Trident renewal

[Rincewind]

The 'deterrent' supplied by Trident is purely illusory, for the reasons I stated above.

 

I know you mean to come across as savvy, preferring realpolitik over 'naive idealism' as you put it..but in the long run the course of action, the fearful isolationism and distrust you suggest the UK and every other country follows, could end up having a very, very bad result.

I see nothing wrong in preferring peace over confrontation and the ' my weapon is bigger than yours' attitude. Idealistic maybe but naive no. I find it sad that money can be found for wars overseas but not for helping people in this country. The NHS , schools and many other things that will help the average working man.

[Jon the Hat]

The 'deterrent' supplied by Trident is purely illusory, for the reasons I stated above.

 

I know you mean to come across as savvy, preferring realpolitik over 'naive idealism' as you put it..but in the long run the course of action, the fearful isolationism and distrust you suggest the UK and every other country follows, could end up having a very, very bad result.

 

I am not sure I buy your logic, which seems to be that there is safety is we just allow the US and Russia or China to have the Nukes, we don't need them.  This seems a little short term to me.

I also think Trident & the Vanguards we need to maintain it is essentially the only reason we have a seat on the UN security council, and as such is a complete ****ing bargain.

[leicsmac]

I am not sure I buy your logic, which seems to be that there is safety is we just allow the US and Russia or China to have the Nukes, we don't need them. This seems a little short term to me.

I also think Trident & the Vanguards we need to maintain it is essentially the only reason we have a seat on the UN security council, and as such is a complete ****ing bargain.

I could be wrong regarding this particular spot of nuclear game theory, I admit. My ideas are by no means a certainty. But I think, to the best of my knowledge, that escalation in a nuclear situation would be inevitable, and that for a long time into the future at the very least Russia and the U.S. would be ideologically opposed enough for it to work in the way I suggested. But like I said, that's not guaranteed.

Regarding the security council, I think the fact that the five members were the first five nuclear powers was purely incidental, and I don't really see why it has to be the case now. I guess you could make the point that to be one of the big boys you've got to have the big stick to back it up, but like I said, I think the whole idea of nuclear deterrent for most is just smoke and mirrors anyway.

[Thracian]

The 'deterrent' supplied by Trident is purely illusory, for the reasons I stated above.

 

I know you mean to come across as savvy, preferring realpolitik over 'naive idealism' as you put it..but in the long run the course of action, the fearful isolationism and distrust you suggest the UK and every other country follows, could end up having a very, very bad result.

I'd agree that Trident is basically illusionary but by luck or judgement it's served its purpose effectively enough and kept a lot of blokes gainfully employed in a place it's not that easy to find sustained employment.

But what is this "isolation" you somehow relate to me? Or my views on what other countries should do.

Just because I advocate leaving the EU and reducing immigration to a highly selective trickle doesn't mean I'm "isolationist" in any way. Quite the contrary. I just want us to be careful about the friends we chose and the reasons for having them.

You're right about trust though. I'd never go into a any diplomatic agreement based on trust, but on mutual interest and the strength of a potential friendship that might be nurtured over time in relation to mutual aims/ideals and any number of other things.

But I'd never willingly let our guard down in relation to our national defence. There's no respect for weakness on the global stage or anywhere else.

[leicsmac]

I'd agree that Trident is basically illusionary but by luck or judgement it's served its purpose effectively enough and kept a lot of blokes gainfully employed in a place it's not that easy to find sustained employment.

But what is this "isolation" you somehow relate to me? Or my views on what other countries should do.

Just because I advocate leaving the EU and reducing immigration to a highly selective trickle doesn't mean I'm "isolationist" in any way. Quite the contrary. I just want us to be careful about the friends we chose and the reasons for having them.

You're right about trust though. I'd never go into a any diplomatic agreement based on trust, but on mutual interest and the strength of a potential friendship that might be nurtured over time in relation to mutual aims/ideals and any number of other things.

But I'd never willingly let our guard down in relation to our national defence. There's no respect for weakness on the global stage or anywhere else.

 

How is leaving the EU and reducing immigration to a trickle not choosing a path of isolation? You're choosing to reduce the contact the UK has with the outside world both with regards to political contribution and exchange of people.

 

Now, I do in fact have some sympathy for the latter as I think that borders and immigration should be well-controlled, but I can't see how the path you suggest is anything other than to make the UK more isolated.

 

Thanks for being so candid regarding your last sentence...I can certainly understand why you and so many others would subscribe to that worldview. But, make no mistake, it's a worldview that could one day end up killing us all. It almost did back in 1962, when national pride and unwillingness to back down, trying to appear strong, made the US and USSR come pretty damn close, if you remember. The longer nation states continue to squabble about petty stuff, the more likely it is that either one of them will cross a line that it's not possible to step back across, or we as a species miss a much bigger problem that concerns us all until its too late. If you'd forgive the Game Of Thrones reference, it's like the Seven Kingdoms squabbling over the Iron Throne when no one knows about the real threat of the White Walkers that renders all of their pithy little war moot. And they're on their way.

 

Of course, I might be wrong and you might be right - perhaps realpolitik is the way by which the world will keep turning. I guess we'll find out.

[Webbo]

How is leaving the EU and reducing immigration to a trickle not choosing a path of isolation? You're choosing to reduce the contact the UK has with the outside world both with regards to political contribution and exchange of people.

 

 

We don't need to be in the EU or take vast swathes of immigrants to still engage with the rest of the world. We'll still trade with the rest of the world, we'll still be in the UN and NATO. It's not isolationist at all.

[leicsmac]

We don't need to be in the EU or take vast swathes of immigrants to still engage with the rest of the world. We'll still trade with the rest of the world, we'll still be in the UN and NATO. It's not isolationist at all.

It will make us more isolated than we are now. That's the point I was making. Whether that is a good idea or not depends on your point of view.

But I guess my argument is just a semantic one regarding Tracs denial of the word, so I'll leave it at that.

[Thracian]

Reply to leicsmac:

Leaving the EU would not mean detaching ourselves from Europe - it might even mean closer connections with some countries in the end. And it would almost certainly mean more trading in the wider world.

The theory of a pacific world is as appealing to me as I'd imagine it is to you and I've even embraced the idea in the past, particularly in suggesting we react to the Twin Towers attrocity by the flying flags of goodness by commemorating each life with a positive initiative like a theatre, sports facility or adventure playground etc.

But ideals are as wasted on today's world as much as they were on the ancient world.

Downing weapons? Imagine talking peace to ISIS and suggesting we forget about man-made religions, devise a code of achieveable ethics and genuinely try to make them work. Who'd even volunteer to carry the proposal?

Or Russia, China, North Korea, America, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Somalia, Nigeria etc. etc. Where would you stop and find even a modicum of encouragement? Isle of Wight perhaps?

Hell I can't convince a single person on here that a legal decision is wrong. So who on Earth could fly the flag for World peace successfully? Or even peace between myself and a few fellow posters?

Yet until they can, the only voices of consequence will be those with the biggest weapons - just as it is in the porn business.

And, ironically, the porn business perhaps best reflects how full of shit the world is and probably always will be until Ranieri takes over and makes it fun again.