Would Scottish Independence Mean the End of UK's Nuclear Arsenal? 375
Lasrick writes The referendum on Scottish independence on September 18th affects more than just residents of the United Kingdom. All of the UK's nuclear deterrent is located in Scotland, and Alex Salmond and the Scottish government have pledged to safely remove and permanently ban nuclear weapons from Scottish territory within the first term of a newly independent parliament.
Re:No. It would not. (Score:5, Funny)
It is still early in the day.
Re:Hope So (Score:2, Funny)
I hope it does mean the end of the weapons of mass destruction we have north of Glasgow
You're going to close the pubs in Glasgow?
Re:One solution (Score:4, Funny)
I guess we would have to detonate them all the second Scotland declares independence ;)
Silence, AC! Omega Override: Exigent Haggis is a heavily classified program. You can't discuss those sorts of security matters in a public forum.
Re:One solution (Score:4, Funny)
Call the unexploded scotsman disposal squad?
Re:No. It would not. (Score:5, Funny)
England still will have a very long coastline
According to Benoit Mandelbrot [wikipedia.org], the coastline is infinitely long indeed.
Speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Defence (Score:5, Funny)
I am delighted to confirm that we have made plans to resite our Nuclear Deterrent. After much consultation and with the agreement of the Legislative Assembly, I am pleased to announce that in the event of a Referendum "yes" vote, the UK will be breaking ground on a new facility in the Falkland Islands.
This is an immensely popular decision that has the full support of all our inhabitants, stated the Chief Executive of the Legislative Assembly.
On hearing this announcement Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, President of Argentina, wept before exploding into flames.
Re:Here's the interesting paragraph (Score:5, Funny)
"Nukes are, well, the nuclear option, so they are of little use except in extreme circumstances..."
Very true. To clarify matters, we might ask ourselves: against which nations are the UK's thermonuclear weapons potentially useful today? (I hope no one is going to suggest that they frighten ISIS, for example).
Russia? If so, why? Russia's interests do not clash with the UK's anywhere on earth - quite the contrary, it is in our best interests to live in peace with the Russians. Whereas we lived in fear (rightly or wrongly) of the USSR invading Western Europe, Mr Putin has shown supernatural restraint in not even invading Ukraine after 750,000 of its citizens fled to Russia for safety. As for Georgia, he was "in and out quickly", as the saying goes.
China? Likewise, only if possible even more so. The Chinese are quite extraordinarily pacific (especially compared to other superpowers that shall be nameless), and what's more they are very nearly on the far side of the world.
India or Pakistan? I don't see it. They're not quite so peaceable, but they have no quarrel with us, and we should make sure that remains the case.
Israel? Not really - they would probably get in a first strike, and they have far more missiles and warheads.
And as for France, that's just childish. We should be content just to go on annoying them.
Re: No. It would not. (Score:3, Funny)
He obviously hadn't heard of Max Planck.
Re:Actually, it does ! (Score:5, Funny)
Wae Don' needa nae Nukies! Wae gots... HAGGIS!
Re:No. It would not. (Score:5, Funny)
Most of us still haven't had our plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
Re:Actually, it does ! (Score:4, Funny)
Wae Don' needa nae Nukies! Wae gots... HAGGIS!
It's actually quite impressive that you didn't even say anything out loud, yet still managed to convincingly give the impression of the least-convincing Scots accent *ever*. :-)
Och aye 'n fock off the noo!