MooseBreath Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 He's so normal that he makes me not care about the quality of his policies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 No worries, there won't ever be complete proof whether nuclear weapons are a deterrent or not until we get to the point where it probably won't even matter, we can only guess at the minute. In terms of British politics it's pointless anyway, they are up for renewal next year and the government will be doing it, they also do it with the support of the British people, only in Scotland could it be argued that the population don't want to renew it. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13198976.Poll__25__of_Brits_and_48__of_Scots_think_UK_should_scrap_Trident/ That's true. Like you said, it's gonna get kept regardless of the arguments here. Fair enough. I just wish it weren't the case. Sounds like academic crap logic to me. Sounds great but doesn't stack up in the real world at all. Well, let's hope we never have to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 Scrapping trident probably wouldn't even save that much money. The submarines and weapons would be kept, it's not like we're replacing them every year anyway. Most of the cost is probably for the people involved, and sacking them to save money isn't great economics unless they're immediately available for something more productive, which they won't be. Might as well just keep it, no harm done. Feel good factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 For example say France disarmed and then somebody Nuked them would we then retaliate in preemptive self defence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 For goodness sake. I'm saying this until I'm blue in the face, and I'm going to keep saying it until someone refutes it rather than just talking around it. The reason we shouldn't have Trident is not because of the expenditure, or because of some supposed deterrent value. The reason we don't need it is because an nuclear attack on the UK (or indeed practically any other nation in the Northern Hemisphere) WILL be met with escalation and a nuclear response from other sources either in reprisal or as preemptive defence. That means that if one nuclear weapon goes off, they all go off. Therefore, as long as there are just two opposing nations with them in large numbers, the balance of power is kept with no other nation having to have them. The deterrent value of Trident is a myth, for that reason. BMT made the point pretty clear in his post on the last page. Thats probably one of the daftest things I heard. You really think that if someone fires off several nuclear bombs at us, America, or any other friend will join in and risk having their own country wiped out by bombs coming back their way? And you say people cant refute your claim,,,, Yet you represent as fact that we will be defended. Where is your proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 It's wrong because it relies on the assumption that the UK is and will always be under the protection of one of the two nuclear powers in your scenario. This is a loose assumption. Also, I think your general line of logic is faulty too. It's an interesting thought experiment but doesn't really stack up in the real world. The whole world doesn't lose if there is a nuclear war. The whole world didn't lose when the US nuked Japan. At most we'd have a few more Hiroshima's dotted around but it wouldn't be game over for the planet. An exchange of nuclear weapons doesn't even mean total annihilation for either country. This. We're far enough away from Russia and the states that if our relationship soured with them greatly enough, they wouldn't necessarily respond if - purely as an example - China decided we needed wiping off the map. If China nuked a western European state, why would the US or Russia necessarily want to escalate further if they felt they weren't coming under attack? Put another way, if India nuked Pakistan in a dispute that purely only involved their two nations - would you want us to launch a retaliatory strike on Pakistan's behalf? The Russians to them strike us, the yanks to strike them, the Chinese to strike them, the Japanese to strike them, and so on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 If China/Russia/US nuked us we wouldn't be bale to respond anyway. We'd be dead. It's be part of an organised attack to make sure we couldn't retaliate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 We definitely need a separate 'War Games or 'nuke em' thread I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 If China/Russia/US nuked us we wouldn't be bale to respond anyway. We'd be dead. It's be part of an organised attack to make sure we couldn't retaliate. At least one of the subs would be at sea, we'd be able to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 At least one of the subs would be at sea, we'd be able to respond. You think that China would hit before they knew exactly where the sub was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 At least one of the subs would be at sea, we'd be able to respond. I vote Webbo for Chief of the Defence Staff. He knows his sh1t... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 You think that China would hit before they knew exactly where the sub was? We're safe then because they wouldn't know. The deterrent works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 I vote Webbo for Chief of the Defence Staff. He knows his sh1t... I can just imagine it now. " it remains a mystery as to how Britain was unable to respond to the Warhead that ultimately wiped out the whole nation... Upon the Americans search for survivors they were able to locate the office of the Chief of defence staff. His computer was clearly primed for the ready as his last web page was a sophisticated defence system program named as 'Foxestalk' We can now reveal that his last known words were to complain about 'our leaky defence' ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 2 October 2015 Share Posted 2 October 2015 I vote Webbo for Chief of the Defence Staff. He knows his sh1t... Webbo struggled to post links on this website only a few years back, and still struggled when people gave him clear instructions. He's come a long long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 Thats probably one of the daftest things I heard. You really think that if someone fires off several nuclear bombs at us, America, or any other friend will join in and risk having their own country wiped out by bombs coming back their way? And you say people cant refute your claim,,,, Yet you represent as fact that we will be defended. Where is your proof? This. We're far enough away from Russia and the states that if our relationship soured with them greatly enough, they wouldn't necessarily respond if - purely as an example - China decided we needed wiping off the map. If China nuked a western European state, why would the US or Russia necessarily want to escalate further if they felt they weren't coming under attack? Put another way, if India nuked Pakistan in a dispute that purely only involved their two nations - would you want us to launch a retaliatory strike on Pakistan's behalf? The Russians to them strike us, the yanks to strike them, the Chinese to strike them, the Japanese to strike them, and so on? Fair enough, neither of you think there would be escalation. I think there would be, either out of treaty obligations or (if there are no alliances) pre-emptive defence and paranoia regarding the consideration that if a leader of a nation uses one or a few nukes, would they really stop there if they have more? Would you want to take the chance that they wouldn't come after your country or another one next? India/Pakistan is an interesting case and one that might be one of the two current (the other being North Korea) exceptions to the rule. As I said earlier in the thread, let's hope we never have to find out which of us is correct on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 If a country that is next to them would they not be affected too? There could be a chain reaction. The country next to the one being targeted would also suffer and so on. There would be so many missiles in the sky that it would only take faulty one to hit an innocent party. Who wo would know which missile was going where anyway? It would only take a couple getting through to wipe out the South of England. If they were hitting the North the button would not be pressed.Then Tory;s would be assured of victory for the next 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSi13 Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 Do you REALLY think that any PM would blitz Argentina with nuclear weapons because they attacked the Falkland islands? Btw the nuclear threat didn't stp them last time did it? Do you really think that any PM would bomb Spain with nuclear weapons if they went into Gibraltar? You've actually just proved that the nuclear deterrent hasn't stopped attacks on British personnel/Britain with the three examples you've given. I wasn't saying that. I was asking the question would Corbyn be willing to sanction ANY sort of military response in order to protect British citizens and/or interests at home or abroad if they come under direct/indirect threat by an aggressor? His well known attitudes toward Trident, the military and military action, certain terrorist groups and his resistance to pretty much every piece of anti-terror legislation that's gone through parliament makes me suspicious. Certainly those in the military are concerned. The first duty of any elected government it so ensure the defence of the realm, if he cannot guarantee that than he cannot be Prime Minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSi13 Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 There are a lot of worst case scenarios here! The questions you ask are very valid ones. But I'd also like to know how Cameron, or Brown or Blair before him, would react to an Argentinian or a Spanish invasion. In the case of Spain, it would cost them their EU membership if they invaded another member state and, seeing as the Spanish parties opposing austerity and EU membership are the least likely to sanction an aggressive foreign policy, I'd consider this pretty unlikely. Perhaps, by the time Corbyn became PM, we wouldn't be a member state any more, but the Spanish would still see the arse ripped out of their property and tourism industries. It's very, very unlikely to happen. It didn't happen under Franco, so I doubt Rajoy is eager to make his name in such a manner. In fact Catalonian independence is also very unlikely, seeing as the separatists are severely fractured and couldn't achieve a majority share of the vote in this week's elections. A far more likely scenario would be the collapse of the NHS in the UK. I'm not as ready with figures as you are, but I'd imagine 24bn was around 20% of the annual NHS expenditure, so I suppose the money could be very well spent there. And, in truth, if Argentina invades the Falklands, or Spain Gibraltar, or Iran sinks a surface vessel, I'm not sure how useful the nuclear deterrent would be. The widely held view - albeit a flawed one, as far as I can see - is that the last remnants of colonialism, the Falklands and Gibraltar included, are something that should be done away with by the UK. If we responded to Spain rolling its tanks in by moving our battleships in, we'd still come away with the sympathies of the UN. If we threatened to drop a nuclear bomb on Madrid we'd either be looked on as a laughing stock, or a threat to world security. Either way, they are questions which no UK political leader has addressed in detail. Corbyn, for his part, generally opposes interventionism, but he went to lengths to state that this wasn't unconditional. And if it's your own country being attacked, it's hardly intervention any more. His stance isn't especially far removed from that of plenty of other past and present European leaders. We mentioned Spain - well, Zapatero would be a good starting point. What isn't, on the other hand, acceptable is a politicised military warning of revolt if a democratic election doesn't go according to their liking, and the Ministry of Defence rightly made this clear. The dangers of that are far closer to home, and potentially disastrous to the UK, than the faint possibility that we'll one day need a nuclear bomb to deal with a rogue Middle Eastern state, or a Spanish invasion. It's been a while and without reading other comments I assume the debate has moved on but once again, I wasn't talking about nuclear retaliation in these scenarios. As for diverting Trident money to the NHS, the NHS could save £10+ billion a year if it managed to get a grip with things such as fraud, waste and health tourism. The NHS cannot be given a blank cheque every year to cover it's fundamental inefficiencies. Besides, if the UK managed to get a grip of it's crippling immigration problem then we simply wouldn't need vast numbers of schools, hospitals and homes to be built. A net increase of over 330,000 people per year FFS is NOT sustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 I wasn't saying that. I was asking the question would Corbyn be willing to sanction ANY sort of military response in order to protect British citizens and/or interests at home or abroad if they come under direct/indirect threat by an aggressor? His well known attitudes toward Trident, the military and military action, certain terrorist groups and his resistance to pretty much every piece of anti-terror legislation that's gone through parliament makes me suspicious. Certainly those in the military are concerned. The first duty of any elected government it so ensure the defence of the realm, if he cannot guarantee that than he cannot be Prime Minister. I think there's a significant difference of engaging in conflicts either based on protecting a country and its people, and solely for the nefarious interests of very rich individuals and/or corporate greed, and a military industry which a great number of MPs and Lords have a vested interest in maintaining its profitability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 I wasn't saying that. I was asking the question would Corbyn be willing to sanction ANY sort of military response in order to protect British citizens and/or interests at home or abroad if they come under direct/indirect threat by an aggressor? His well known attitudes toward Trident, the military and military action, certain terrorist groups and his resistance to pretty much every piece of anti-terror legislation that's gone through parliament makes me suspicious. Certainly those in the military are concerned. The first duty of any elected government it so ensure the defence of the realm, if he cannot guarantee that than he cannot be Prime Minister. No PM can guarantee defence of the realm, so your premise is at fault from the word go. Are you aware that over 20 countries exist that have NO army at all? And many more with an army that is only an army in name. Corbyn is saying that there are other/better ways to defend your realm - these come through diplomatic routes, partnerships and alliances. Businesses don't resort to bombing their competitors to stay in business do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 It's been a while and without reading other comments I assume the debate has moved on but once again, I wasn't talking about nuclear retaliation in these scenarios. As for diverting Trident money to the NHS, the NHS could save £10+ billion a year if it managed to get a grip with things such as fraud, waste and health tourism. The NHS cannot be given a blank cheque every year to cover it's fundamental inefficiencies. Besides, if the UK managed to get a grip of it's crippling immigration problem then we simply wouldn't need vast numbers of schools, hospitals and homes to be built. A net increase of over 330,000 people per year FFS is NOT sustainable. I think without immigration the NHS would be dead and buried and the UK closer to becoming a third world country. Thanks to immigration we have far more people paying into the system - all those asians, poles , carribeans who have settled here and added greatly to the UK income and of course most of our hoepital workers (including doctors and nurses) are immigrants too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 Not sure where to post this. Its to do with renting and private landlords. I have things to do so no time to search threads. https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2015/9/majority-of-tenants-unaware-of-todays-section-21-law-change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSi13 Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 I think without immigration the NHS would be dead and buried and the UK closer to becoming a third world country. Thanks to immigration we have far more people paying into the system - all those asians, poles , carribeans who have settled here and added greatly to the UK income and of course most of our hoepital workers (including doctors and nurses) are immigrants too. Wow even for you that is pretty outlandish. A study by the UCL last year estimated the immigration from outside the EU has cost the UK approximately £120 billion over the past couple of decades. Nobody is saying end all immigration, but even you can't honestly say adding MILLIONS of people in a couple of decades is wise policy. There is a reason it's the British publics largest concern at the moment you know. http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSi13 Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 No PM can guarantee defence of the realm, so your premise is at fault from the word go. Are you aware that over 20 countries exist that have NO army at all? And many more with an army that is only an army in name. Corbyn is saying that there are other/better ways to defend your realm - these come through diplomatic routes, partnerships and alliances. Businesses don't resort to bombing their competitors to stay in business do they? Considering who his partners and allies are, I think I am more than happy with our current course thank you very much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 3 October 2015 Share Posted 3 October 2015 I vote Webbo for Chief of the Defence Staff. He knows his sh1t...The navy maybe, he has always been into sailors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.