The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[JFKvsNixon]

I can respect a man with Corbyn's views on nuclear weapons, but when you're potentially one election away from being the person who may or may not give the orders to launch you should bloody well keep those views to yourself.

 

All he has to do it keep "the other side" guessing as to whether or not he'll launch them. They may very well be confident that he won't use them, but unless they're certain the deterrent value still holds.

 

It seems that Corbyn want's to put his own personal integrity in front of any security that the deterrent may hold.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2015 at 23:23 ----------

 

Trident is a one trick pony. It is not a flexible deterrent.

 

It is designed with one objective and that is (with less than 50 warheads) to take out approximately ten command and control centres in the Greater Moscow region, basically to cut the head off the Russian military. Each centre is treated to targeting by 3 or 4 Trident warheads. The Americans have duplicated this targeting and have dozens of additional warheads targeted on each command centre.

 

Trident cannot disable the Russian state alone. In a first strike scenario it probably wouldn't even disable return strike capability. It would have to be used in conjunction with US strikes.

 

In return for this we have how many Russian warheads targeted on our towns and cities?

Hundreds!!

 

The only thing guaranteed is our destruction when the time eventually comes. Not worth it.

 

From the USA's point of view what I've read is that Trident is a second strike weapon, not as accurate as the ICBMs, but far more survivable against a first strike. The first strikes will usually be against military targets such as enemy ICBMs and airbases etc, and C3 (Command, Control, Communication) targets, with the capitals spared to ensure that the leaders could negotiate the surrender of the other side.

 

The Tridents were the 2nd strike city busters held in reserve to either deter "the enemy" from attacking cities, or if that fails to strike back in revenge against their cities.

 

From our point of view, the Tridents were purely a deterrent against an attack, and then because of their survivability a way to strike back after we were attacked, in a similar manner as the American, aimed at cities because the ability to destroy maybe "the enemies" biggest 20 cities is usually considered enough of a deterrent.

[Anna B]

you're just naive, Anna. They only made that decision, when that decision was made for them, like it was for Germany and Japan.

 

why don't you ask the French, who are only just next door, and who are the major historical enemy of Britain, to get rid rid of theirs, before we get rid of ours?

 

Sorry, but that's just rubbish.

 

Out of 190+ countries in the world, only 9 have nuclear weapons.

 

Of those the vast majority are held by USA (7,200 warheads) and Russia (7,500 warheads.)

 

So 15,700 between those two alone.

 

The UK has 215 warheads.

 

The rest are shared between the other 6 countries. China (250) India (90-120) Pakistan (100-120) France (300) Israel (80) and North Korea (10)

 

We are a nuclear minnow. I'm sure a lot of our desire to be 'a nuclear power' is more about politician's grandstanding than actual defence. Personally I don't want to be dragged into America's wars, they're a bit too trigger happy for my liking. And if it kicks off it will be the end of the world, whether we have nuclear weapons or not.

 

The sooner we get world-wide nuclear disarmament the better. It has to start somewhere.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Anna B

[blake]

anybody who knows the first thing about nuclear politics in Britain, provided we want to disarm, knows that we cannot possibly even begin to disarm before the French do.

 

But if we do get to that stage, where both us the British and the French disarm then we are the pair of us at the mercy of the United States and Russia (and, possibly, others)

 

do we want to be in that place?

[drummonds]

I'm not that bothered. It just sounded fishy, and still does.

 

I also didn't think you'd be daft enough to 'fess up to tax evasion and wear it as some badge of honour on a public forum. Especially given your views about contribution from economic migrants, what the Gvt should spend taxpayers money on, etc.

 

Takes all sorts I suppose.

 

it is very simple. take advice from professionals and not sf experts. that way you don't break the law but can make a living.

 

so no tax evasion. just taking the rules and working within them.

 

https://www.gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad/tax-and-duty

 

You pay VAT on goods sent from non-European Union (EU) countries and EU special territories (eg the Canary Islands) if they’re:... other goods worth more than £15

 

You’ll be charged Customs Duty on gifts and other goods sent from outside the EU if they’re above a certain value, unless the duty comes to less than £9.

Edited September 30, 2015 by drummonds

[tinfoilhat]

Sorry, but that's just rubbish.

 

Out of 190+ countries in the world, only 9 have nuclear weapons.

 

Of those the vast majority are held by USA (7,200 warheads) and Russia (7,500 warheads.)

 

So 15,700 between those two alone.

 

The UK has 215 warheads.

 

The rest are shared between the other 6 countries. China (250) India (90-120) Pakistan (100-120) France (300) North Korea (10)

 

We are a nuclear minnow. I'm sure a lot of our desire to be 'a nuclear power' is more about politician's grandstanding than actual defence. Personally I don't want to be dragged into America's wars, they're a bit too trigger happy for my liking. And if it kicks off it will be the end of the world.

 

The sooner we get world-wide nuclear disarmament the better. It has to start somewhere.

 

It won't start with us - you know it and I know it. Putin won't give his up whilst there's breath in body. Neither will the Chinese.

[I1L2T3]

I can respect a man with Corbyn's views on nuclear weapons, but when you're potentially one election away from being the person who may or may not give the orders to launch you should bloody well keep those views to yourself.

 

All he has to do it keep "the other side" guessing as to whether or not he'll launch them. They may very well be confident that he won't use them, but unless they're certain the deterrent value still holds.

 

It seems that Corbyn want's to put his own personal integrity in front of any security that the deterrent may hold.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2015 at 23:23 ----------

 

 

From the USA's point of view what I've read is that Trident is a second strike weapon, not as accurate as the ICBMs, but far more survivable against a first strike. The first strikes will usually be against military targets such as enemy ICBMs and airbases etc, and C3 (Command, Control, Communication) targets, with the capitals spared to ensure that the leaders could negotiate the surrender of the other side.

 

The Tridents were the 2nd strike city busters held in reserve to either deter "the enemy" from attacking cities, or if that fails to strike back in revenge against their cities.

 

From our point of view, the Tridents were purely a deterrent against an attack, and then because of their survivability a way to strike back after we were attacked, in a similar manner as the American, aimed at cities because the ability to destroy maybe "the enemies" biggest 20 cities is usually considered enough of a deterrent.

 

The Americans have several times the number of Trident-equipped submarines as we do. As many as 20 I believe.

 

The UK having the weapon is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.

[JFKvsNixon]

Sorry, but that's just rubbish.

 

Out of 190+ countries in the world, only 9 have nuclear weapons.

 

Of those the vast majority are held by USA (7,200 warheads) and Russia (7,500 warheads.)

 

So 15,700 between those two alone.

 

The UK has 215 warheads.

 

The rest are shared between the other 6 countries. China (250) India (90-120) Pakistan (100-120) France (300) North Korea (10)

 

We are a nuclear minnow. I'm sure a lot of our desire to be 'a nuclear power' is more about politician's grandstanding than actual defence. Personally I don't want to be dragged into America's wars, they're a bit too trigger happy for my liking. And if it kicks off it will be the end of the world.

 

The sooner we get world-wide nuclear disarmament the better. It has to start somewhere.

 

In the thermonuclear age, to be a nuclear minnow is still enough to deter any sane enemy. If in some alternative reality, there was a potential conflict between us and America. Do you believe that America would risk losing it's 50 biggest cities to defeat us in a conflict?

 

China has the right nuclear strategy when it comes to nuclear deterrence. It is enough to cripple your enemy to deter, everything else is overkill. Do you really believe that the ability to make the rubble bounce a few more times is any more terrifying than being destroyed?

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2015 at 23:33 ----------

 

The Americans have several times the number of Trident-equipped submarines as we do. As many as 20 I believe.

 

The UK having the weapon is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.

 

You may well believe that the ability to destroy "the enemy's" 20/50 biggest cities as being an irrelevance compared to America's ability to destroy every city/town and village three times over.

 

I think that they are of equal deterrence, because both would bring about the end of life as we know it.

Edited September 30, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[blake]

 

Our nuclear weapons do not make us any less likely to be attacked than any other NATO country - most of which do not have an independent nuclear "deterrent"

 

 

rubbish. Nobody is going to attack Britain itself, when they think that they just might get nuked. They will even think twice about attacking places like the Falklands, Gibraltar and Cyprus. When you have a nuclear deterrent you are sending out a signal that you are formidable, like the French do.

[Happ Hazzard]

How many attacks has there ever been against countries with nuclear weapon capabilities? I'm guessing the average country without nukes gets attacked far more than the average country with.

[flamingjimmy]

rubbish. Nobody is going to attack Britain itself, when they think that they just might get nuked. They will even think twice about attacking places like the Falklands, Gibraltar and Cyprus. When you have a nuclear deterrent you are sending out a signal that you are formidable, like the French do.

Oh yeah, like how Argentina didn't attack the Falklands, 'cause our nukes totally put them off.

 

You're talking complete nonsense.

 

---------- Post added 01-10-2015 at 00:20 ----------

 

How many attacks has there ever been against countries with nuclear weapon capabilities? I'm guessing the average country without nukes gets attacked far more than the average country with.

Yeah, you're guessing. Not even an educated guess, a stupid guess, you might say.