 5:11pm

    For the well informed no voters, I would like to know who other than rUK has made any threats to Scotland in the last 307 years or who other than London has any ill feeling towards Scotland. The obvious exception was Adolph, who I don’t think singled us out.

    So other than bogey men who is it the no Sayers are feart of. Could it be Alixsaminn the anti Christ.

    Faslane of course is the only target of any significance in Scotland so we get rid of that and hay presto the fearties can vote Yes. job done.

    It couldn’t be the oil because London steals that and for by that is nearly run oot. S the big fealty no voters will just nead to keep taking the pills and London will keep taking the oil. That just leaves faslane tae worry aboot. Aye their richt smart these nosers.

  85. Croompenstein says:

    I cannot understand the proud scot buts and naysayers who won’t face up to this abomination. One naysayer said to me ‘these weapons have kept the peace for 70 years’ WTF! and when did the Taliban acquire ICBM’s and even if they did why would they want to bomb Scotland? Also why is Russia the bogeyman when it comes to nuclear weapons, why would Russia want to invade Scotland? I just don’t get it!

  86. geeo says:

    I do not even think it is about the willy waving.

    I bet you could trace an awful lot of these rich politicians to contractors for these “vanity” projects

  87. Taranaich says:

    According to a US diplomatic telegram released by WikiLeaks, President Obama handed over the unique serial numbers of the UK’s missiles to the Russians as part of an arms reduction deal, despite the strong objections by the UK Government. As a result the Russians now know exactly what the UK has and what it can do.

    I can’t get over this line.

    I’m anti-nuclear as a matter of course, but the idea that the UK has no power to veto the US president revealing the UK missiles’ unique serial numbers to RUSSIA just shows what a farce this whole “clout” thing is. The UK has such “clout” that the US can do whatever the hell it likes despite the UK’s “strong objections.” Just like how the missiles ended up in Faslane (and Polaris in the Holy Loch) in the first place: Eisenhower wanted his troops close to a city for some R&R, so MacMillan just rolled over and complied like a good little lapdog.

    With that in mind, Trident is a monument not to the UK’s might, but to its impotence.

  88. Robert Peffers says:

    @Robert Louis says: 28 July, 2014 at 3:12 pm:

    “Aye, Scotland was about to win gold, and they just stopped coverage, so they could show England play Australia at Hockey.”

    Well, Robert Louis, let me put it this way – For many, many years now the people of Scotland have put up with watching live foreign football on their TVs and live commentary of foreign football on their radios but nothing from Scots games.

    Why should the BBC not continue with what they know the Scots will suffer in silence?

    Same with WMDS. Stick it in Scotland for the Scots will do nothing about it and their MPs will do as they are told BY WESTMINSTER .

  89. Robert Peffers says:

    @geeo says:28 July, 2014 at 6:18 pm

    “I bet you could trace an awful lot of these rich politicians to contractors for these “vanity” projects.”

    Here’s a wee, seemingly unconnected, true story for you. geeo.

    When the UK government decided to privatise Rosyth Dockyard we discovered that one of the main companies bidding for the work had Dennis Thatcher on the Board. Later when we were given details of the private company that was taking over our works pensions from the MOD was also one of Dennis Thatchers companies.

    What else did you think was behind Westminsters privatiseation of everything in sight? There’s a current list floating about the net with the names of MPs, MEPs, MSPs and Lords and their family members with financial interests in private health care companies.

  90. Tam Jardine says:

    Getting rid of this abomination is a huge reason for me voting Yes – I would go further and say that there are worse ways to categorise people (if we must) than their support or opposition to trident. The idea that my tax will be used to renew this weapons system if my country rejects it’s own autonomy in September just blows my mind.

    Great article – heartening to hear that the actual number of jobs involved is not so high. The Yes campaign have so far failed to convince the people that there will be a net gain of jobs when the Scottish Armed Forces are based there but there is time.

    Some billboards asking what we would rather build: son of trident on one side and x schools, y hospitals and what have you would help. It is one of our strongest cards and is not played enough.

    Great article that will hopefully become completely irrelevant very soon.

  91. iain taylor (not that one) says:

    Thanks Scott. Brought back fond memories of my uni days studying MAD etc. How to get an hons degree in Madness.

    Excellent preparation for the real world.

  92. Liquidlenny says:

    Re acoustic signatures thats why the russians had trawlers deployed off the mull of kintyre for decades to try and get the signatures.
    povlem they had is that the tridents have variable pitch probs so they change the pitch when heading for the patrol area.

  93. John Walsh says:

    So one “Nuke bomb” of any type from Russia or China or Korea on Faslane and Glasgow and half the population of Scotland are Phuqued ? Time to rid ourselves of this obscene chest thumping weapon as my mate says “as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike” But one little pen and an X gets rid of it from all the UK . Oh and for all the jingoistic twats that say but they will bomb us just ask the Germans they don’t have one .

  94. David Agnew says:

    It’s not just a chocolate tea pot, its a pair of socks the UK has been shoving down the front of its Y-fronts, so it can pretend its one of the big boys. Its just embarrassing that we have to lease these socks from the US. Now even the yanks are a little uncomfortable with the idea. Russia I don’t think has been fooled for one minute.

  95. crazycat says:

    @ X_Sticks at 2.49pm

    Don’t the MoD still own/use Kentigern House in Brown Street (I once took part in a protest trying to encircle it)? It isn’t directly opposite PQ, or even right on the Clyde, but it wouldn’t necessarily be too odd if they tried to get accommodation within walking distance of it.

  96. North chiel says:

    Great comment from Tam Jardine ” the idea that my tax will
    Be used to renew this weapons system if MY COUNTRY rejects
    It’s own autonomy in September, just blows my mind”

  97. arranc says:

    I live in central belt been fighting to get rid off polaris now trident since 1959

  98. Very well researched article. At a cost to Scotland of £456,575 A DAY it is an absurd waste of supposedly scarce resources.

  99. Forgot to thank Scott Minto for his illuminating insight on Nuclear Weaponry.

    I always concentrated on Trident,Faslane and Coulport, blindly ignoring the threat posed by other nations.

    To discover that UK`s Nuclear Arsenal is the equivalent to flinging bools (marbles) at a tank, makes WMD`s totally irrelevent.

    The absurd estimate promulgated by Westminster of £100 billion is negated by history – when every previous guess was OUT by factors of FOUR or more.

    We must remember that the thousands who join WoS every day have been spoon-fed Westminster propaganda for years – but this website may remove the blindfolds.

    MSM,BBC,STV etc keep us blind to these truths.

    In Scotland, Truth has been a blind orphan.

  100. Dr Ew says:

    Superb piece, Scott, which unlike Trident hits its target with sublime precision.

    The moral position for nuclear weapons has always been as near to zero that it no-one has even tried to make it for at least thirty years, so the case for has always been presented to the public as a “sensible”, “measured” and “robust” military strategy. In other words, the entire argument rests on its efficacy and deterrence value. Your excellent article, Scott, is such a clear distillation of the relevant information that it demolishes any lingering military argument.

    Only one leg of the argument remains: the Political. You know how it goes – ‘Trident allows us to punch above our weight’ and ‘Our independent nuclear deterrent assures our place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council’, etc, etc.

    Britain’s nuclear programme has been nothing more than a vanity project probably from the very outset and without question since the 1970s. I’ve always been of the opinion it was at least as much about intimidating our own people as anyone else; certainly it has been a deeply corrosive and fundamentally corrupting force in the relationship between State and people. YES is about calling their bluff on this and so many other issues, taking on the paper tiger that only frightens so long as you don’t look it in the eye.

    YES is not only looking the British State in the eye, we’re staring them down.

    Thanks for this, Scott. It helps.

  101. Paula says:

    What’s the Russian for “Ooo… like we’re dead scared”? Trident has always been a white elephant, that would not make much difference to an international nuclear war at all. The UK (England anyway) is so densely populated, that they would not need many bombs to wipe out the majority of the people. I

    n reality (and this is something that UKOK would never mention LOL) is that the UK’s best chance of not being a smoldering crater in the highly unlikely chance of a nuclear war, would be to surrender as quickly as possible. Better dead than red? Fuck that, I want to live.

  102. derek mair says:

    Here’s a wee article I did on this last year….I grew up with all this stuff as a child in Rosneath…..

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top