Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
| Hoof Hearted 01 Oct 15 10.20am | |
|---|---|
|
Ignoring the rights and wrongs of nuclear deterrents, Corbyn put a further nail in his coffin yesterday by confirming there was no way he would press the button to launch a strike. The whole point of a deterrent is that your enemies must believe that you would be prepared to retaliate and clearly if Corbyn was made PM he wouldn't. A lot of senior Labour ministers distanced themselves from Corbyn and I believe his tenure as leader will be a brief one. I predict his next nail will be his stance on immigration.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 susmik  PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 01 Oct 15 10.20am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 01 Oct 2015 9.25am
Whichever way you look at the chances of us launching our nuclear weapons independently during a conflict that doesn't involve the U.S. is practically zero. Think of the many hundreds of billions saved over the next twenty five years if not a trillion. We really don't need nuclear weapons anymore. They just make us look big and clever at the UN. You tell the rogue countries that and see what they say!!!
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| npn Crowborough 01 Oct 15 10.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 01 Oct 2015 9.18am
Yes,but as the following in Nick's link notes: "The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power. In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. The USA would see such an act as cutting across its self-declared prerogative as the world's policeman, and would almost certainly make the UK pay a high price for its presumption. The fact that the UK is completely technically dependent on the USA for the maintenance of the Trident system means that one way the USA could show its displeasure would be to cut off the technical support needed for the UK to continue to send Trident to sea" So,in reality, the "benefits" of the independent finger on the button (whether a PM would push it or not) are pretty illusory when set against the estimated cost of up to £100bn ...which could perhaps be enough to fully fund A&E services for many years, employ up to 150,000 new nurses, build up to 1.5 million affordable homes, build up to 30,000 new primary schools, or cover tuition fees for up to 4 million students.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DanH SW2 01 Oct 15 10.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Oct 2015 10.20am
Ignoring the rights and wrongs of nuclear deterrents, Corbyn put a further nail in his coffin yesterday by confirming there was no way he would press the button to launch a strike. The whole point of a deterrent is that your enemies must believe that you would be prepared to retaliate and clearly if Corbyn was made PM he wouldn't. A lot of senior Labour ministers distanced themselves from Corbyn and I believe his tenure as leader will be a brief one. I predict his next nail will be his stance on immigration.
F*ck me, the world is f*cked.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 01 Oct 15 10.58am | |
|---|---|
|
Quote DanH at 01 Oct 2015 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Oct 2015 10.20am
Ignoring the rights and wrongs of nuclear deterrents, Corbyn put a further nail in his coffin yesterday by confirming there was no way he would press the button to launch a strike. The whole point of a deterrent is that your enemies must believe that you would be prepared to retaliate and clearly if Corbyn was made PM he wouldn't. A lot of senior Labour ministers distanced themselves from Corbyn and I believe his tenure as leader will be a brief one. I predict his next nail will be his stance on immigration.
F*ck me, the world is f*cked.
The trouble is he will be negotiating with the likes of KIm Jong Un - who will not take him or us seriously and start taking even more liberties.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Oct 15 11.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 01 Oct 2015 9.25am
Whichever way you look at the chances of us launching our nuclear weapons independently during a conflict that doesn't involve the U.S. is practically zero. Think of the many hundreds of billions saved over the next twenty five years if not a trillion. We really don't need nuclear weapons anymore. They just make us look big and clever at the UN. Indeed, but its not because of the US per se, but the fact that we're offensively linked to NATO. There isn't really a scenario in which an enemy will suddenly strike with a full all out nuclear assault (in fact during the cold war it was considered a certainity that NATO would be the first to use weapons of mass destruction due to balance the 'numerical disadvantage). However, in the unlikely event of the UK launching a full nuclear strike at Soviet cities without NATO or US agreement, this would be in retaliation for an all out nuclear attack striking the UK, or being on route to strike the UK. I don't think the trident system and processes have a 'fire a single missile' protocol (given no one on board actually knows what the targets are, or has the capacity to retarget missiles - for security reasons). It was designed very much as a guaranteed full scale strike.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Oct 15 11.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 01 Oct 2015 9.20am
Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Sep 2015 7.39pm
Quote susmik at 30 Sep 2015 7.24pm
You are forgetting Russia mate as Putin is building up his arsenal and has been for years...... I think it's somewhat questionable whether Putin's Imperialism is directed beyond the former Soviet-bloc. And not even that to its full extent. Without Stalinism to export, it's more of a localised land-grab than a threat to the world -- can you really see him invading Germany at this point? -- though in economic terms no doubt he wants to extend Russia's influence further than that. Doing so, however, would not be a military threat and probably won't be best countered by military action. Russia today, while still governed in an odious way, is far more pragmatic and less zealous than it was 50 years ago. Russia may not be our friend or, even, trustworthy, but it is not the same kind of enemy and I doubt they will become that kind of enemy again. Even if we do invest in Nukes, I suspect that it won't be from Russia they need to protect us.
Russia doesn't really work like that. Putin's ability to lead and hold power isn't unchecked, its very much about lining the pockets of those beneath him, and the other powermongers in the Russian hierarchy. Russia is essentially a mafia state, in which the secret police/government/business are inseparable. Putin holds power because he is a good figure for those with the real power. But if he stepped out of line, he'd likely have 'an accident'. That's how Russia works now. And Europe is a massive consumer of Russian companies gas and oil products. Everything Russia does is about controlling markets and states. The situation in the Ukranine is about them moving further away from the 'New Soviet Mafia'. The only real concern with Russia is the security of their existing stockpile of nuclear weapons, and technologies. However pakistan has traditionally been the country that's exported Nuclear technology to other states. And it won't use its weapons against anyone except India.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Oct 15 11.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 30 Sep 2015 5.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Sep 2015 4.47pm
Quote chris123 at 30 Sep 2015 4.03pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Sep 2015 3.22pm
Quote chris123 at 30 Sep 2015 2.46pm
The state of European peace is more fragile now that for the last 20 years - Russia in Ukraine in particular - these things have a deterrent value just by having them, and to unilaterally disarm is not defending the realm, which should be any Governments priority. I'm no expert in nuclear weaponry but I'd have thought we have quite enough of them already to blow the world and ourselves to oblivion so why do we need to invest even more money in them when other areas of society are crying out for investment? I agree the realm should be defended, but it's "how", not "if".
Actually it doesn't. There are inherent problems with submarine based deterrents, not least the fact we'd only ever have two submarines at sea (and often one). Trident submarines operate by sitting at the bottom of the ocean in range of a target nation for several months at a time, during which they remain in complete radio silence (they only monitor communications, they do not broadcast). As such, you can't really change targets, without giving away your location to the enemy, because that requires transmission and receipt of signals. When Trident goes to sea, not even the crew or command base, will know where it will be located or its targets. Its utterly vital for Trident submarines to never be detected, because they'd be easy prey for destroyers and hunter-killer submarines because they won't have the Royal Navy to protect them. The US don't operate a singular nuclear system (they have I think four different nuclear options at any given time). We however only have the missiles on two submarines. Targets are usually programmed into missiles when they are in port (and there are always at least two Trident submarines docked, and one to two on patrol). In theory targets could be retargeted remotely, but that would mean not verifying the transmissions of data and verifying back with command (typically both command and the submarine will need to verify). They incidently rotated targets in order to prevent the soviet being able to determine where the missiles would probably hit, and thus intercept them. Part of the point of Trident, is that even if you hijacked the submarine, you couldn't launch or retarget the missiles (Only the PM or depuities can issue an order to launch, the commander has a locked safe which as a final fall back contains either a launch or no launch command, so that even if all communications along with the PM and nuclear deputies are lost, the UK can still retaliate So whilst Submarines seem more flexible, they aren't. The UK system doesn't work like the US one. No one on the submarine has the capacity to target or order the launch of missiles (the commander doesn't have a launch code or even knowledge of where the missiles are targeted).
"If there is more than a negligible chance that the possession of nuclear weapons might play a decisive future role in the defence of the United Kingdom and its allies in preventing nuclear blackmail or in affecting the wider security context with which the UK sits, then they should be retained." That's not how economics work. Its about real costs. That's pure rhetoric, because there is always a negligible chance of anything. There is a negligible or theoretic chance of any kind of scenario, and at no point has the UK ever based policy on the negligible or theoretic chance, because we'd be bankrupted. Personally I do think we should look to somekind of nuclear option, the problem is that Trident isn't it. What trident represents is a massive feeding trough for Private defense firms, to provide a theoretical solution to a hypothetical situation.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 01 Oct 15 11.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 01 Oct 2015 10.20am
Quote Kermit8 at 01 Oct 2015 9.25am
Whichever way you look at the chances of us launching our nuclear weapons independently during a conflict that doesn't involve the U.S. is practically zero. Think of the many hundreds of billions saved over the next twenty five years if not a trillion. We really don't need nuclear weapons anymore. They just make us look big and clever at the UN. You tell the rogue countries that and see what they say!!!
Nah, seriously, who is going to engage us in a conflict without the U.S. being involved? They already have nukes ready to strike from Western Europe via their subs and bombers wouldn't be far behind. Our nukes wouldn't matter hence why we can do away them and invest the ridiculously huge amount of money in more important areas.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Oct 15 11.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 01 Oct 2015 11.16am
Quote susmik at 01 Oct 2015 10.20am
Quote Kermit8 at 01 Oct 2015 9.25am
Whichever way you look at the chances of us launching our nuclear weapons independently during a conflict that doesn't involve the U.S. is practically zero. Think of the many hundreds of billions saved over the next twenty five years if not a trillion. We really don't need nuclear weapons anymore. They just make us look big and clever at the UN. You tell the rogue countries that and see what they say!!!
Nah, seriously, who is going to engage us in a conflict without the U.S. being involved? They already have nukes ready to strike from Western Europe via their subs and bombers wouldn't be far behind. Our nukes wouldn't matter hence why we can do away them and invest the ridiculously huge amount of money in more important areas. Irony of the modern world is that were so economically tied to Russia and China, that we literally could end up being defended by two super powers and Putins wet dream.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 01 Oct 15 11.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 01 Oct 2015 10.20am
Quote Kermit8 at 01 Oct 2015 9.25am
Whichever way you look at the chances of us launching our nuclear weapons independently during a conflict that doesn't involve the U.S. is practically zero. Think of the many hundreds of billions saved over the next twenty five years if not a trillion. We really don't need nuclear weapons anymore. They just make us look big and clever at the UN. You tell the rogue countries that and see what they say!!! We could just lie.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 01 Oct 15 11.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Oct 2015 11.14am
Quote chris123 at 30 Sep 2015 5.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Sep 2015 4.47pm
Quote chris123 at 30 Sep 2015 4.03pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Sep 2015 3.22pm
Quote chris123 at 30 Sep 2015 2.46pm
The state of European peace is more fragile now that for the last 20 years - Russia in Ukraine in particular - these things have a deterrent value just by having them, and to unilaterally disarm is not defending the realm, which should be any Governments priority. I'm no expert in nuclear weaponry but I'd have thought we have quite enough of them already to blow the world and ourselves to oblivion so why do we need to invest even more money in them when other areas of society are crying out for investment? I agree the realm should be defended, but it's "how", not "if".
Actually it doesn't. There are inherent problems with submarine based deterrents, not least the fact we'd only ever have two submarines at sea (and often one). Trident submarines operate by sitting at the bottom of the ocean in range of a target nation for several months at a time, during which they remain in complete radio silence (they only monitor communications, they do not broadcast). As such, you can't really change targets, without giving away your location to the enemy, because that requires transmission and receipt of signals. When Trident goes to sea, not even the crew or command base, will know where it will be located or its targets. Its utterly vital for Trident submarines to never be detected, because they'd be easy prey for destroyers and hunter-killer submarines because they won't have the Royal Navy to protect them. The US don't operate a singular nuclear system (they have I think four different nuclear options at any given time). We however only have the missiles on two submarines. Targets are usually programmed into missiles when they are in port (and there are always at least two Trident submarines docked, and one to two on patrol). In theory targets could be retargeted remotely, but that would mean not verifying the transmissions of data and verifying back with command (typically both command and the submarine will need to verify). They incidently rotated targets in order to prevent the soviet being able to determine where the missiles would probably hit, and thus intercept them. Part of the point of Trident, is that even if you hijacked the submarine, you couldn't launch or retarget the missiles (Only the PM or depuities can issue an order to launch, the commander has a locked safe which as a final fall back contains either a launch or no launch command, so that even if all communications along with the PM and nuclear deputies are lost, the UK can still retaliate So whilst Submarines seem more flexible, they aren't. The UK system doesn't work like the US one. No one on the submarine has the capacity to target or order the launch of missiles (the commander doesn't have a launch code or even knowledge of where the missiles are targeted).
"If there is more than a negligible chance that the possession of nuclear weapons might play a decisive future role in the defence of the United Kingdom and its allies in preventing nuclear blackmail or in affecting the wider security context with which the UK sits, then they should be retained." That's not how economics work. Its about real costs. That's pure rhetoric, because there is always a negligible chance of anything. There is a negligible or theoretic chance of any kind of scenario, and at no point has the UK ever based policy on the negligible or theoretic chance, because we'd be bankrupted. Personally I do think we should look to somekind of nuclear option, the problem is that Trident isn't it. What trident represents is a massive feeding trough for Private defense firms, to provide a theoretical solution to a hypothetical situation. Well in 30 years time if it's done it's job as a stalemate weapon then rhetoric or not it will have done its job, and who knows what kind of threats we may face in the decades to come. I'm not sure what other military alternatives provide the same long term protection.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.