|
Post by onthepitch on May 29, 2017 12:03:57 GMT 1
I think everyone would rather a world where nuclear weapons no longer existed, but I can't see how that will ever be possible.
I admit I don't know all the facts, but I thought the Star Wars missile defence program was potentially a very good thing... The ability to terminate a missile before it hits you should be high on our list of priorities, then maybe we could disarm?
Is it? Do we have anything in place?
As for JC, I think he's naive on so many issues. No one would want to press the goddam button, but regardless they keep up the pretence they would because that's how it works.
|
|
|
Post by another fine mess on May 29, 2017 12:08:01 GMT 1
I write this as someone who, in his misguided youth, was a member of CND in the ‘80s. It amazes me how some people are prepared to believe all sorts of fanciful things ahead of common sense and probability. Apparently there are posters on Blue and Amber who know that our nuclear subs are vulnerable and obsolete; that our missiles can be nullified by the enemy and that successive UK governments (including Labour ones) know all this but carry on because they are in league with big business. All this is known by the cognoscenti on Blue and Amber but not, apparently, by our military leaders or perhaps they do but they are ALL in on the conspiracy too. Or maybe the truth is a lot simpler: - Thousands of public servants in the MOD aren’t conspirators, idiots or liars; they just happen to know a bit more about this than Blue and Amber and have concluded that Trident is worth it. The same might be said for the membership of the Labour Party who voted for Trident at the Party Conference.
- The underwater drone threat is pure speculation advanced by “proponents of this view” (whoever they are) about something that might happen someday. The reason why Corbyn and Abbot haven’t mentioned this when asked about Trident is that they’d get laughed out of town.
- North Korea, Iran and other foreign powers want to acquire nukes because they do pose a genuine threat
As for the argument that Trident is irrelevant in the age of ISIS, consider this: - You need a range of weapons and options in your arsenal. We have other weapons to use against terrorists
- Nuclear weapons render large massed armies obsolete. The only things that could stop massed divisions of Russian troops sweeping across, say, the Baltic States and Poland are equally large European forces (which we won’t countenance) or the threat of nuclear weapons. The same goes for China and North Korea. If you think that Russia doesn’t believe in using hard power, you’ve not been paying attention.
Finally, for those who think you can spend Trident money on the NHS or similar; think again. If we stay in NATO we have to spend 2% of GDP on defence. So, if we didn’t spend what we do on Trident, we’d have to spend it on something else in the military. I have more respect for the moral objections to nuclear weapons but I'm not a pacifist and I happen to believe that the deterrent works and reduces the risk of war.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 29, 2017 12:51:13 GMT 1
I write this as someone who, in his misguided youth, was a member of CND in the ‘80s. It amazes me how some people are prepared to believe all sorts of fanciful things ahead of common sense and probability. Apparently there are posters on Blue and Amber who know that our nuclear subs are vulnerable and obsolete; that our missiles can be nullified by the enemy and that successive UK governments (including Labour ones) know all this but carry on because they are in league with big business. All this is known by the cognoscenti on Blue and Amber but not, apparently, by our military leaders or perhaps they do but they are ALL in on the conspiracy too. Or maybe the truth is a lot simpler: - Thousands of public servants in the MOD aren’t conspirators, idiots or liars; they just happen to know a bit more about this than Blue and Amber and have concluded that Trident is worth it. The same might be said for the membership of the Labour Party who voted for Trident at the Party Conference.
- The underwater drone threat is pure speculation advanced by “proponents of this view” (whoever they are) about something that might happen someday. The reason why Corbyn and Abbot haven’t mentioned this when asked about Trident is that they’d get laughed out of town.
- North Korea, Iran and other foreign powers want to acquire nukes because they do pose a genuine threat
As for the argument that Trident is irrelevant in the age of ISIS, consider this: - You need a range of weapons and options in your arsenal. We have other weapons to use against terrorists
- Nuclear weapons render large massed armies obsolete. The only things that could stop massed divisions of Russian troops sweeping across, say, the Baltic States and Poland are equally large European forces (which we won’t countenance) or the threat of nuclear weapons. The same goes for China and North Korea. If you think that Russia doesn’t believe in using hard power, you’ve not been paying attention.
Finally, for those who think you can spend Trident money on the NHS or similar; think again. If we stay in NATO we have to spend 2% of GDP on defence. So, if we didn’t spend what we do on Trident, we’d have to spend it on something else in the military. I have more respect for the moral objections to nuclear weapons but I'm not a pacifist and I happen to believe that the deterrent works and reduces the risk of war. I think you've ruined a perfectly reasonable argument with your patronising tone. Pity, it's been a reasonable debate.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 29, 2017 12:56:55 GMT 1
I write this as someone who, in his misguided youth, was a member of CND in the ‘80s. It amazes me how some people are prepared to believe all sorts of fanciful things ahead of common sense and probability. Apparently there are posters on Blue and Amber who know that our nuclear subs are vulnerable and obsolete; that our missiles can be nullified by the enemy and that successive UK governments (including Labour ones) know all this but carry on because they are in league with big business. All this is known by the cognoscenti on Blue and Amber but not, apparently, by our military leaders or perhaps they do but they are ALL in on the conspiracy too. Or maybe the truth is a lot simpler: - Thousands of public servants in the MOD aren’t conspirators, idiots or liars; they just happen to know a bit more about this than Blue and Amber and have concluded that Trident is worth it. The same might be said for the membership of the Labour Party who voted for Trident at the Party Conference.
- The underwater drone threat is pure speculation advanced by “proponents of this view” (whoever they are) about something that might happen someday. The reason why Corbyn and Abbot haven’t mentioned this when asked about Trident is that they’d get laughed out of town.
- North Korea, Iran and other foreign powers want to acquire nukes because they do pose a genuine threat
As for the argument that Trident is irrelevant in the age of ISIS, consider this: - You need a range of weapons and options in your arsenal. We have other weapons to use against terrorists
- Nuclear weapons render large massed armies obsolete. The only things that could stop massed divisions of Russian troops sweeping across, say, the Baltic States and Poland are equally large European forces (which we won’t countenance) or the threat of nuclear weapons. The same goes for China and North Korea. If you think that Russia doesn’t believe in using hard power, you’ve not been paying attention.
Finally, for those who think you can spend Trident money on the NHS or similar; think again. If we stay in NATO we have to spend 2% of GDP on defence. So, if we didn’t spend what we do on Trident, we’d have to spend it on something else in the military. I have more respect for the moral objections to nuclear weapons but I'm not a pacifist and I happen to believe that the deterrent works and reduces the risk of war. As we currently spend 2.8% of GDP on defence then we can easily reduce that amount and still meet the NATO obligations - which, as is very well publicised at present, are not being met by the vast majority of NATO members who have no intention of increasing their military spending to that level but don't find their memberships under threat. You have made several very good points on some tough issues on here recently, and I respect your views. I find your dismissal of opponents of nukes to be off, though, because it's clearly a far more nuanced discussion than just one side being right and the other being wrong. The idea, too, that because a government consider nuclear weapons necessary we should just accept that is an odd argument. The government of America think people's rights to buy automatic machine guns should be defended viciously, but that women should not be permitted to have abortions if they choose so. That doesn't mean that they're right to think that and clearly it is a valid position to oppose them. As for the idea that "the threat of nuclear weapons" will stop Russia sweeping through the Baltics - it hasn't exactly stopped them being invasive over the past 20 years. Clearly, in spite of what some people seem to argue, using nuclear weapons in that scenario is not acceptable - not least because whichever country fired them would be met with the MAD principle (and of course the second nuclear deterrents are used they have failed). Secondly, why is it that only Britain's weapons will prevent this? What's wrong with the weapons of other countries dotted around Europe and aimed at Russia? In response to your last sentence: "I have more respect for the moral objections to nuclear weapons but I'm not a pacifist and I happen to believe that the deterrent works and reduces the risk of war" then fair enough. Clearly that's what it ultimately boils down to and this poll, like most national ones conducted on this issue, suggest that you are in the majority here. One final point - why is it assumed that because Corbyn is opposed to nuclear weapons personally that he would, should he become PM, reject the recommendations of experts if they told him they were of benefit? Especially given the position of public opinion and MPs on the issue - there's no way Labour will have a majority large enough to push through an issue like this which would have a significant rebellion.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 29, 2017 13:04:59 GMT 1
JC refuses to murder indiscriminately millions of innocent civilians. He's clearly a mad man! So why isn't he really fighting to scrap Trident prior to the election? Give us all the clear reasons to believe in him and why his lifetime of campaigning is in the best interests of the country. If he really believes no deterrent is best for the country, then strongly put the case forward and let us make up our own minds. It could be a campaign winner for him.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 29, 2017 13:10:41 GMT 1
JC refuses to murder indiscriminately millions of innocent civilians. He's clearly a mad man! So why isn't he really fighting to scr@p Trident prior to the election? Give us all the clear reasons to believe in him and why his lifetime of campaigning is in the best interests of the country. If he really believes no deterrent is best for the country, then strongly put the case forward and let us make up our own minds. It could be a campaign winner for him. Point 1, as mentioned before, it's already said to be past the point of no return with regards to its renewal. Point 2, for the same reason that Theresa May is currently driving towards a full-blooded, no-holes-barred Brexit. She doesn't believe in it but the majority of the population do and it's a clearly defined strategy to appeal to voters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 13:11:07 GMT 1
As I understand it Corbyn and Thornberry have suggested that Trident could be obsolete within its 30 year lifespan.
When you consider that the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap had a line of passive sonar buoys to detect USSR subs in the 70/80s, then its not much of a stretch of the imagination to think of drones designed to destroy subs, whether ours, or anybodies.
The use of Drones, is of course, on the increase in Armed Forces over the world as is cyber warfare.
So, while Nuclear weapons are the answer now, it doesn't mean they are in 30 years time.
Every weapons system becomes obsolete, the longdow and the Battleship for example.
There were similar debates in the 30s in the UK about how the mighty battleship couldn't be sunk by little aeroplanes made of wood and aluminium. I'm sure everyone knows the story of the 'Repulse' and 'Prince of Wales' in 1941.
Anyhow, I think a more pressing problem at the moment is getting enough sailors to crew the subs.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 29, 2017 13:12:11 GMT 1
One final point - why is it assumed that because Corbyn is opposed to nuclear weapons personally that he would, should he become PM, reject the recommendations of experts if they told him they were of benefit? Especially given the position of public opinion and MPs on the issue - there's no way Labour will have a majority large enough to push through an issue like this which would have a significant rebellion. Surely he's had long enough in politics to have listened to all the experts by now? It would undoubtedly have a significant rebellion, and I wonder if there was enough split whether he would offer a referendum and let the public decide?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 13:12:49 GMT 1
JC refuses to murder indiscriminately millions of innocent civilians. He's clearly a mad man! So why isn't he really fighting to scr@p Trident prior to the election? Give us all the clear reasons to believe in him and why his lifetime of campaigning is in the best interests of the country. If he really believes no deterrent is best for the country, then strongly put the case forward and let us make up our own minds. It could be a campaign winner for him. Because this whole process isn't just about his personal views and beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 29, 2017 13:19:58 GMT 1
So why isn't he really fighting to scr@p Trident prior to the election? Give us all the clear reasons to believe in him and why his lifetime of campaigning is in the best interests of the country. If he really believes no deterrent is best for the country, then strongly put the case forward and let us make up our own minds. It could be a campaign winner for him. Because this whole process isn't just about his personal views and beliefs. I don't get it. This could win him the election? 100's of billions is a complete waste if he's never going to use it, and if he shows us where this money could be better spent then this is surely a winner?
|
|
|
Post by another fine mess on May 29, 2017 13:41:16 GMT 1
I write this as someone who, in his misguided youth, was a member of CND in the ‘80s. It amazes me how some people are prepared to believe all sorts of fanciful things ahead of common sense and probability. Apparently there are posters on Blue and Amber who know that our nuclear subs are vulnerable and obsolete; that our missiles can be nullified by the enemy and that successive UK governments (including Labour ones) know all this but carry on because they are in league with big business. All this is known by the cognoscenti on Blue and Amber but not, apparently, by our military leaders or perhaps they do but they are ALL in on the conspiracy too. Or maybe the truth is a lot simpler: - Thousands of public servants in the MOD aren’t conspirators, idiots or liars; they just happen to know a bit more about this than Blue and Amber and have concluded that Trident is worth it. The same might be said for the membership of the Labour Party who voted for Trident at the Party Conference.
- The underwater drone threat is pure speculation advanced by “proponents of this view” (whoever they are) about something that might happen someday. The reason why Corbyn and Abbot haven’t mentioned this when asked about Trident is that they’d get laughed out of town.
- North Korea, Iran and other foreign powers want to acquire nukes because they do pose a genuine threat
As for the argument that Trident is irrelevant in the age of ISIS, consider this: - You need a range of weapons and options in your arsenal. We have other weapons to use against terrorists
- Nuclear weapons render large massed armies obsolete. The only things that could stop massed divisions of Russian troops sweeping across, say, the Baltic States and Poland are equally large European forces (which we won’t countenance) or the threat of nuclear weapons. The same goes for China and North Korea. If you think that Russia doesn’t believe in using hard power, you’ve not been paying attention.
Finally, for those who think you can spend Trident money on the NHS or similar; think again. If we stay in NATO we have to spend 2% of GDP on defence. So, if we didn’t spend what we do on Trident, we’d have to spend it on something else in the military. I have more respect for the moral objections to nuclear weapons but I'm not a pacifist and I happen to believe that the deterrent works and reduces the risk of war. I think you've ruined a perfectly reasonable argument with your patronising tone. Pity, it's been a reasonable debate. I was aiming for gentle mockery rather than patronising, but no offence was intended. Mind you, when folks (not necessarilly you) claim that successive governments have put the country at risk by supporting a defence system that they know to be obsolete because they’re in the pay of big business then they probably ought to expect a bit more than my mild poo-pooing - and be able to take it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 13:56:45 GMT 1
I don't get it. This could win him the election? 100's of billions is a complete waste if he's never going to use it, and if he shows us where this money could be better spent then this is surely a winner? [/quote] But again, this isn't about him and his personal beliefs, it's about Labour Party policy. Anyway, I suspect it's more likely that the press would use this as another oppurtunity to demonise him and twist the whole thing to fit their own agenda. Morals and integrity don't win elections do they.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 29, 2017 14:14:13 GMT 1
One final point - why is it assumed that because Corbyn is opposed to nuclear weapons personally that he would, should he become PM, reject the recommendations of experts if they told him they were of benefit? Especially given the position of public opinion and MPs on the issue - there's no way Labour will have a majority large enough to push through an issue like this which would have a significant rebellion. Surely he's had long enough in politics to have listened to all the experts by now? It would undoubtedly have a significant rebellion, and I wonder if there was enough split whether he would offer a referendum and let the public decide? But defence views are, like economics or science, evolving. I doubt he's also commissioned any detailed study as part of a government before, which is what they're proposing. But still, Labour policy is not to scrap trident. That's just been assumed but I don't see it as some kind of guaranteed outcome at all. I bloody hope not! One referendum was enough for me! Also, one question I have for Stutty: do you feel less safe living in a country without WMDs than you did in England? Today is the first time I've thought about the fact I'm in that situation, not once has it made me feel any less safe.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 29, 2017 14:24:31 GMT 1
I don't get it. This could win him the election? 100's of billions is a complete waste if he's never going to use it, and if he shows us where this money could be better spent then this is surely a winner? But again, this isn't about him and his personal beliefs, it's about Labour Party policy. Anyway, I suspect it's more likely that the press would use this as another oppurtunity to demonise him and twist the whole thing to fit their own agenda. Morals and integrity don't win elections do they. [/quote] Unfortunately this election is all about Corbyn vs May. We're being asked to believe in Corbyn, as apparently a decent, genuine man of the people who's offering us something different versus an evil, cruel, b***h offering us more of the same...and worse. Corbyn is the unique selling point, his own party voted him in based on his views. So let's have him standing up for what he believes. All these things being discussed on here, I'd like him to discuss in debate, with millions watching. If he truly believes in it, then he'll fight for it, and I believe that would be good for him, his party and the UK. At present he's just being exposed as a potential leader offering no deterrent but still happy to toe the party line in continuing to invest billions that could be better spent elsewhere. 100 billion spent on a deterrent that in his particular hands isn't a deterrent at all, is surely the grossest waste of money in the entire UK's economic history? He really has an opportunity to turn this on its head. Make us all believe in his vision for a nuclear free Britain. He will never get a better opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 29, 2017 14:55:57 GMT 1
100 billion spent on a deterrent that in his particular hands isn't a deterrent at all, is surely the grossest waste of money in the entire UK's economic history? I also don't really get the argument that in his hands it's not a deterrent. If you're a leader who launches a massive attack on Britain, you have to 100% think that Corbyn won't use it. It's all very well and good saying that he wouldn't use it (although I've only actually seen him say he wouldn't use it first, but based on his beliefs I could imagine him saying he wouldn't use it full stop) but as a war-crazed leader you have to actually believe him - and also the back-up procedures that allow the captains to launch the weapons without hearing from the PM, of course. Furthermore you'd have to launch this attack in the belief that no other country in the world would launch a reactive strike, which given we have multiple allies with nuclear weapons is damn near impossible. I've yet to hear this argument addressed - although I imagine it would be a difficult one for a politician to make saying "we'll get our protection from the US and France" because that does not appeal to the national sense of pride.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 29, 2017 14:59:20 GMT 1
I struggle to understand the reasoning behind the argument that, if the world is already awash with nukes, we must have a few too. If you're looking from a global perspective, it makes no real difference if we have none, so why bother?
I like lenny's question too - does anyone feel less safe when they live in or visit a country with no nukes than they do when they're here?
It's always amusing when someone tells off the b&a "cognoscenti" for having opinions beyond their level of knowledge, when that's the everyday language of discussion on this and every messageboard I've ever visited! Of course we're all speculating. You could say our nuclear deterrent is based entirely on speculation - ie that it deters! There's no evidence either way - nobody's launched nukes at any country that doesn't have them either.
It seems logical to expect that cyber-warfare would be a critical part of any conflict and the ability to disrupt the communications and weaponry systems of an enemy would give any side a telling advantage. We're seeing increasingly disruptive cyber attacks in peacetime. I wouldn't put much money on the nuclear weaponry of a smaller "big power" being immune.
If we were the US, my answer might be different. But we're not, we're of diminishing military significance as a stand-alone nation so I don't see what purpose our nukes serve. They don't seem to have been much of a deterrent to IS or any of our numerous other real enemies of modern times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 15:23:03 GMT 1
The argument goes that by having a nuclear deterrent we have ,somehow, guaranteed peace in Europe .
On the other hand the argument goes that by joining a group of Countries to form a European Union that too has guaranteed peace in Europe .
We have jettisoned one and kept the other.
Says it all really .
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 29, 2017 15:26:28 GMT 1
I think you've ruined a perfectly reasonable argument with your patronising tone. Pity, it's been a reasonable debate. I was aiming for gentle mockery rather than patronising, but no offence was intended. Mind you, when folks (not necessarilly you) claim that successive governments have put the country at risk by supporting a defence system that they know to be obsolete because they’re in the pay of big business then they probably ought to expect a bit more than my mild poo-pooing - and be able to take it. Fair enough. Happy to concede I may have read your post in a way not intended. I personally just don't get the love in with Trident that some have. I genuinely think that a lot of its supporters still see the UK as a world power when simply we are not. In any global nuclear situation we would disappear very very quickly. The vast sums of money spent on providing - what is undoubtedly a deeply controversial and unproven defence system- when the whole infrastructure of our social systems are falling apart through deliberately starved revenue streams seems to me to be the greatest challenge for our government, whatever its colour.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 29, 2017 16:07:23 GMT 1
I like lenny's question too - does anyone feel less safe when they live in or visit a country with no nukes than they do when they're here? There's no evidence either way - nobody's launched nukes at any country that doesn't have them either. They don't seem to have been much of a deterrent to IS or any of our numerous other real enemies of modern times. With regards to the three points above 1. It depends on the situation with how likely military action was against that country, be it invasion or bombing. I think I'd feel safer that a country wouldn't invade/bomb if tensions were high, in the knowledge that the nuclear deterrent was likelier to make the invasion/bombing less likely. 2. I suppose it could be argued that if Japan had developed nuclear weapons then it's unlikely the US would have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, it could also be argued that given the mentality of the Japanese at that time, they wouldn't have thought twice about using the weapon on the US and therefore US in effect would have had no deterrent. A maniac or desperate, mentally unstable leader has perhaps gone beyond worrying about a deterrent. In terms of the Japanese, the leaders at least would've been happier to have been obliterated than to have surrendered maybe? 3. I don't think it's designed as a deterrent against the likes of IS. Just against invasion, nuclear attack or large scale bombing. I suppose it could be argued that IS would love a full scale attack on Israel but the fact that Israel has an overwhelming deterrent of armed forces and nuclear capability backed by the US then it wouldn't be the wisest of moves. I may be wrong with the above, but that's why JC has a great opportunity at present to show us why he has campaigned for nuclear disarmament for so long. He's surely better informed and more knowledgeable than you or I and just needs to get that over to the public so we are clear what we are voting for. He could well have a very good point and any money saved would be greatly appreciated elsewhere surely?
|
|
chef
Midland League Division One
Posts: 450
|
Post by chef on May 29, 2017 16:27:50 GMT 1
Are we not protected by Nato anyway?
Are nukes nothing but an expensive and dangerous power game or a real deterrent?
I suppose the deterrent is a good argument until you get leaders that you dont trust or who are incompetent or just plain unstable.
But that wouldn't happen.......
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 29, 2017 16:54:47 GMT 1
As a politician I'd support the renewal of trident because it's a £50 billion fiscal stimulus to the UK economy.
As a human being I think it's all nonsense. The trident system may or may not work, no-one knows until we use it.
But the biggest threats to us are Islamic extremists and North Korea, both of whom have a nihilistic ideology so threatening to kill them back is not actually a threat.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 29, 2017 17:24:39 GMT 1
Isn't the majority of the construction of trident done overseas? The economic benefits to that would be negligible. I could be wrong though, but I though it's mostly imported.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 17:29:40 GMT 1
North Korea will only be a threat if they are able to develop an effective ICBM delivery platform. That may take 10-20-30 years, who knows.
The more immediate and long term threat is the Nationalist Putin, who, at the very least wants a return to the old Russian Empire as a bulwark against increasing NATO encroachment on the Russian sphere of influence.
At the moment Putin is happy to wage hybrid warfare 'locally'. It remains to be seen if he'll push further, but the rules and politics have changed since 1991. Conflict in middle Europe doesn't necessarily mean nuclear war.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 29, 2017 23:34:18 GMT 1
Putin is indeed a very real danger. His actions in Ukraine have shown that, and his involvement in Syria looked like it was going to get seriously complicated. It obviously doesn't help having Trump as a loose cannon and hasn't even started to make his stamp on the world stage yet.
I suppose having nukes gives you some negotiating power in the event of conflict like The Falklands. Not sure how far Thatcher would've gone if events hadn't gone our way back in 1982, but the 'We'll nuke you' chat may well have been Plan B or C, and for me it's logical to think that any invasion of our overseas territories becomes less likely with a nuclear deterrent in place.
|
|
|
Post by Hatfieldshrew on May 30, 2017 9:37:44 GMT 1
I don't get it. This could win him the election? 100's of billions is a complete waste if he's never going to use it, and if he shows us where this money could be better spent then this is surely a winner? But again, this isn't about him and his personal beliefs, it's about Labour Party policy. Anyway, I suspect it's more likely that the press would use this as another oppurtunity to demonise him and twist the whole thing to fit their own agenda. Morals and integrity don't win elections do they. Unfortunately this election is all about Corbyn vs May. We're being asked to believe in Corbyn, as apparently a decent, genuine man of the people who's offering us something different versus an evil, cruel, b***h offering us more of the same...and worse. Corbyn is the unique selling point, his own party voted him in based on his views. So let's have him standing up for what he believes. All these things being discussed on here, I'd like him to discuss in debate, with millions watching. If he truly believes in it, then he'll fight for it, and I believe that would be good for him, his party and the UK. At present he's just being exposed as a potential leader offering no deterrent but still happy to toe the party line in continuing to invest billions that could be better spent elsewhere. 100 billion spent on a deterrent that in his particular hands isn't a deterrent at all, is surely the grossest waste of money in the entire UK's economic history? He really has an opportunity to turn this on its head. Make us all believe in his vision for a nuclear free Britain. He will never get a better opportunity. [/quote] This election is not Corbyn vs May, there are may other issues, but the conservatives and the troy press want you to think it is, thereby avoiding any of the real issues like the NHS, education, tax cuts for the rich and so on. Yes Corbyn has his views, but being part of a democratic party, he is not forcing his views on what the Labour party say. Which is a refeshing change to every one in a party jumping to the leaders views.
|
|
|
Post by simianbenzoate on May 30, 2017 9:39:51 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. I'd be interested in reading that if you have a link? It doesn't really wash with me simply because you're looking for 4 submarines in the entire planet's oceans, which aren't necessarily moving - although nuke subs aren't as quiet at diesel-electric, you'd have to have tens of thousands of drones searching the seas to find them in anything less than a lifetime, unless you could track them all the way from port, which is feasible but not easy because drones have short run times and have (as yet) limited ability to communicate with other drones and pass on info to another one to take over the chase when its batteries run dry
|
|
|
Post by Dancin on May 30, 2017 10:14:23 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. According to a Labour spokesperson on Five Live this morning unless it's voted for being got rid of at a Labour Conference Jezza can do nothing about it apparently? Must be something to do with their part rules and regs?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 30, 2017 10:21:15 GMT 1
I suppose having nukes gives you some negotiating power in the event of conflict like The Falklands. Not sure how far Thatcher would've gone if events hadn't gone our way back in 1982, but the 'We'll nuke you' chat may well have been Plan B or C, and for me it's logical to think that any invasion of our overseas territories becomes less likely with a nuclear deterrent in place. I don't believe that we would seriously contemplate starting a nuclear war over the Falklands, then or now. And even if we were crazed enough to do so, I don't believe the US (then or now) would permit us to launch nuclear weapons in those circumstances, especially not on the American continent. Our other NATO allies wouldn't countenance such extreme and disproportionate force either. I don't believe it's really an independent deterrent anyway but I certainly don't think it would be an option in a Falklands-type engagement - it didn't deter Argentina then and it wouldn't deter a similar incursion now.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 30, 2017 10:26:45 GMT 1
I find it hard to gauge whether Corbyn is playing games with the voting population. This guy has been a high profile vocal supporter of CND all his life, I'm not sure he will take a backseat on letting his party decide the future of Trident if he should get into power. He is strangely quiet on the whole issue. Given his history I think there's a real chance he'll become much more forceful with his party if he is elected Prime Minister, unless of course we're going to believe he's going to brush aside his own views which he's been vocal about for the last 50 years! The most disappointing thing for me is that if you really believe in something and are in a position to convince millions of people then you should be grabbing the opportunity to do it and I'm disappointed he's not doing that. This could save us £100 billion+!
|
|
|
Post by simianbenzoate on May 30, 2017 10:43:57 GMT 1
I say all this as someone who's worked within the Trident program for 10 years.
I left because i really don't see the point in Trident any more, and didn't want to be part of the colossal waste of money.
The main argument is it's prevented WW3 by virtue of holding Russia off. At the height of the Cold War, Russia and the US had over 30 THOUSAND warheads each, a mix of tactical and strategic weapons - the UK had less than 500, and currently has less than 200. In the event of a Russian invasion, the US had more tactical nukes in the UK than the UK did, and in the event of a ballistic missile exchange, we'd be overwhelmed.
The defence against the Russians is, and has always been, the US arsenal. The UK nuclear contribution to NATO is negligible. There are some tactical advantages for NATO - having weapons dispersed among a larger number of submarines makes it harder for the Russians to eliminate the launch platform, and firing at Moscow from different directions makes it harder to take down weapons with ballistic missile defence - but the main defence against incoming ICBMs was blowing them up in space with your own warheads - we could launch everything we had at Russia and they could spare ten times that to swat them out of the sky and still nuke every town, city and village in the UK.
So, who do they defend us against? Certainly not terrorists, cyber attacks, or rogue nations - anyone crazy enough to actually launch a nuke is too insane to be deterred by a retaliatory strike (e.g. North Korea, who aren't really interested in us anyway). If we had retained any tactical weapons, we might have considered using them IF (massive IF) Russia made further land-grabs in Europe (e.g. Ukraine), but if your only nuclear capability is via ICBM, a tactical strike will look like a strategic missile bombardment - in which case you're likely to trigger a massive retaliation. The answer is - no one, really. The huge US arsenal has always been our main deterrent. You might worry that with the US looking to back away from NATO, we'd lose that defence but in a way, the argument has always been between the US and Russia - it might make us less of a target and less in need of that defence.
So why do we keep them? Influence, i suspect, which will become more important post-brexit. They buy us a seat at the UN security Council. We're finding it very hard to shake our Imperial sense of self-importance, and Trident and the 2 new carriers are attempts to show everyone we still have it. It's a hugely expensive vanity project. The other issue of course is should brexit cause Scottish independence, the £200Bn renewal bill will skyrocket with the requirement to re-base the subs and missile handling/storage facilities; none of the existing facilities in England can handle them without major modifications (and are too close to major population centres to store weapons)
Arguably, all we need is for people to THINK we have working weapons, and a few subs to sail around to act like carriers for them. Our current weapons work does indeed maintain and service our existing stockpile, but it's a hugely inefficient process, being run terribly by mainly US contractors. In fact it's done so badly, it wouldn't be that much difference if they were all just paid to PRETEND they were maintaining a deterrent, and spent all day drinking tea. I'd have taken a 20% paycut for that easily, so it could save a fortune, and not make any difference to our deterrence!
|
|