Pre Election, Prime Ministerial Debate 1

[sw_fox]

Good point, I couldn't understand why the Liberals were so adamant in curbing our major defence system and deterant which is nuclear arms. The world infact is changing, nations such as Iran, N Korea, Bangladesh and many more nations are in the process of developing Nuclear technology and those with Nuclear arms are infact developing thme further..........Britain can't rely on the US forever!!

Actually our 'independent' nuclear deterrent is US technology, that relies on the US authorising us to press the button if we ever chose to use it, as it relies on US military satellites for targeting and communications. Therefore our 'independent' nuclear deterrent is not independent, and was little more than a handy way of America to get us to pay for a cold war nuclear base on our soil(at the time the Greenham Common protests etc made them remove their own weapons from our soil). We rejected a France style actual independent nuclear deterrent because it was too costly and we are America's little bitch when it comes to security.

[Dr The Singh]

Actually our 'independent' nuclear deterrent is US technology, that relies on the US authorising us to press the button if we ever chose to use it, as it relies on US military satellites for targeting and communications. Therefore our 'independent' nuclear deterrent is not independent, and was little more than a handy way of America to get us to pay for a cold war nuclear base on our soil(at the time the Greenham Common protests etc made them remove their own weapons from our soil). We rejected a France style actual independent nuclear deterrent because it was too costly and we are America's little bitch when it comes to security.

Agreed, that's why i've written we need to invest to stop this reliance on the US!

[Shrenchel]

Agreed, that's why i've written we need to invest to stop this reliance on the US!

Bollocks it is. We'd be far better to save billions and billions of pounds and just enter into NATO nuclear weapons sharing like Italy, Germany and Holland.

Every other country is the Western world apart from the USA and France seem to get on just fine without their own nuclear deterrent. Surely we should be following the collective wisdom of almost the entire developed world. Why the fvck are we any different? We're not some super power anymore who can afford to piss away our money on this futile paranoia. There are enough nuclear weapons in the world to kill every single person on the planet about 50 or 60 times over, if a full scale nuclear war breaks out then we're all fvcked regardless of whether we've wasted hundreds of billions of pounds on making sure we're not the very first target.

[Alexikokopops]

Having tried one, I wouldnt recommend it.

From my experience it tastes like saki. Ming.

[Dr The Singh]

Bollocks it is. We'd be far better to save billions and billions of pounds and just enter into NATO nuclear weapons sharing like Italy, Germany and Holland.

Every other country is the Western world apart from the USA and France seem to get on just fine without their own nuclear deterrent. Surely we should be following the collective wisdom of almost the entire developed world. Why the fvck are we any different? We're not some super power anymore who can afford to piss away our money on this futile paranoia. There are enough nuclear weapons in the world to kill every single person on the planet about 50 or 60 times over, if a full scale nuclear war breaks out then we're all fvcked regardless of whether we've wasted hundreds of billions of pounds on making sure we're not the very first target.

Why is it bollocks, both NATO and UN are practically useless in achieving anything. A prime example of nuclear deterance is the continuing dispute of Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan both admit, the only thing that stoppped a full scale war after the kargill war in1999 was the fact both sides had Nuclear Weapons. Infact Pakistan has the biggest deterance of all, a first strike nuclear policy. One could say nuclear technology saved millions of lives!!! The fact is we all like to live without weapons of mass destruction, unfortunately mankind is capable of anything, although a nuclear war is very unlikely, having a edge and advantage would deter any enemy of acts of aggression!!

[l444ry]

Why is it bollocks, both NATO and UN are practically useless in achieving anything. A prime example of nuclear deterance is the continuing dispute of Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan both admit, the only thing that stoppped a full scale war after the kargill war in1999 was the fact both sides had Nuclear Weapons. Infact Pakistan has the biggest deterance of all, a first strike nuclear policy. One could say nuclear technology saved millions of lives!!! The fact is we all like to live without weapons of mass destruction, unfortunately mankind is capable of anything, although a nuclear war is very unlikely, having a edge and advantage would deter any enemy of acts of aggression!!

But Singh, if Pakistan used their "first strike" weapons against India they would blow themselves up at the same time. What sort of deterrent is that?

[Shrenchel]

Yeah but we're not involved in a long-running major territorial conflict with a nuclear power, nor will we ever be. If we just stopped waging ridiculous illegal wars then there would be virtually no chance any other country would ever give a fvck about us. Striving to keep up this pretence that we're still a major international force by commissioning nuclear weapons way beyond our means and diving into conflicts in different parts of the world is the thing that could potentially make us a target.

[Dr The Singh]

Yeah but we're not involved in a long-running major territorial conflict with a nuclear power, nor will we ever be. If we just stopped waging ridiculous illegal wars then there would be virtually no chance any other country would ever give a fvck about us. Striving to keep up this pretence that we're still a major international force by commissioning nuclear weapons way beyond our means and diving into conflicts in different parts of the world is the thing that could potentially make us a target.

Nobody knows what the future holds, nor you or anyone can guarentee who our allies are gonna be or who are our enemies gonna be within the next 25 years, nations such as China have made sure that there way of life is not encroched by the likes of the US by investing in defence technologies. I agree we need to be careful on how much investment is involved but compared to nations such as India, China and Pakistan we spend far less per gdp!!!

[Dr The Singh]

But Singh, if Pakistan used their "first strike" weapons against India they would blow themselves up at the same time. What sort of deterrent is that?

Well there analyst reckon the whole destruction of India would still leave 30% of Pakistan in a survivable state. Unfortunately they believe this stance is the only way of making sure the giant that is India will not destroy, to be fair to them it has worked, successive terror attacks by Pakistani militants have not been answered by India's might.

[l444ry]

Well there analyst reckon the whole destruction of India would still leave 30% of Pakistan in a survivable state. Unfortunately they believe this stance is the only way of making sure the giant that is India will not destroy, to be fair to them it has worked, successive terror attacks by Pakistani militants have not been answered by India's might.

30%??? They must be iimbeciles!! Doesn't the wind blow in that part of the world then?

[Dr The Singh]

30%??? They must be iimbeciles!! Doesn't the wind blow in that part of the world then?

Feck knows, it's propaganda to dupe there own people....people will believe anything....it also shows desperation. Honestly the world would be a safer place without humans!!!

[sw_fox]

Agreed, that's why i've written we need to invest to stop this reliance on the US!

Ok lets do a little maths- How big is our budget deficit(roughly 167 billion-you may dispute this)? How much did we spend invading Iraq(4.5 billion)? How much have we spent/are we going to have to spend on fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan? What other major military expenditure projects do we have that are more important for force projection than a cold war throwback nuclear deterrent (Namely Eurofighter, costing around 500 million and the best fighter ever produced and two badly needed brand new aircraft carriers priced at roughly 2 billion each).

Now how much is a trident replacement going to cost (a replacement that will once again be purchased from america with all the faults of trident) £100 BILLION

An actual independent nuclear deterrent, that is one that does not rely on anyone else would most likely cost more than the actual budget deficit we are current sustaining.

Tell me how that is value for money when we can't even afford to give our troops on the ground body armour.

Since the Cold War, warfare has been shifting from interstate war to intrastate war, with failed states falling apart and spreading conflicts to neighbours, needing peacekeeping/anti insurgency troops to deal with them, not nuclear weapons. How would nuclear weapons help in dealing with Afghanistan/Pakistan. These are the wars of the future.

And also, Iran and North Korea are not threats to us even if they did have any nuclear weapons(North Korea used up all the reserves of enriched uranium we knew of them having testing their two devices). This is because they lack delivery capacity. Even North Koreas 2 stage Taepodong 2 is not guided, they can only point it at the US and hope it hits(and even if it did it could only hit parts of the West Coast and Alaska). Neither of these states are within 100 years of a capability of creating an ICBM with the capacity to hit a target.

Tell me how nuclear detterence is justified?

[Dr The Singh]

Ok lets do a little maths- How big is our budget deficit(roughly 167 billion-you may dispute this)? How much did we spend invading Iraq(4.5 billion)? How much have we spent/are we going to have to spend on fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan? What other major military expenditure projects do we have that are more important for force projection than a cold war throwback nuclear deterrent (Namely Eurofighter, costing around 500 million and the best fighter ever produced and two badly needed brand new aircraft carriers priced at roughly 2 billion each).

Now how much is a trident replacement going to cost (a replacement that will once again be purchased from america with all the faults of trident) £100 BILLION

An actual independent nuclear deterrent, that is one that does not rely on anyone else would most likely cost more than the actual budget deficit we are current sustaining.

Tell me how that is value for money when we can't even afford to give our troops on the ground body armour.

Since the Cold War, warfare has been shifting from interstate war to intrastate war, with failed states falling apart and spreading conflicts to neighbours, needing peacekeeping/anti insurgency troops to deal with them, not nuclear weapons. How would nuclear weapons help in dealing with Afghanistan/Pakistan. These are the wars of the future.

And consequentially, Iran and North Korea are not threats to us even if they did have any nuclear weapons(North Korea used up all the reserves of enriched uranium we knew of them having testing their two devices). This is because they lack delivery capacity. Even North Koreas 2 stage Taepodong 2 is not guided, they can only point it at the US and hope it hits(and even if it did it could only hit parts of the West Coast and Alaska). Neither of these states are within 100 years of a capability of creating an ICBM with the capacity to hit a target.

Tell me how nuclear detterence is justified?

Your tying in the money we've spend on 2 wars, which has nothing to do with investment in new technologies, so that part of the post is totally irrelevant.

Britian spends 2.47 % per GDP, i'm not sure how much it spends on it's research, but one would say a small % of that. Trident is a 25 year project, at 100 billion, which works out at 4 billion per year. This deal probably has alot more to do with keeping the yanks happy and protection money, then anything else. Only if Britian invest sensibly in developing it's own technologies can we get out of US reliance!!!

At one time China was not a nuclear threat to US, at one time Pakistan were not a nuclear threat to India. Times can change very quickly. Pakistan within 5 year have developed there missiles to cover all of India, India has done the same with China and China can hit anyone on the planet. Iran had fook all, and now the Israeli's are shittin themselves, just because there are no threats now, it doesn't mean you don;t need an insurance policy!

[sw_fox]

Your tying in the money we've spend on 2 wars, which has nothing to do with investment in new technologies, so that part of the post is totally irrelevant.

Britian spends 2.47 % per GDP, i'm not sure how much it spends on it's research, but one would say a small % of that. Trident is a 25 year project, at 100 billion, which works out at 4 billion per year. This deal probably has alot more to do with keeping the yanks happy and protection money, then anything else. Only if Britian invest sensibly in developing it's own technologies can we get out of US reliance!!!

At one time China was not a nuclear threat to US, at one time Pakistan were not a nuclear threat to India. Times can change very quickly. Pakistan within 5 year have developed there missiles to cover all of India, India has done the same with China and China can hit anyone on the planet. Iran had fook all, and now the Israeli's are shittin themselves, just because there are no threats now, it doesn't mean you don;t need an insurance policy!

Iran and N. Korea are not a threat now, and they are a long way off being a threat to us.

China has no need to start a nuclear war with the West, we are their biggest market, their economy would go to shit and they would be the ones to lose.

£4billion a year on a useless heap of junk to please the Americans (more if you are really serious about developing our own deterrent), or £4 billion a year to spend on (whatever your political persuasion):

-the NHS

-more bobbies on the beat

-better equipment for our troops

-not cutting defence budgets on equipment that is actually needed (e.g. replacing our fleet of aging aircraft carriers and purchasing the new Eurofighter)

-tax cuts

-lowering the deficit

The trend is not for states to acquire nuclear weapons and to use them unilaterally. There has only ever been one state to use nuclear weapons in anger-the US- and there is an argument that when states acquire nuclear weapons their foreign policy actually becomes a lot more rational.

I state again, that expert opinion is that wars of the future will not be interstate wars, but intrastate wars. The wars of the last 20 years of the post Cold War world demonstrates this. You cannot predict the wars of the future, but when you use a scientific approach to international relations, and particularly security studies, it is very easy to see what the trend is regarding wars, and it is counterinsurgency, air power, and force projection tools that are needed if we are to protect our security, not nuclear weapons.

[Dr The Singh]

Your tying in the money we've spend on 2 wars, which has nothing to do with investment in new technologies, so that part of the post is totally irrelevant.

Britian spends 2.47 % per GDP, i'm not sure how much it spends on it's research, but one would say a small % of that. Trident is a 25 year project, at 100 billion, which works out at 4 billion per year. This deal probably has alot more to do with keeping the yanks happy and protection money, then anything else. Only if Britian invest sensibly in developing it's own technologies can we get out of US reliance!!!

Interstate wars are nothing new, they have been there from the days of dawn. The issue of afghan and pakistan is that the tribal belts never really belonged to anyone except the tribals. If the US, Russia etc left thses people to there own vices, then there would be no bother. Interstate wars are seen to be internal matters of that nation, you have to only look at the Khalistan movement of punjab in the 80's, India undertook acts of genocide, massacred and raped 100,000's of innocent people and the whole world just stood and watched.....why???.......because it was not in anyones national interests to upset a nation of a minoriy group!. you only have to look at Palestine.

The nature of war is changing due to the war against terror, large scale border disputes etc, still require a much heavier means. Nations are developing 'cold start' doctrines,as means of a dynamic, rapid response to the enemy!!

At one time China was not a nuclear threat to US, at one time Pakistan were not a nuclear threat to India. Times can change very quickly. Pakistan within 5 year have developed there missiles to cover all of India, India has done the same with China and China can hit anyone on the planet. Iran had fook all, and now the Israeli's are shittin themselves, just because there are no threats now, it doesn't mean you don;t need an insurance policy!

[Dr The Singh]

Iran and N. Korea are not a threat now, and they are a long way off being a threat to us.

China has no need to start a nuclear war with the West, we are their biggest market, their economy would go to shit and they would be the ones to lose.

£4billion a year on a useless heap of junk to please the Americans (more if you are really serious about developing our own deterrent), or £4 billion a year to spend on (whatever your political persuasion):

-the NHS

-more bobbies on the beat

-better equipment for our troops

-not cutting defence budgets on equipment that is actually needed (e.g. replacing our fleet of aging aircraft carriers and purchasing the new Eurofighter)

-tax cuts

-lowering the deficit

The trend is not for states to acquire nuclear weapons and to use them unilaterally. There has only ever been one state to use nuclear weapons in anger-the US- and there is an argument that when states acquire nuclear weapons their foreign policy actually becomes a lot more rational.

I state again, that expert opinion is that wars of the future will not be interstate wars, but intrastate wars. The wars of the last 20 years of the post Cold War world demonstrates this. You cannot predict the wars of the future, but when you use a scientific approach to international relations, and particularly security studies, it is very easy to see what the trend is regarding wars, and it is counterinsurgency, air power, and force projection tools that are needed if we are to protect our security, not nuclear weapons.

I agree, that £4bill is alot of money to make the US happy, but I think there must be more to meet the eye with that deal, and hence it shows our reliance on the US must be abated, britain needs to concentrate and invest sensibly in not just nuclear, but all arms.

The eurofighter is untried and untested, and far too expensive for that reason, that's why nobodies buying it.

Depending on which group of experts, each will give you an alternative reality. I read 15 years ago that India will dossolve and that China will occupy the east coast. I also read that by 2010, there will be a war on water, and pakistan and bangladesh will be flooded by redirection of water from the bhramaputra. There's nothing scientific, it's all probability and expert opinion. Just like any industry, there are experts and I wonder how many experts predicted the banking meltdown......definitely not the mainstream experts!!!

[sw_fox]

I agree, that £4bill is alot of money to make the US happy, but I think there must be more to meet the eye with that deal, and hence it shows our reliance on the US must be abated, britain needs to concentrate and invest sensibly in not just nuclear, but all arms.

The eurofighter is untried and untested, and far too expensive for that reason, that's why nobodies buying it.

Depending on which group of experts, each will give you an alternative reality. I read 15 years ago that India will dossolve and that China will occupy the east coast. I also read that by 2010, there will be a war on water, and pakistan and bangladesh will be flooded by redirection of water from the bhramaputra. There's nothing scientific, it's all probability and expert opinion. Just like any industry, there are experts and I wonder how many experts predicted the banking meltdown......definitely not the mainstream experts!!!

I am going to sound right arrogant here but...

I am a third year student of International Relations. Believe me there is an academic consensus on the replacement (on the whole) of interstate conflicts by intrastate conflicts.

There is also an academic consensus on the obseleteness of nuclear weapons in a post cold war age, for Europe at least.

There are also scientific methods of studying international relations and spotting trends. Intrastate v Interstate warfare is one of them.

You may doubt what the 'experts' say but don't forget these people have spent their lives studying these issues.

A good example of this is the prediction after the Iranian revolution of 1979 of the rise of political Islam, which has proved to be true, especially post cold war.

I will be the first to agree that experts/scholars/academics whatever you want to call them don't always get everything right, an example of this is that they did not predict the end of the cold war.

But if you look at the sort of wars we are fighting, and the sort we will be most likely to be fighting in the future, nuclear weapons do not figure, and academic consensus is right.

Did nuclear weapons deter Osama Bin Laden? Do they deter the Taliban in Afghanistan? Did they deter the insurgency in Iraq? Did they deter the 7/7 bombers? No. This is where our citizens and troops are dying and nuclear weapons have not stopped them.

Name me one state that is a threat to us that would be deterred by nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea don't count for reasons I have already mentioned, and also because:

-N. Korea is reliant on Western aid, its country would starve to death if initiating a nuclear exchange

-Iran is only seeking to attain nuclear weapons because of Israel & the West constantly threatening to start a war with it and also because its economy is based on the export of oil, if it starts a nuclear war there is no way it could survive economically.

We do not need nuclear weapons.

Also we cannot afford massive investment in nuclear and conventional arms, we are not flushed with cash, and with the trident replacement costing nearly 2/3 of our current budget deficit(and developing our own system even more), how would we afford to bolster our conventional weapons programs? Its one or the other, and the one to chose to actually keep us secure is conventional capability, to fight the wars of tomorrow.

[James.]

I am going to sound right arrogant here but...

I am a third year student of International Relations.

Don't get me wrong I actually think you know what you're talking about and have found your posts informative and interesting.

But... after reading that first line I was expecting you to say you were an Army General or Ministry of Defence strategist or something, not some bloody student!!

[Shrenchel]

Don't get me wrong I actually think you know what you're talking about and have found your posts informative and interesting.

But... after reading that first line I was expecting you to say you were an Army General or Ministry of Defence strategist or something, not some bloody student!!

Drawing for the degree in an argument does make you look a bit of a goon but to be fair to the lad, if we were chatting about maths, ancient history, fiscal economics or chemistry most people would think it was pretty valid that someone who had been researching these things solidly for three years might know a bit more about it than the average geezer on the street. With politics though, everyone thinks they're a fvcking hero.

[sw_fox]

With politics though, everyone thinks they're a fvcking hero.

The problem with politics is that opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.

[sw_fox]

Anyway, to get back on track, the choice is either:

-Scrap Trident replacement and spend it on things that we need like mending the fiscal mess we are in, getting better equipment to our troops on the frontline and protecting our services in a a time of austerity

OR

-Spend £100 Billion (which a large chunk of it would have to be spent in capital outlay of the new equipment, lets say 20 or 30 billion), adding to our huge budget deficit of £167 Billion and probably leading to future cuts in equipment for our boys on the front line due to high maintenance and training costs

What will it be Dr. the Singh?

[FoxyPV]

Scrap trident and all new military spending and save a fortune.

[Jon the Hat]

Scrap trident and all new military spending and save a fortune.

Some things have to be ringfenced. If you ware going to start cutting Trident, you will absolutley 100% result in the UK being off the UN security council within 5 years. We will continue our decline as a country of global influence, and get increasingly fooked over as time goes on. While we are at it, lets not forget that the Lib Dems want us to join the Euro, so why not get it over with and just hand the keys over the the EU now? Hmm? Bunch of idiots.

[FoxyPV]

Some things have to be ringfenced. If you ware going to start cutting Trident, you will absolutley 100% result in the UK being off the UN security council within 5 years. We will continue our decline as a country of global influence, and get increasingly fooked over as time goes on. While we are at it, lets not forget that the Lib Dems want us to join the Euro, so why not get it over with and just hand the keys over the the EU now? Hmm? Bunch of idiots.

We have as much influence on the global scale as a jewish person at a KKK rally at the moment - we are just a puppet of America. The large Asian Disapora in the UK is the way to try and gain influence as India etc is the place to aim for over the next five years.

We shouldn't join the Euro as it pushes prices up by over 10% - Republic of Ireland's prices went through the roof overnight when they joined euro.

[Shrenchel]

Some things have to be ringfenced. If you ware going to start cutting Trident, you will absolutley 100% result in the UK being off the UN security council within 5 years. We will continue our decline as a country of global influence, and get increasingly fooked over as time goes on.

Fvcked over how though? I couldn't really give two shits how much of an influence we have over international conflicts that barely effects us.. Germany has a bigger economy than ours, Italy are chomping right on our turtle head. Both seem to be managing just fine without being members of the UN security council. Per capita there are plenty of countries far better off than ours who have barely ever involved themselves in foreign struggles.