|
Post by champagneprince on May 28, 2017 16:20:00 GMT 1
Jeremy Corbyn has been a longstanding, vocal, supporter of CND and if he gets into power on June 8th may get his chance to mold his party into working towards nuclear disarmament within the next few years.
What are everyone's thoughts on this? On one hand, it could be said that a nuclear deterrent has prevented a global conflict for 70+ years, on the other nukes are obviously something that could obliterate us all.
So is Corbyn right? Would we be better off without them?
And regardless of who gets in, should we be working towards nuclear disarmament anyway?
Given there are plenty of maniacs elected into power we'd be wise to keep them as a deterrent, for example look how easy it was for Putin to annex Crimea. Would this have happened Ukraine had nukes pointing in Moscow's direction?
Then again it's surely only a matter of time before another Hitler comes along and there's no way he wouldn't have used them, even if he knew his country would be vapourised from the map in response. So maybe a nuclear free Britain can help lead the world into multi-lateral disarmament?
|
|
|
Post by jiayou salop on May 28, 2017 16:43:17 GMT 1
Suspect there is a big generational divide on this.
I was born in 1988 and therefore was only caught the tail-end of the eastern block 'n' all that. At no point in my life have I felt that nuclear weapons are keeping me safe.
For me and most of my peers my age it seems that people who are for nuclear deterrents are stuck in the 80s. The real threats to our lives are cyber attacks such as "wannacry" and lone-wolf terrorism. Nukes do nothing to deter these threats.
|
|
|
Post by WATR on May 28, 2017 16:56:05 GMT 1
Understand the reasoning behind having one, but think technology in the form of drones etc has moved past the trident type of deterrent, and the risk of a hack terrifies me.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 28, 2017 17:22:24 GMT 1
Labour has committed to the renewal of Trident.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 17:25:16 GMT 1
Labour has committed to the renewal of Trident. Subject to a post election review...
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on May 28, 2017 17:28:22 GMT 1
You can't uninvent a weapon.
Even if the UK gave up it's nukes it could quite easily build others at some point in the future - as of course could every other country who has the technology.
I'm afraid a nuclear free world exists only in theory.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rose In Exile on May 28, 2017 17:29:01 GMT 1
Believe they are a necessary evil.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 28, 2017 17:35:26 GMT 1
Labour has committed to the renewal of Trident. Subject to a post election review... There would be a defence review, but I don't think that would include the possibility of reversing that decision. Corbyn, clearly, is unconvinced of its effectiveness as a deterrent, but has said he will respect the decision of Parliament and the Labour Party. I would expect more efforts to be put into establishing some form of multilateral disarmament programme, but not a reversal of that policy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 18:10:36 GMT 1
Would we use a nuclear warhead , by that I mean be the first to launch an attack ? OR Would we use it in retaliation ?
Either way we are completely and utterly f.cked along with the rest of the world however and whenever nuclear weapons are used .
My fear is that some insane terrorist group would construct a small nuclear weapon or dirty bomb and use it. How would the fact that we have a nuclear deterrent deter them.
No, I'm all for nuclear disarmament as the way forward .
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 28, 2017 18:16:01 GMT 1
I recently read a very credible synopsis on our nuclear capabilities which concluded that in all probability they are obsolete and of little value simply because of the underwater drone capabilities of the major world powers, which would destroy our submarine fleet well before we were able to deploy any weapons.
|
|
|
Post by returnofthehype on May 28, 2017 18:17:03 GMT 1
If the world was not already awash with them, then yes most definitely we should do all we can to ensure they are never used.
Unfortunately we are where we are and they need to stay h
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 28, 2017 18:38:44 GMT 1
I recently read a very credible synopsis on our nuclear capabilities which concluded that in all probability they are obsolete and of little value simply because of the underwater drone capabilities of the major world powers, which would destroy our submarine fleet well before we were able to deploy any weapons. Yes, this is something I've read before too. Any idea why Corbyn and May are both backing the renewal of Trident then? It seems a ludicrous waste of money if it's just not fit for purpose.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 28, 2017 18:51:25 GMT 1
I recently read a very credible synopsis on our nuclear capabilities which concluded that in all probability they are obsolete and of little value simply because of the underwater drone capabilities of the major world powers, which would destroy our submarine fleet well before we were able to deploy any weapons. Yes, this is something I've read before too. Any idea why Corbyn and May are both backing the renewal of Trident then? It seems a ludicrous waste of money if it's just not fit for purpose. I suspect that May is advocating their renewal because she believes they are a credible defensive weapon. Corbyn certainly doesn't but is playing politics. I think I am right ( happy to be told otherwise ) that we actually 'lease ' our nuclear capability from America and that - in effect, we need their permission and knowledge to launch any nuclear attack
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 28, 2017 19:01:57 GMT 1
Corbyn certainly doesn't but is playing politics Telling us fibs? If he really believes that unilateral disarmament is best for the country, then he needs to let us all know why. Show us the strength of his convictions, it may be good to see, and if he were to win then we all know what we voted for.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 28, 2017 19:06:07 GMT 1
Corbyn certainly doesn't but is playing politics Telling us fibs? If he really believes that unilateral disarmament is best for the country, then he needs to let us all know why. Show us the strength of his convictions, it may be good to see, and if he were to win then we all know what we voted for. Not sure it's telling us fibs. He is morally opposed to nuclear weapons and has always said so. The politics bit will be saying he will renew the current arrangement but would - in the event of him being in charge, actively promote the policy of us 'dis arming' as a nuclear weaponed country
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on May 28, 2017 19:27:23 GMT 1
I recently read a very credible synopsis on our nuclear capabilities which concluded that in all probability they are obsolete and of little value simply because of the underwater drone capabilities of the major world powers, which would destroy our submarine fleet well before we were able to deploy any weapons. Private Eye last week stated that the systems in our nuclear subs were run by Windows XL.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 28, 2017 19:28:58 GMT 1
Telling us fibs? If he really believes that unilateral disarmament is best for the country, then he needs to let us all know why. Show us the strength of his convictions, it may be good to see, and if he were to win then we all know what we voted for. Not sure it's telling us fibs. He is morally opposed to nuclear weapons and has always said so. The politics bit will be saying he will renew the current arrangement but would - in the event of him being in charge, actively promote the policy of us 'dis arming' as a nuclear weaponed country I also believe we're now past the point of no return with trident, given the vote was quite some time ago, and we wouldn't save anything financially by scrapping it now. Agree with the post above regarding there being a generation gap - I doubt you'll find many people my age who think maintaining them is necessary/good. I mean, I can certainly understand the logic for them but I think the idea that they're the only thing that have kept us safe is clearly barmy. Furthermore, as a little thought experiment, if we don't have any nuclear weapons and some nutcase decides to attack us, is it likely that they'll do so without any global retaliation given that our allies have them? As soon as any country in the world launched nukes there would be a retaliation from the other side - if North Korea attacked Switzerland there would be retaliation. Whilst I can appreciate the concern that maybe that means we're dependent on America/France et al for our nuclear deterrent, the fact remains that while there is such a proliferation of these weapons they're unusable for anyone who owns them. If the worry is that Putin-esque invasions are a problem that nukes prevent, would you suggest that the annexation of Crimea is justification for launching a nuke? Of course not and he would know that. I suspect more intelligence and a greater level of spending on the military would be far more of an effective method of preventing this kind of activity. I suspect it's unlikely that us removing our nukes would ever lead to some kind of global disarmament - my thinking is based on the enormous amount of money we could save by scrapping them. Take that cash, put it into armed forces, police, anti-terror units, education and the NHS and see the difference there. If we convince a few other countries to remove them then great, but simple game theory demonstrates that the last country standing would never surrender their weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Scarecrow on May 28, 2017 19:43:31 GMT 1
Conventional forces are expensive to maintain, by having a strong nuclear arsenal it allows you to dramatically reduce your expenditure on the military. Given its highly unlikely we will be involved in a ground invasion any time soon I'd rather retain it than not for this very reason.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 28, 2017 20:10:27 GMT 1
Conventional forces are expensive to maintain, by having a strong nuclear arsenal it allows you to dramatically reduce your expenditure on the military. Given its highly unlikely we will be involved in a ground invasion any time soon I'd rather retain it than not for this very reason. They're hardly comparable, though, are they? Given that we will spend £6 billion a year on trident (probably end up being more), it would have to be some very well-paid soldiers to swallow that much cash.
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on May 28, 2017 20:23:57 GMT 1
Kim Jong Un tells me he has had trouble registering, but the Dear Leader has asked me to vote "no" 25.16 million times on his behalf.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 28, 2017 20:26:14 GMT 1
Telling us fibs? If he really believes that unilateral disarmament is best for the country, then he needs to let us all know why. Show us the strength of his convictions, it may be good to see, and if he were to win then we all know what we voted for. Not sure it's telling us fibs. He is morally opposed to nuclear weapons and has always said so. The politics bit will be saying he will renew the current arrangement but would - in the event of him being in charge, actively promote the policy of us 'dis arming' as a nuclear weaponed country I think I'd respect him for his honesty if he actively promoted the policy before the election. At this moment it appears that he believes in one thing but won't promote it because he fears it may be unpopular with the voting population come the day of the election. This may not be so, unilateral disarmament might actually be a vote winner, especially if he really presented his case well, gave us assurances as to where else the money could be spent, and really ripped into Theresa May on what a waste of money nuclear weapons were. He's basically said that he wouldn't press the button anyway, so it would hardly be a deterrent in his hands. I think he should go full out and aim to convince the population of his conviction and reasoning, rather than trying to sneak it in after the election. Although I'm not sure he could do this anyway? Would it require a referendum?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 20:33:59 GMT 1
researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7353"Proponents of this view also argue that the evolution of underwater drone technologies and cyber capabilities could render submarine-based nuclear systems obsolete at some point in the future, and highly likely within the lifetime of Successor." All our defence systems are Windows operated. From the Air Defence and communication network, to our nuke subs. Hybrid warfare is changing the face of the battlefield. A first strike will start with a cyber breakdown of our defence systems. A nuke armed enemy doesn't really have to take out the subs, disable the communications network and we can't communicate with the subs anyway. Nukes are already obsolete. Corbyn called this when he first became the leader of the Labour party, now he's just dog whistling.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 28, 2017 20:44:42 GMT 1
researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7353"Proponents of this view also argue that the evolution of underwater drone technologies and cyber capabilities could render submarine-based nuclear systems obsolete at some point in the future, and highly likely within the lifetime of Successor." All our defence systems are Windows operated. From the Air Defence and communication network, to our nuke subs. Hybrid warfare is changing the face of the battlefield. A first strike will start with a cyber breakdown of our defence systems. A nuke armed enemy doesn't really have to take out the subs, disable the communications network and we can't communicate with the subs anyway. Nukes are already obsolete. Corbyn called this when he first became the leader of the Labour party, now he's just dog whistling. What's The Green Party's policy ?
|
|
|
Post by GlosShrew on May 28, 2017 21:47:19 GMT 1
Another argument is that by following the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine nuclear weapons have actually saved lives over the past 60 to 70 years. Yes they take up a lot of our hard earned resources which probably could be spent better elsewhere and it is going to take a very brave man (or woman) to press the big red button - but I still feel more secure with them than without. Do agree though that these days there may be other more effective weapons in an enemies arsenal that could bring a country to its knees without a catastrophic waste of life i.e. cyber attacks and the like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 8:40:09 GMT 1
researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7353"Proponents of this view also argue that the evolution of underwater drone technologies and cyber capabilities could render submarine-based nuclear systems obsolete at some point in the future, and highly likely within the lifetime of Successor." All our defence systems are Windows operated. From the Air Defence and communication network, to our nuke subs. Hybrid warfare is changing the face of the battlefield. A first strike will start with a cyber breakdown of our defence systems. A nuke armed enemy doesn't really have to take out the subs, disable the communications network and we can't communicate with the subs anyway. Nukes are already obsolete. Corbyn called this when he first became the leader of the Labour party, now he's just dog whistling. What's The Green Party's policy ? Hahaha. You know the answer to that.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 29, 2017 8:57:54 GMT 1
What's The Green Party's policy ? Hahaha. You know the answer to that. Just checkin your membership credentials 👍
|
|
|
Post by pughywasfree on May 29, 2017 9:40:06 GMT 1
If a country is inhumane enough to use one, us having one is not going to deter them. We would never use one (hopefully) so it is pointless wasting money on them. Even more pointless if our allies have them. waste of money.
Cant we just "pretend" to have on?
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on May 29, 2017 10:16:56 GMT 1
Cant we just "pretend" to have one? That is sort of what we do anyway. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions submarine based systems are becoming (and very possibly are already) obsolete. The real purpose of the exercise is to feed this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complexI would not be at all surprised to learn that the UK (and Russia, and the States) is perfectly capable of defending itself from a rogue attack by one of the other nuclear powers without recourse to a retaliatory launch. It suits all of their purposes to deny this though. The spectre of nuclear war is a very effective way to justify the vast transfer of public funds to the arms producers who, in turn, supply the sophisticated weaponry that protects oil interests or puts down rebellions in the middle East to suit our geopolitical interests. This was the basis of the Cold War arms race and, as per usual, the conservatives are stuck 30 years or more in the past on this, still whipping up panic about reds under the bed. The real risk involved in nuclear weapons is somebody like ISIS getting hold of a dirty bomb and setting it off in the West. Guess what though, our nuclear deterrent does nothing to protect us against that. This whole thing is such a pointless sideshow compared to the real issues in this election, namely the economy and the future of the welfare state. No surprises that the Tories choose to highlight this over the real issues though.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 29, 2017 10:54:25 GMT 1
Complete waste of time Labour saying they will renew when they have Corbyn who has stated that he would under no circumstances sanction their use. Thus making the deterrent redundant. I suspect that may go for future Labour leaders too if it's Momentum and the like playing king maker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 11:17:47 GMT 1
JC refuses to murder indiscriminately millions of innocent civilians. He's clearly a mad man!
|
|