Trident nuclear deterrent renewal.

[LondonTom]

Someone has to be the first to get rid of Nukes, so why not us? I just don't see how as a nation we can dictate any morals or say to other nations that they can't have nukes while we have submarines floating around ready to attack with nukes at a moments notice.

Also realistically if we stopped getting involved in overseas disputes, I very much doubt any of the "other major" nations would have any reason to attack what is essentially a tiny Island nation with fairly limited oil reserves.

Edited May 7, 2014 by LondonTom

[eFestivals]

Shitloads of shale gas though!

It's good to see that all propaganda works on you, not just the war-mongering stuff.

[russycarps]

so why not us?

[eFestivals]

So we don't have shale gas ?

No one knows.

Do you think we do? If you do, you know more than the people drilling for shale gas.

[Guest]

I think the views represented here would be broadly typical around the nation and, as Russy says, a referendum would be a resounding "no" to trident.

[eFestivals]

Well you are wrong there. We 100% have shale gas. The question marks are over how accessible it is etc...

We have fart gas too. Shall we discuss how likely the UK is to invaded on that nothing as well?

Don't be an arse just because you've already been an arse, by talking out of it, eh?

[eFestivals]

It would seem most people still want a nuclear option...

And that's because....?

As you've shown us today, propaganda works.

[Spindles]

at least we have a consensus....

[kaosmark2]

They're really REALLY not!!!!

Read a bit of Russian history, and you'll find the reality is a VERY lot different to what the propaganda would like you to believe.

The Russian reality doesn't fall well onto the likes of Ukraine, but that's not about Russia being "expansionist". It's about the same as many in the UK will feel about Scotland if it votes for indy, with an added 30M+ deaths in the mix.

[eFestivals]

I wasn't talking historically, I was talking about the last 10 years where they've invaded 3 countries.

that's not "expansionism" in the more-normal sense tho.

These places are 'traditional' Russian lands, and particularly to the west of Russia there's a lot of justified worries from history.

I'm not trying to excuse Russia's doings, but it is important that the context is properly understood. It's not like because they've regained the Crimea they're going to keep rolling west-wards. That's not what it's about.

Just think about how wrong some people will think it if Scotland gains independence. To some people it will always be British, and the cross-cultural flows will help sustain a semblance of that for long into the future. That's pretty much Russia today, tho of course with different countries - often countries that have never been sovereign countries or countries that haven't been sovereign for centuries, or countries that only briefly had sovereignty; only recently have these been separate from Russia.

And then there's the added complication that 'russification' of those places is causing.

It's not anything that's going to go away soon, but it's not the normal expansionism.

[kaosmark2]

that's not "expansionism" in the more-normal sense tho.

These places are 'traditional' Russian lands, and particularly to the west of Russia there's a lot of justified worries from history.

I'm not trying to excuse Russia's doings, but it is important that the context is properly understood. It's not like because they've regained the Crimea they're going to keep rolling west-wards. That's not what it's about.

Just think about how wrong some people will think it if Scotland gains independence. To some people it will always be British, and the cross-cultural flows will help sustain a semblance of that for long into the future. That's pretty much Russia today, tho of course with different countries - often countries that have never been sovereign countries or countries that haven't been sovereign for centuries, or countries that only briefly had sovereignty; only recently have these been separate from Russia.

And then there's the added complication that 'russification' of those places is causing.

It's not anything that's going to go away soon, but it's not the normal expansionism.

[eFestivals]

Finland? Finland gets invaded by Russia every dozen years or so.

well, apart from the last 70 years when it's not happened at all.

And how did Finland become Finland? Stalin freely granted it its independence in around 1920 (before he was Russia's leader, in Lenin's time).

Finland, like those other countries, is a part of 'historic' or 'traditional' Russia. Like much of that traditional area, it has at points got taken over by Russia's enemies and used to launch attacks into Russia proper.

To the cost of tens of millions of lives.

If Scotland had been used in modern times to attack England, and those attacks had resulted in a massive proportion of the English population being killed - including total wipe-out in huge areas of the north of England - how do you think the English might feel about Scotland and the thought of Scottish independence?

What Russia is doing to its neighbours is wrong, but it's still something very different to what western propaganda would like you to believe.

Edited May 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

America has had nuclear weaponry on the russian border for decades. As soon as russia put nuclear weapons in cuba, america were fully prepared to start a nuclear war, but for the courage of khrushchev.

Cuba had a sovereign right to accept the missiles, just as poland, turkey et al do.

Edited May 8, 2014 by russycarps

[kaosmark2]

America has had nuclear weaponry on the russian border for decades. As soon as russia put nuclear weapons in cuba, america were fully prepared to start a nuclear war, but for the courage of khrushchev.

Cuba had a sovereign right to accept the missiles, just as poland, turkey et al do.

[nigelreocoker]

Are these traditional Russian states traditional as in the sense they were a part of the expansionist Russian Empire

I don't agree with Nuclear Weapons, or any nations requirements for them. But equally, sort of, understand the fact that if one nation still has them, another nation requires them to act as a counter balance.

[eFestivals]

Are these traditional Russian states traditional as in the sense they were a part of the expansionist Russian Empire

lol - well, yeah. All empires have to expand to become empires. England/The UK was expansionists for centuries, and some might say it still is. Is that different because we want to think of ourselves as the nice guys?

I believe it's also the case that Moscow expanded into being Russia, and a chunk of south east England into becoming the UK.

Because of Russia's history of attack from the west, they have a liking for a buffer area, where any battles can take place without much impact on 'the motherland'. A bit like how the UK has liked to kick off its own wars before they're happening on the land-mass of Britain.

If, say, there was a rise of the radical right again in Germany, then it's likely that the UK would start to consider what impact that might have on the UK - even perhaps to the point of us thinking another war might be coming. Likewise, any change in the states around Russia from the traditional links of those areas towards Russia has Russia considering what the consequences might be back on Russia.

Thankfully Europe has mostly given up the old 18/19th century 'balance of power' power games, but there's still remnants that remain, and there's still well-founded fears that remain. While it would be better if these disappeared today they won't do; it will take time for these to fade away.

Pushing change along faster than people are ready to accept it normally has reactionary consequences. That's the way of the world.

I don't agree with Nuclear Weapons, or any nations requirements for them. But equally, sort of, understand the fact that if one nation still has them, another nation requires them to act as a counter balance.

That actually only works if you're playing the face-off game.

Spain has no nukes, France does. So how come Spain doesn't feel it needs a nuke counterbalance to France, and doesn't feel under threat at all?

Nukes are about exerting power over others, and not about any justified exertion of power over others. Only the power crazy want or need them.

Edited May 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

lol - well, yeah. All empires have to expand to become empires. England/The UK was expansionists for centuries, and some might say it still is. Is that different because we want to think of ourselves as the nice guys?

I believe it's also the case that Moscow expanded into being Russia, and a chunk of south east England into becoming the UK.

Because of Russia's history of attack from the west, they have a liking for a buffer area, where any battles can take place without much impact on 'the motherland'. A bit like how the UK has liked to kick off its own wars before they're happening on the land-mass of Britain.

If, say, there was a rise of the radical right again in Germany, then it's likely that the UK would start to consider what impact that might have on the UK - even perhaps to the point of us thinking another war might be coming. Likewise, any change in the states around Russia from the traditional links of those areas towards Russia has Russia considering what the consequences might be back on Russia.

Thankfully Europe has mostly given up the old 18/19th century 'balance of power' power games, but there's still remnants that remain, and there's still well-founded fears that remain. While it would be better if these disappeared today they won't do; it will take time for these to fade away.

Pushing change along faster than people are ready to accept it normally has reactionary consequences. That's the way of the world.

That actually only works if you're playing the face-off game.

Spain has no nukes, France does. So how come Spain doesn't feel it needs a nuke counterbalance to France, and doesn't feel under threat at all?

Nukes are about exerting power over others, and not about any justified exertion of power over others. Only the power crazy want or need them.

[eFestivals]

I think the difference is that the UK isn't trying to reclaim parts of our empire?

And nor is Russia, particularly. Rather, it's wanting to keep those states within its own sphere of influence.

And that's actually very little different to the UK govts attitudes towards Scotland right now - that it should remain within Westminster's influence just because Westminster says so, rather than on the basis of the better things that Westminster can offer compared to one or more alternatives that Scotland has. And if iScotland cosied up with (say) Russia and rUK felt threatened by that, rUK would start to think of further options, perhaps even military.

It's when those ex-USSR states start to slip outside of Russian influence that Russia starts thinking of other options for how they can remain in the Russian sphere.

Ultimately it's about the protection of Russian, and not about increasing the Russian land mass.

I'm not trying to suggest it's acceptable, but I am laying out the context to show it's a different thing to how you're viewing it.

[kaosmark2]

I'm viewing it mainly as them flexing their muscles to try and seem important.

[eFestivals]

I'm viewing it mainly as them flexing their muscles to try and seem important.

that's probably in the mix too, but it's about much more than displaying external power.

At its heart it's about ensuring Russia's protection from attack.

You need to remember just how much Russia has been devastated by past attacks - way beyond anything within the UK's experience.

Edited May 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[Bisque]

Russia aside, I'd much rather have the Royal Navy in charge of our nuclear arsenal than the air force.

I wonder what will happen to HMNB Faslane if the Scots decide to split.