Firm of the Year

Pass judgment on your firm and take the RollOnFriday Firm of the Year 2018 survey. 20 seconds of graft for a lifetime of satisfaction. If you're in-house, there's a poll for you, too

Find a Job

With the market picking up, don't miss out on Job Search for all the best vacancies from the World's leading law firms.

My Profile

Check all your messages, update your blog, change your account details,  find friends and much more on the My Profile section.

Main Discussion

Rate it
Report as offensive
Massive fuckwit
Posted - 19 March 2017 19:41
Not really. The weapon that will be fired at an enemy is in a submarine at sea which is what they will be focussing on. The storage and repair facilities can be destroyed with conventional weapons since there is no reason why you have to target a nuclear weapon with a nuclear weapon. The warheads themselves are also designed not to detonate from nuclear or conventional explosions in their proximity though you could have a dirty bomb effect if they did fizzle.

The civilian reactors at Hunterston and Torness are probably a bigger risk to most people in Scotland than Faslane.
Posted - 19 March 2017 19:45
Report as offensive
we can take a nuclear hit, bring it
Posted - 19 March 2017 19:50
Report as offensive
Posted - 19 March 2017 20:49
Report as offensive
i found a dead cockroach the other day
kills that theory
Posted - 19 March 2017 20:58
Report as offensive
upside down twitching

i called the rspci
Posted - 19 March 2017 21:17
Report as offensive
Given that Chernobyl caused Scottish farmers problems for years I think you'd still be in trouble if someone nuked England.