Could've tricked the Ruskies and floated around with no weapons if that daft cnut hadn't given the game away.

I'm all for a nuclear 'deterrent', but Trident as a solution really isn't suited to providing that, without completely changing how we operate and use Trident.

Post-Cold war the UKs need to guaranteed M.A.D isn't necessary, and requires a flexible deployment of nuclear capacity, if required, not the capacity to assure delivery of a devastating nuclear strike in a situation where the UK has been 'effectively rendered in operative'.

The problem of moving Trident to this modern world scenario is that it ultimately undermines the safeguards in the trident system (as it stands you could hijack a Trident submarine, with all its warheads and not be able to fire one of them, and even if you did, it could only be at a pretargeted destination, that no one on board is aware of).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I've just read the Guardian's round-up of all the other papers, none of which seem to think it was a very good idea, to say the least, nor do they seem to disgree that he said “There don’t have to be nuclear warheads on them".

In a rare absense of a Guardian article soley centred around other outlets being wrong thus temprarily crediting the left with an ounce of sanity, you're saying he did't actually say it.

Edited by johnfirewall (18 Jan 2016 11.57am)

Forgive the long quote here, but it's a transcript of the Marr interview yesterday. Corbyn does not say that he believes we should have subs without missiles, although he does say that there should be a discussion about the issues. totally different to what the sun has put on the front page today. He did not say we should have subs without missiles so yes, I do say he didn't actually say it.

AM: Not a secret. You gave an interview to the Independent on
Sunday today in which you said a very interesting thing, you said
that actually Trident or not Trident wasn’t necessarily a binary
decision, an either/or decision. What did you mean by that?
JC: Well, we don’t know what proposal the government is going to
make when the issue comes up to parliament, whenever it comes
up. That’s not in my hands. There may well be a discussion on
considering it further, because the government is in arguments
about the cost of the whole programme. Many in the military are
very worried about the focus of so much expenditure on nuclear
weapons when they actually are looking at more conventional
issues and a more conventional role for the armed forces. And of
course issues of insecurity around the world.
AM: Well, you say it’s not binary. Is there an implication there that
Jeremy Corbyn might support a reduction in Britain’s nuclear
deterrent without going the whole hog to complete ending it
straight away?
JC: You shouldn’t read too much into one sentence of an
interview. What I’m saying is we don’t know what the proposal is
the government’s going to put. My views on nuclear weapons are
very, very well known and I want to see a nuclear-free world, I
want to see us playing a full role in the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty, I want to see a return to the ABM treaty, the ballistic missile treaty by Russia and the United States. I want to see a deescalation
in nuclear potentials around the world. And that surely
is something we can all sign up to.
AM: I sometimes wonder whether this whole Trident debate in the
Labour Party is a nonsense, because we know, and you’ve said,
that you would never press the button, and if you were a Labour
Party prime minister therefore there wouldn’t be a nuclear
deterrent, because it depends upon the Russians or the Iranians
or whoever thinking that you might use it, and indeed you won’t.
There’s no deterrent there anyway.
JC: The real issue is are we going to play our part in the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty? The British government in May missed a
huge opportunity there in many ways. I want to play a full part in
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which requires the five
declared nuclear weapons states not to further develop their
nuclear capability, and the – what is it? – 187 other countries that
have signed it not to develop nuclear weapons. It’s actually been,
by and large, a very successful treaty.
AM: But if we have these four huge submarines packed with
nuclear weapons circling the globe and a prime minister who has
said, ‘I will never, ever use them,’ then it’s not really a deterrent
anyway, it’s a nonsense.
JC: They don’t actually have nuclear warheads on them.
AM: Sure. So we can have Trident submarines without nuclear
warheads, could we?
JC: If we use a nuclear weapon, anybody uses a nuclear weapon,
it is catastrophic for the whole globe. Everybody knows it’s
catastrophic. I don’t believe David Cameron would use it either.
AM: So you think the deterrent doesn’t really exist as a deterrent
any more?
JC: I think that the nuclear weapons system is something of the
Cold War generation. I don’t believe that in the insecurities of
today nuclear weapons are a solution to that. Look at the
problems in the Middle East, elsewhere, look at the disaster of 9/11 in New York in 2001. Were nuclear weapons any help in any
of those? No, they were not. We have achieved a fantastic step
forward with Iran, that surely is the way forward. Diplomacy
comes first.
AM: I have one final question on this then I’ll move on, which is
you suggested just now one answer might be to keep the Trident
submarines but without nuclear weapons on board, is that what
you’re saying?
JC: There are options there. The paper that Emily Thornberry has
put forward is a very interesting one, deserves a very good study
of it and read of it, and I hope there will be a serious, mature
response to what is a very serious and hopefully mature debate
about the nature of security and insecurity, the nature of the way
in which we protect ourselves against insecurity and we bring
about a more secure world as a result.

Apologies for the formatting, but copied from pdf.
[Link]

EDIT. The bold part - Marr said that Corbyn said one answer might be... Corbyn didn't, Marr was the one who suggested it. Like I said earlier, a hatchet job.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 12.47pm)

No wonder he wants to give the Falklands back his other half is Argentinian !!

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Everytime he opens his mouth he distances himself from more and more of the electorate, we all know that the tories are piss taking bastads, but Corbyn and his bunch of crusty lesbians and hippys are unelectable.

So I ask what do voters do in this case, no one is going to vote UKIP, lets be honest here, they just aren't. So it's either hand GB over to which ever agressive economic power decides to take over first, or vote the robbing bastads that are the tories back in again.

What a crock of s***.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.

That's why I think they'll oust him. Quite a few high profile Labour MPs would be at risk of losing their seats to someone else.

Optimistic as ever

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you. If I wanted I could have said nothing and let you carry on using the wrong term, so in fact I'm doing the opposite.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.
He's trying to placate those that would lose jobs if trident with nuclear wasn't an option. There are other types of non nuclear missiles that could be used instead.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)