BS: UK nuclear subs

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:22 PM

"as everything you say in your post would befall any nation or regime that threatened the UK."

It wouldn't befall a nation or regime, it would befall innocent people with no control over the situation. If you would contemplate killing on such a scale, regardless of provocation, where is your basic humanity? I don't doubt there are people who would comment such an atrocity, but I find the desire to inflict revenge in such an arbitrary and murderous way incomprehensible.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:11 PM

Do you do that "veracity check" before or after you post complete and utter codswallop Raggers? Applied to this thread it would appear that you only do your checking after the event of you going into print and making a complete and utter arse of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 11:42 AM

None, but like you claim to do, I question the veracity of such statements.

It's strange that you only want to believe some information, I try to question everything.

Still I'm not worried by our apparent dearth of Nuclear deterrent, when the MOD have you to fall back on in case of emergencies.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 11:30 AM

Well Stu at least you seem to realise that the point Raggytush was trying to make was a load of shit.

As for the rest - that is why having that one submarine at sea is such a good deterrent - as everything you say in your post would befall any nation or regime that threatened the UK.

Oh Raggy going back to your "nuclear deterrent submarines" - In that SKY News piece you linked to - What part of "the Vanguard Class of nuclear missile carrying submarines is unaffected" did you fail to understand?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:37 AM

"load all 16 tubes and that target list goes up to 192."

That should you choose to hit with your bombs (if they work, that is) would turn you into the single most genocidal, insane, murdering piece of human shite ever to draw breath in history, happy to inflict untold and immeasurable suffering on countless innocent human beings.

Now if you could even consider the idiocy of launching nuclear weapons, an act of futility beyond comprehension, what does that make you as a person, a human being?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 08:37 AM

Neither do I territowllin' nor do I believe everything the MOD puts out.

Nor do I have complete confidence in the operating systems of the submarines (which seems justified given how many are non operational) or the operating systems of the missile themselves.

However we can all sleep easy. No doubt the MOD will give you a call if they get stuck!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 08:12 AM

Raggytash - 13 Feb 17 - 07:07 AM

So we MAY have a one Vanguard Class submarine on patrol at sea.

Hmmm .............. I get a lovely image of top brass at the MOD choosing which targets to hit.

Enny Meeny Miny Moe ................. lovely !!


That's right Raggy with one boat on patrol they can play eeny, meeny, miny, moe to pick out at least 48 targets, and that is with only half the tubes loaded - load all 16 tubes and that target list goes up to 192.

"I just like the thought of you and your chums quaking in your beds because we has no nuclear deterrent." - Raggytush

Priceless Raggy - f**kin' priceless

Stick to orchids pal - you know S.F.A. about submarines.

And no Raggy unlike you I do not believe everything I read in the Press.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 07:54 AM

Anyway back to Orchids. Last year we rented a house at Claddaghduff, on the Aughrus Peninsula. Looking out of the window one morning I noticed a purple spike coming from the lawn. On closer inspection is turned out to be a Marsh Fragrant Orchid and then I noticed there was not just one but dozens of them strewn across the lawn.

In searching for a photograph I came across a wonderful blog site which details flowers and birds across Galway, Clare and Mayo.

When things are getting tedious I will share some of them with you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 07:31 AM

Stu:
This sentence is incoherent.
No, it appears coherent, and as such, is a paradox.

Perhaps you meant "The sentence above is incoherent."

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 07:07 AM

So we MAY have a one Vanguard Class submarine on patrol at sea.

Hmmm .............. I get a lovely image of top brass at the MOD choosing which targets to hit.

Enny Meeny Miny Moe ................. lovely !!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

It wasn't only Stu, take it from me. And your emphasis on the bigness of the big "IF" is actually an argument against four, not in favour.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM

"were expected to go to hotel lounges in the company of other ladies "
Missed this G.M.
I have a wonderful memory of our march to Holy Loch passing a roadside pub on a very warm day
The pub was quite long, with a a door at either end and those who fancied a bit of refreshment entered in the first one and, finding they didn't serve women, walking the length of the bar and out of the other, without buying a pint.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:19 AM

Frankly Terrikins I couldn't give a damn. I just like the thought of you and your chums quaking in your beds because we has no nuclear deterrent.

The article was written in the Telegraph, surely you believe them, the Daily Mail also covered it, don't you believe them?

It was even on Sky News that paragon of truth.

Sky News

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:01 AM

"This sentence is incoherent."

Only to you Stu, only to you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 05:59 AM

Not really Raggy

"Our nuclear deterrent submarines" - Wrong

Plain in even the earliest reports the submarines being talked about were our newest Astute-class boats but that still leaves the RN's Trafalgar-Class SSNs.

So c'mon Raggy explain to us all how laying out facts can in any way be described as "clutching at straws"

Best stick to your wild flowers and your diet.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 05:54 AM

"The Lib-Dems wanted to trim the SSBN Fleet to only three submarines, now IF and it is a very big IF indeed, reports are true regarding our SSNs happen to be true then there is no better argument for illustrating the need for four new SSBNs going."

This sentence is incoherent.



"We may need you to rescue us...."

Then you are in trouble!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 05:49 AM

clutch ..... straw ...... clutch ...... straw

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:40 AM

"all our nuclear deterrent submarines are not being very deterrent at the moment"

Factually incorrect as our "deterrent submarines", the Vanguard-Class SSBNs are in their normal operational cycle with one boat at sea on patrol at all times.

The submarines the reports are about are the Astute-Class SSNs of which only three of a Class of seven are in service, the others are still in construction. The Lib-Dems wanted to trim the SSBN Fleet to only three submarines, now IF and it is a very big IF indeed, reports are true regarding our SSNs happen to be true then there is no better argument for illustrating the need for four new SSBNs going.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:28 AM

"With Donald Trump at the helm of the American Ship of State, I hope you Brits keep your submarines in good repair"
That occurred to me last night when I watched the news report of Trump's reaction to the news that North Korea had tested a weapon - very reminiscent of The Cuban Crisis.
I guess that the Doomsday Clock shifted towards midnight a few points over the last few weeks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 10:54 PM

With Donald Trump at the helm of the American Ship of State, I hope you Brits keep your submarines in good repair. We may need you to rescue us....

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 09:21 PM

I hear that Tronald Dump has called Kim Il U Suk Oo Flung Dung, whatever he's called, a bad dude, but has said he would talk to him over a hamburger. That get-together would be less of a summit meeting and more of a Mariana Trench meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:50 PM

Well, Gallus Moll, I went on a good few peace marches meself, mainly to US air bases, and Mrs Steve surrounded Greenham (along with thousands of other women!) one night in 1983. Lucky bugger - she chose the hottest night of the 20th century so she didn't even need her cardie! I have photos of my two kids wearing mole masks at Molesworth, and, though we don't know how it happened, our little son, who we'd temporarily lost, managed to walk at the head of the demo alongside Anne Clwyd! I had an estate car at the time (station wagon, yanks) and I loaded it up with logs for firewood to take to the women's camps at Greenham. They were very suspicious of a man helping out and I actually found that quite humbling.

In the early 80s I used to help out on the CND stall in Loughton, Essex, where we lived at the time. Every Saturday morning we were filmed from the top of a building opposite our stall, and my phone was bugged (nothing subtle about it in those days - lots of clunks and clicks on the line and the sound of a sudden hanging-up if you swore at the spooks!) 😂

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:26 PM

Jim C - when I was young (but old enough to drink!) 'ladies' were expected to go to hotel lounges in the company of other ladies (all wearing skirts of course, never trousers!) or a male escort. Entering a bar was out of the question! - As students a group of us would journey along Rose St (Edinburgh)trying to get served in every pub along the way - and being refused in most as they 'didn't serve females' -- when asked why the - usually female bar tender - would explain they had no ladies' toilet! We would counter that we didn't require the toilet -- to no avail. There were even coffee lounges in Glasgow that were reserved for men/business men only- - - no women! Unbelievable nowadays. I began striding into these premises (bars, coffee exclusion zones) on my own (which was unheard of!) and being assertive, sometimes verging on aggressive in order to get service. (And don't get me started about how a female needed a male guarantor in order to get a mortgage back in the olden days of the 60s and early 70s - -- )

Steve S - we used to go on Easter Vigil events and Women's Peace marches to the US base, sign a peace petition or lie down on the road opposite the end of the pier. MI whatever would be at the upstairs windows taking our photos- and we would be taking theirs! Sadly this was long before mobile phones / internet / social media .....

PS Waverley has some Summer trips up Loch Long - and if it gets a little too close to the Faslane side of the loch the police launches whizz out and buzz about her!

If anyone plans to revisit the Holy Loch area (US Navy long gone!)and wants to have a wee sing song of Ding Dong Dollar and the like, give me and Akhenaton a shout! We'll round up a few of the Glesca Eskimos for a session!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM

Robotmatic, you are of course correct.

However in my defence it was rather late,in fact I was about to fall asleep.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 11:27 AM

Raggytash, maybe you should have provided that link in the OP. I had no idea what you were on about.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph doesn't strike me as 'world-class' source material. They also frame the headline in the form of a denial. MOD could be denying that little pink men landed their spaceship in Trafalgar Square, for instance.

And if I were the MOD I would not be providing any information I did not have to regarding disposition of military assets.

There is of course the question of what military assets are worth having. I'm unaware of the UK's sea resources. Obviously the British Navy has been a consequential military presence for hundreds of years. It would naturally include submarines. The need for nukes must have been a deeply considered item.

I remember how the lack of adequate Aircraft Carrier resources impacted the Falklands War. I believe the US helped.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 09:47 AM

The missiles don't work anyway. Load of junk, best to spend the money on something worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: banjoman
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:38 AM

How long have we been without a sub on active service?
Seems to me that perhaps we don't need them anyway and all we need is to convince others that we have them. Pity then about the leaked info that they are all in dock for repair. We could save billions by simply expounding a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:23 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/britains-entire-fleet-attack-submarines-action/

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:13 AM

I went on a boat trip up the river with me mum and dad in a freezing cold July day in 1961 when I was 10. I took a photo of the Polaris stuff with my Brownie 127 and spent the rest of the holiday shit scared of being arrested for treason.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 03:34 AM

"get them tae f-- oot o' ma back yard! "
Can we all look forward to future trips to Holy Loch, G. M.?
It's been a long time!
I remember the last time I was there, the pubs wouldn't serve women.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:58 PM

get them tae f-- oot o' ma back yard!

if the so called government (Westminster) wants them - park them in the Thames.

but considering the 'deficit' and the state of NHS, foodbanks and people setting up home and sleeping on the pavements- - I think my tax money could be better spent- - - -

quality of life / fairness for everyone, and stuff the subs!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Banjo-Flower
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:21 PM

Whatever happened to confidential information
lets tell the world we've got our pants down

Gerry

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:10 PM

Detergents are possibly as good, certainly at the moment!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:04 PM

I like them nuclear detergents. Get the grease off your cooker no problem.

DtG

Subject: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:24 PM

Well that's a bit of a bugger, all our nuclear deterrent submarines are not being very deterrent at the moment.

Still I suppose it's all money well spent eh.