The Politics Thread

[Guest MattP]

The whole debate around Trident is very interesting though from a right/left point of view in Europe, it's only really in Britain and America that the campaign for nuclear disarmament comes from the left, the French socialists see their nuclear deterrant as a badge of honour and I remember Hollande's speech about it making France the "Guardian of Europe", the Social Democrats in Germany or the Italian socialists who demand a a place at the table under the nuclear umbrella. And we all know what the Russians think about it, they consider the development of it as one of the biggest achievements of the country, they'll never ever give their nuclear weapons up.

 

What makes it so different here? Is it the fact it ties in with the "anti-Americanism" of our hard left?

[Finnegan]

I don't have a strong opinion on our nuclear armament. I'd obviously love it if the entire world could disarm but I think everyone does, morally. You've got to literally be a clinical psychopath to be in favour of actually nuking any country.

The argument on nuclear Arsenal generally boils down to how pragmatic you are, how instilled with fear you are and what you consider to be realistic. As long as the US and Russia have nuclear capability, I think we probably should.

That said, I'd like to see our "defence" budget cut, I'd like to see us save money by not ****ing meddling in global issues. I'd much rather pay to sustain trident than invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam, for example.

We certainly wouldn't need to be sat here genuinely shitting ourselves about IS if we'd left well alone and with the money spent on Iraq (oh and Lybia) we could probably have cut considerably less public services, invested more in our schools, local government and hospitals.

[leicsmac]

The whole debate around Trident is very interesting though from a right/left point of view in Europe, it's only really in Britain and America that the campaign for nuclear disarmament comes from the left, the French socialists see their nuclear deterrant as a badge of honour and I remember Hollande's speech about it making France the "Guardian of Europe", the Social Democrats in Germany or the Italian socialists who demand a a place at the table under the nuclear umbrella. And we all know what the Russians think about it, they consider the development of it as one of the biggest achievements of the country, they'll never ever give their nuclear weapons up.

 

What makes it so different here? Is it the fact it ties in with the "anti-Americanism" of our hard left?

 

Possibly it comes down to a link to anti-interventionism, which given the last few decades has been much more of an issue in the US or UK than in mainland Europe. Usually the same people who want the UK to ditch Trident also want us to stop dicking about in the affairs of other countries in a direct fashion. 

 

Also, speaking personally I've made a logical argument for not keeping it purely based on the idea that if a nation targets the UK with nukes that's only going to be the start of the fireworks anyway, whether we have them ourselves or not. A limited nuclear war is an impossibility.

[Finnegan]

The idea of a deterrent is they're less likely to shoot us if we can shoot back, not just that we can get revenge if they do.

[leicsmac]

The idea of a deterrent is they're less likely to shoot us if we can shoot back, not just that we can get revenge if they do.

 

I think the difference in likelihood is negligible because as long as someone else has nukes than the country that fired them and their ideology is different, they'll fire back anyhow (even assuming we're the only ones targetted, which is a massive assumption). 

 

One attributable nuke flies from anywhere that isn't North Korea and lands anywhere in the land-based Northern Hemisphere, they all fly.

[RedSoxUK]

I think the difference in likelihood is negligible because as long as someone else has nukes than the country that fired them and their ideology is different, they'll fire back anyhow (even assuming we're the only ones targetted, which is a massive assumption). 

 

One attributable nuke flies from anywhere that isn't North Korea and lands anywhere in the land-based Northern Hemisphere, they all fly.

 

I used to have the view opposing Trident, as it is genuinely costly where sums of money could be put to use elsewhere. But over time i've slowly moved towards a pro-Trident view. It's not just about the fear of opposition, it's a defence mechanism if the shit ever hits the fan. It's just another reason for others not to attack in the first place.

[bmt]

I think the difference in likelihood is negligible because as long as someone else has nukes than the country that fired them and their ideology is different, they'll fire back anyhow (even assuming we're the only ones targetted, which is a massive assumption). 

 

One attributable nuke flies from anywhere that isn't North Korea and lands anywhere in the land-based Northern Hemisphere, they all fly.

 

Following on from this, in a hypothetical situation:

 

Say a crackpot dictator from somewhere (presumably not America and obviously not France) launches nukes at Britain and destroys 75% of the country and kills 75% of people over the longer term, what would be best - 

 

- Trident, and its allies, fire back. Nuclear war, whatever is left after includes the damaged remnants of Britain in a conflict for returning fire. Say the effect is -1000 on Britain, and -1000 for the world.

 

- Our allies fire back. Nuclear war (minus trident missiles), what remains of Britain no longer has any political clout and would probably be pointless to attack in the coming world conflict. Say the effect is -990 for Britain and -900 for the world

 

- Nobody fires back, and another method of getting out of the conflict is eventually found (or not, depending on how things pan out). Effect -990 for Britain and -500 for the world (probably world war but not nuclear winter)

 

I believe that, arguing from a Game Theory perspective (that the remnants of Britain and of humanity in general would necessarily be better off not returning fire in the face of a nuclear attack), and unless the PM of this country is just hellbent on revenge for the sake of revenge for any incoming attack, a military strategist would suggest that what is written on the paper in the safe would be NOT to use the weapons in the event of a nuclear attack on Britain. I don't think it takes massive amounts of deduction to work that out, although I welcome other opinions. Surely any other nation would surely believe the same, after all, I agree with Finners that:

 

 

 You've got to literally be a clinical psychopath to be in favour of actually nuking any country.

 

 

 

Consequently, I don't think Trident actually has any deterrent purpose and is just a complete waste of money. I can't see that it would ever be used and I think potential aggressors would think the same.

[leicsmac]

I used to have the view opposing Trident, as it is genuinely costly where sums of money could be put to use elsewhere. But over time i've slowly moved towards a pro-Trident view. It's not just about the fear of opposition, it's a defence mechanism if the shit ever hits the fan. It's just another reason for others not to attack in the first place.

 

A defence mechanism that is of precious little overall use either as a retaliatory agent or a deterrent, for the reasons I've illustrated above.

 

Following on from this, in a hypothetical situation:

 

Say a crackpot dictator from somewhere (presumably not America and obviously not France) launches nukes at Britain and destroys 75% of the country and kills 75% of people over the longer term, what would be best - 

 

- Trident, and its allies, fire back. Nuclear war, whatever is left after includes the damaged remnants of Britain in a conflict for returning fire. Say the effect is -1000 on Britain, and -1000 for the world.

 

- Our allies fire back. Nuclear war (minus trident missiles), what remains of Britain no longer has any political clout and would probably be pointless to attack in the coming world conflict. Say the effect is -990 for Britain and -900 for the world

 

- Nobody fires back, and another method of getting out of the conflict is eventually found (or not, depending on how things pan out). Effect -990 for Britain and -500 for the world (probably world war but not nuclear winter)

 

I believe that, arguing from a Game Theory perspective (that the remnants of Britain and of humanity in general would necessarily be better off not returning fire in the face of a nuclear attack), and unless the PM of this country is just hellbent on revenge for the sake of revenge for any incoming attack, a military strategist would suggest that what is written on the paper in the safe would be NOT to use the weapons in the event of a nuclear attack on Britain. I don't think it takes massive amounts of deduction to work that out, although I welcome other opinions. Surely any other nation would surely believe the same, after all, I agree with Finners that:

 

 

Consequently, I don't think Trident actually has any deterrent purpose and is just a complete waste of money. I can't see that it would ever be used and I think potential aggressors would think the same.

 

Good analysis, though I think your option 3 is incredibly unlikely.

[bmt]

Good analysis, though I think your option 3 is incredibly unlikely.

 

 

I do too, I just included it for completeness!

[Guest MattP]

Surely if someone was crazy enough to fire first they need nuking for the rest of the World anyway.

[Guest MattP]

And surely on option three the country who fired the first nuke would have no interest in another World War?

If no one fired back surely they would just throw more nukes of no one had the balls to fire back? Be no point committing to other warfare.

[Captain...]

Surely if someone was crazy enough to fire first they need nuking for the rest of the World anyway.

 

So if it is the will of one mental dictator, lets say Him Wrong Un is a despotic leader of a country lets call it Asian Peninsula North, launches a nuke at Britain, because he was mental, and killed thousands of innocent people, you would be happy to retaliate in kind and kill thousands of innocent civilians of said country, and probably not the aforementioned despot because he is secure in a huge underground bunker?

[Guest MattP]

Of course, if he was prepared to do that once he could do it again.

Would you be prepared to sit back and wait for him to do it again and see thousands of innocent people die?

[Guest MattP]

You've pretty much made the point though here haven't you for it?

He knows that we do have them, so he wouldn't dare launch that nuke in the first place, if countries like the US, us and France did though disarm then maybe he would given how crackers he is.

[Captain...]

Of course, if he was prepared to do that once he could do it again.

Would you be prepared to sit back and wait for him to do it again and see thousands of innocent people die?

 

In what way does firing a nuke back stop him launching more nukes? Unless you kill him, which is not going to happen because he is underground in a nuclear bunker with the launch codes. 

[Guest MattP]

I imagine after we have launched back the intention would be to destroy their capability and then get him.

But as I've said don't worry about it, while the enemies of him have the same or greater capability as him he won't be firing.

[Captain...]

You know there are alternatives to nukes, targeted drone strikes on military locations, all out land invasion, firebombing from the air and sea, or small strike teams aimed at assassinating the despot and cutting off his ability to launch more nukes, trading nukes is a sure way to destroy the world.

 

We also have other ways of protecting ourselves from nukes other than by having nukes, I would rather see £100bn spent on missile defence systems, so we could actually protect ourselves from a nuclear attack, rather than on being able to fire back. In this case attack is not the best form of defence.

[Jon the Hat]

You know there are alternatives to nukes, targeted drone strikes on military locations, all out land invasion, firebombing from the air and sea, or small strike teams aimed at assassinating the despot and cutting off his ability to launch more nukes, trading nukes is a sure way to destroy the world.

 

We also have other ways of protecting ourselves from nukes other than by having nukes, I would rather see £100bn spent on missile defence systems, so we could actually protect ourselves from a nuclear attack, rather than on being able to fire back. In this case attack is not the best form of defence.

 

Indeed, deterrent is the best form of defence.  Since we have had Trident, how many nuclear weapons have been launched at us?

[Voll Blau]

As long as it keeps Toast in a job...

[BlueSi13]

The amount we spend in other departments is irrelevant, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.

As for Pakistan and India they haven't signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty one of the reasons stated is that the nuclear powers that have signed it have made no attempt to reduce the number of nuclear weapons they have. Seeing one of the key nuclear powers disarming would send the right message and could get them to sign up. It might not, but as it is they aren't going to agree to any sort of disarmament which would be a good thing for everyone.

 

I brought it up because you were talking about the 'astronomical cost' of Trident so I highlighted the fact that compared to the overall budget, it costs us very little per year.  For example 2 billion a year on retaining our nuclear deterrent is deemed 'astronomical' yet we spend 12 billion a year on foreign aid (itself only accounting for 0.7% of GDP).

 

As for a couple of other arguments I've seen crop up, the first being why do we have nuclear weapons when allies such as USA and France have them.  Well if we decided to disarm, NATO would want to know why.  If we were to give that as a possible reason then the USA and France would rightly demand we pay a % toward the upkeep of their arsenal if we insist on hiding behind them.  As the world's fifth largest economy that is absolutely bonkers.

 

Also one of the biggest reasons for having a nuclear deterrent is so you don't need to have such a large conventional military.  Our standing military has been cut to pieces over the past few years and one of the reasons we have been able to get away with it is because of our nuclear arsenal.  If we decided to get rid of Trident then our defence spending would have to massively increase to counter the growing Russian threat.  You wouldn't get much out of 2 billion in terms of ships, tanks, fighters either so we'd more than likely end up having to pay MORE to strengthen our conventional deterrent in addition to potentially subsidising our allies.  

 

Even IF we were to do all that, we'd still have absolutely nothing to stop Putin flying his bombers over London as all he'd have to do is threaten us with nuclear attack if we shoot his planes down.  We'd be absolutely paralysed.  Also I wouldn't bank on our allies nuking an enemy in retaliation for an attack on us.  Japan was nuked by the USA as a warning to Russia.  Another nation could easily suffer the same fate if the world takes a few grim turns.

[bmt]

And surely on option three the country who fired the first nuke would have no interest in another World War?

If no one fired back surely they would just throw more nukes of no one had the balls to fire back? Be no point committing to other warfare.

 

Okay, assuming you are right. From a game theory perspective then other countries would fire their nukes at the aggressor, to avoid them throwing more nukes around. In which case it is STILL better for the remnants of Britain not to attack and get involved in the following nuclear exchanges, because other nations will fire theirs at the aggressor anyway.

 

I might actually draw out some payoff matrices tomorrow when I have some time to explain my point better to anyone who cares.

[Guest]

The idea of a deterrent is they're less likely to shoot us if we can shoot back, not just that we can get revenge if they do.

 

But you only need someone with a mental problem to balls that idea up.

[Izzy]

There's a whole lotta nukeing going on in this thread!

[bmt]

There's a whole lotta nukeing going on in this thread!

 

I think we need another splinter thread from this one!

[Captain...]

I brought it up because you were talking about the 'astronomical cost' of Trident so I highlighted the fact that compared to the overall budget, it costs us very little per year. For example 2 billion a year on retaining our nuclear deterrent is deemed 'astronomical' yet we spend 12 billion a year on foreign aid (itself only accounting for 0.7% of GDP).

As for a couple of other arguments I've seen crop up, the first being why do we have nuclear weapons when allies such as USA and France have them. Well if we decided to disarm, NATO would want to know why. If we were to give that as a possible reason then the USA and France would rightly demand we pay a % toward the upkeep of their arsenal if we insist on hiding behind them. As the world's fifth largest economy that is absolutely bonkers.

Also one of the biggest reasons for having a nuclear deterrent is so you don't need to have such a large conventional military. Our standing military has been cut to pieces over the past few years and one of the reasons we have been able to get away with it is because of our nuclear arsenal. If we decided to get rid of Trident then our defence spending would have to massively increase to counter the growing Russian threat. You wouldn't get much out of 2 billion in terms of ships, tanks, fighters either so we'd more than likely end up having to pay MORE to strengthen our conventional deterrent in addition to potentially subsidising our allies.

Even IF we were to do all that, we'd still have absolutely nothing to stop Putin flying his bombers over London as all he'd have to do is threaten us with nuclear attack if we shoot his planes down. We'd be absolutely paralysed. Also I wouldn't bank on our allies nuking an enemy in retaliation for an attack on us. Japan was nuked by the USA as a warning to Russia. Another nation could easily suffer the same fate if the world takes a few grim turns.

2bn is the operating costs 17-24bn is the government estimate for replacing trident in 2017.

It would make more sense to put that money into other means of defence, dealing with the main threats we will face and the rest of the world will face in the future, nuclear weapons should never be used, in my opinion, as they cause indiscriminate destruction on such a huge scale that unless the target is somewhere in remotest Siberia it will cause thousands of innocent civilian casualties it can never be justified even in retaliation because it cannot be targeted it devastates huge areas and even more are affected by the fall out doing untold long lasting damage to civilian areas.

It is as simple as that, the £100bn saved over 40 years is an added bonus and can be put to much better uses.