The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[JFKvsNixon]

And instead we are living through an unprecedented time of peace and harmony worldwide? Thank goodness for deterrent eh?

 

Every country in the world should have a deterrent perhaps?

 

The crazy thing is people have argued for this. My position is as I'm a multilateralist, if there was a way to un-invent nuclear weapons I'd sleep a lot more easier.

 

It cannot be denied though, that for the first time in history the leaders of nations have become directly physically accountable for their actions in regards to any grand schemes of war that they may have. It also cannot be denied that this accountability has made them a lot more cautious in their actions. It's all speculation, but I believe that we'd have had further global wars if it wasn't for nuclear weapons

 

So the West kept their foothold in Berln, Cuba remained under Castro's rule, the PRC didn't crush Taiwan, India's had to tolerate Pakistan, and so on and so forth.

 

It's a crying shame that it's taken the threat of nuclear armageddon to make the people in power pause.

Edited October 1, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[I1L2T3]

Keep on track? We are talking about nuclear deterrence, and you think that the fact that nuclear deterrence has deterred nuclear powers from going to war against each other is not on topic.

 

As to your question, I''m not sure if I've understood your question, maybe you could you paraphrase it for me?

 

The question should be, does the nuclear deterrent work, yes or no? If the answers yes then there's a chance that we may need it to work for us in the future. I'll ask you a question, if Iraq had a credible nuclear deterrent do you believe that we'd have invaded?

 

The question is very simple. Remember we're talking about the UK.....

 

I see no evidence that our independent capability has done anything, especially so given that we as members of NATO are under the same USA-provided nuclear umbrella as any non-nuclear NATO country.

 

So the question and very specific to the UK as it is our capability we are discussing: What benefits has having an independent deterrent given the UK?

 

I'll be honest. I can't think of any.

 

---------- Post added 01-10-2015 at 23:39 ----------

 

The crazy thing is people have argued for this. My position is as I'm a multilateralist, if there was a way to un-invent nuclear weapons I'd sleep a lot more easier.

 

It cannot be denied though, that for the first time in history the leaders of nations have become directly physically accountable for their actions in regards to any grand schemes of war that they may have. It also cannot be denied that this accountability has made them a lot more cautious in their actions. It's all speculation, but I believe that we'd have had further global wars if it wasn't for nuclear weapons

 

So the West kept their foothold in Berln, Cuba remained under Castro's rule, the PRC didn't crush Taiwan, India's had to tolerate Pakistan, and so on and so forth.

 

It's a crying shame that it's taken the threat of nuclear armageddon to make the people in power pause.

 

You're making an important point and that is once the genie is out the lamp it is difficult to go back.

 

Certainly the USA and Russians, and maybe other countries for regional strategic reasons, find themselves in that position. But for the UK specifically we are in a totally different scenario. We could give up our capability pretty easily and experience very little difference and no loss of security.

[flamingjimmy]

The phrase was "Imagine the UK without a UN Security Council veto. Imagine North Korea with one." There's a point being made which isn't very well hidden if you take the trouble to avoid being stupid.

 

Oh I saw your point, a stupid point being made stupidly.

 

Hypotheticals about North Korea's place on the UN security council, really!

 

I saw that post too, it's still stupid, if you can imagine a world where North Korea has a seat at the UN security council then you must have a very vivid imagination.

 

Here's you:

 

"Imagine the UK without a UN Security Council veto. Imagine North Korea with one...."

 

First class stuff there, oh wait I'm not reading the Onion.

 

and you close of the argument with

 

"This is how it is in the real world"

 

For reals?

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2015 at 02:57 ----------

 

You're talking like an attack on a single city would be out of the question.

 

It's one of the scenarios that has often been war-gamed. During a moment of extreme heightened crisis between two nuclear armed sides. One side may attack one city to show their resolve, but also to show that they're not interested in nuclear armageddon. It's almost like a nuclear blackmail, give in to our demands or risk nuclear armageddon.

 

Could it not be that the people organising the war-games are overly militaristic and paranoid? As opposed to their reasoning being based on an objective analysis of possible outcomes, as you imply here?

Edited October 2, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[Manlinose]

The scenario suggested by JFK is possible, and a valid option for defence planners to consider.

 

It is extremely unlikely though and completely destroys any deterrence argument

 

To say that one nuclear power would possibly risk a "limited" nuclear strike on another nuclear power "to show their resolve" means that deterrence hasn't worked - it also prompts a tit for tat response - and escalation

 

So if you believe deterrence works, the scenario doesn't

[Eric Arthur]

Oh I saw your point, a stupid point being made stupidly.

 

Hypotheticals about North Korea's place on the UN security council, really!

 

I saw that post too, it's still stupid, if you can imagine a world where North Korea has a seat at the UN security council then you must have a very vivid imagination.

 

Here's you:

 

"Imagine the UK without a UN Security Council veto. Imagine North Korea with one...."

 

First class stuff there, oh wait I'm not reading the Onion.

 

and you close of the argument with

 

"This is how it is in the real world"

 

For reals?

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2015 at 02:57 ----------

 

 

Could it not be that the people organising the war-games are overly militaristic and paranoid? As opposed to their reasoning being based on an objective analysis of possible outcomes, as you imply here?

Here's a tip. Don't post at 2:54 am while drinking and befuddled. It might not seem much clearer this morning but if that's the case that's your issue, not mine.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2015 at 08:00 ----------

 

I see no evidence that our independent capability has done anything, especially so given that we as members of NATO are under the same USA-provided nuclear umbrella as any non-nuclear NATO country.

 

So the question and very specific to the UK as it is our capability we are discussing: What benefits has having an independent deterrent given the UK?

 

I'll be honest. I can't think of any.

 

Maybe we can try looking at it another way, do you want to rely on the USA and its politics for the UK's national defence and the safety of your family?

Edited October 2, 2015 by Eric Arthur

[I1L2T3]

No actually I don't want to rely on the USA but I'd rather we weren't put in scenarios where that protection is necessary, and I think we have other ways of defending ourselves.

[drummonds]

No actually I don't want to rely on the USA but I'd rather we weren't put in scenarios where that protection is necessary, and I think we have other ways of defending ourselves.

 

the best way of defending ourselves is to not elect a labour government. they can't be trusted with the defence of the realm. so it is good to know that the leadership of that party is making such efforts to ensure they never are.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/30/labour-split-on-defence-grows-as-eagle-criticises-corbyn-over-trident

 

Maria Eagle criticised Corbyn’s remarks. She told the BBC: “It undermines to some degree our attempt to try and get a policy process going. As far as I am concerned, we start from the policy we have. I don’t think that a potential prime minister answering a question like that in the way he did is helpful.”

 

A series of Eagle’s colleagues supported her in interviews with the BBC. Asked whether prime ministers should always have the option of using nuclear weapons as a last resort, Burnham, the shadow home secretary, said: “I think so, I do, because if a deterrent is to mean what it says then that is an option that prime ministers have to keep.”

 

The shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, said: “I think a British prime minister has to have that option. The whole purpose of the deterrent, of course, is it is trying to deter a potential enemy.”

 

Angela Eagle, the shadow business secretary, said: “I don’t think anyone in their right mind would want to get into a situation where it would be used. But if you do get to that situation you have to be prepared to use it.”

 

Falconer, the shadow justice secretary, said: “If you’ve got a nuclear deterrent you have got to be willing to use it in extreme circumstances or it isn’t a deterrent.”

 

Alexander, the shadow health secretary, said: “You should never say never in politics because what you need to do is look at the circumstances that arise, the evidence before you.”

 

David Cameron said Corbyn’s comments showed that Labour could not be trusted with the nation’s security.

 

Speaking in Jamaica, where he is on an official visit, the prime minister said: “The independent nuclear deterrent that we have in Britain is a vital insurance policy for our nation in what is a very dangerous world.

 

“The way the Labour leader has answered that question undermines our deterrent and demonstrates that Labour can’t be trusted with our national security, which after all is the most important duty of government.”

 

The row meant that the Labour conference ended on a difficult note. But the differences over Trident, which are to be examined in a review headed by Maria Eagle, go to the heart of the debate about the future of the Labour party.

 

Eagle and a host of other shadow cabinet ministers including Benn and the deputy leader, Tom Watson, believe that supporting Trident renewal is a vital part of assuring centrist voters that the nation’s security would be safe in Labour’s hands.

 

In their view of recent Labour history, the party only made itself a credible force for power when it abandoned support for unilateral disarmament in 1989 in favour of multilateral disarmament.

 

 

I thought i'd quote from the guardian because they try to see abour's chaos in the best light. :hihi:

Edited October 2, 2015 by drummonds

[L00b]

I see no evidence that our independent capability has done anything, especially so given that we as members of NATO are under the same USA-provided nuclear umbrella as any non-nuclear NATO country.

Would you be happy for a nuclear-less UK to stand under the USA-provided umbrella held up by Bush?

 

Do you really believe any past US president, or Obama now, would press the big red button if a nuclear-less UK (but not the USA) had been partly or even wholly turned into a cinder by Russian ICBMs?

Certainly the USA and Russians, and maybe other countries for regional strategic reasons, find themselves in that position. But for the UK specifically we are in a totally different scenario. We could give up our capability pretty easily and experience very little difference and no loss of security.

The UK has long been geopolitically aligned with the US.

 

But imagine the special relationship sours in years to come, and the UK becomes not so much pally with the US anymore, yet still not pally by far with Russia.

 

What geopolitical weight projected by a nuclear-less UK? About as much as Germany, i.e. about as much as a mousefart relative to Russia, the US and the PRC.

 

You're focusing the debate on the hardware and conflicts. That's glossing completely on the geopolitical weight which the UK has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, with being in the nuclear club. Trident is not just 'a pile of expensive junk that will never be fired in anger' acting as a deterrent: it's an international policy force-multiplier.

 

Just like aircraft carriers...of which we don't currently have any, thanks to New Labour's contract negotiating prowess.

The question should be, does the nuclear deterrent work, yes or no? If the answers yes then there's a chance that we may need it to work for us in the future. I'll ask you a question, if Iraq had a credible nuclear deterrent do you believe that we'd have invaded?

No more than the PRC, Russia or the US would ever have a go at one another, or India and Pakistan would ever have at one another large-scale, or anyone would ever have a pop at Pyongyang for the foreseeable future, or Iran would ever take a swipe at Israel <etc.>

 

Their nuclear-less proxies though...well these have been fair game, and accordingly manipulated into conflicts every now and then, ever since 1945. Who'd have thought?

No actually I don't want to rely on the USA but I'd rather we weren't put in scenarios where that protection is necessary, and I think we have other ways of defending ourselves.

Ah, so you're one of those wishing for wold peace. Noble. If a tad unrealistic, in view of approx. 5,000 years of human history. Edited October 2, 2015 by L00b

[unbeliever]

These hypothetical defence situations are interesting but not really relevant.

 

There's absolutely no point in discussing the option of dropping Trident and expecting the rest of NATO to defend us.

Trident is our main contribution to NATO. We're expected to contribute 2% of GDP to the common defence, so if we're not spending that on Trident we'd have to negotiate providing something else. Either way you've not saved any money.

 

Besides didn't Corbyn say that he also wanted to pull out of NATO anyway?

You're not discussing what's proposed. The idea is to kill Trident and pull out of NATO. Even if that wasn't the idea, killing Trident most likely can't be decoupled from pulling out of NATO.

[drummonds]

Would you be happy for a nuclear-less UK to stand under the USA-provided umbrella held up by Bush?

 

Do you really believe any past US president, or Obama now, would press the big red button if a nuclear-less UK (but not the USA) had been partly or even wholly turned into a cinder by Russian ICBMs?

The UK has long been geopolitically aligned with the US.

 

But imagine the special relationship sours in years to come, and the UK becomes not so much pally with the US anymore, yet still not pally by far with Russia.

 

What geopolitical weight projected by a nuclear-less UK? About as much as Germany, i.e. about as much as a mousefart relative to Russia, the US and the PRC.

 

You're focusing the debate on the hardware and conflicts. That's glossing completely on the geopolitical weight which the UK has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, with being in the nuclear club. Trident is not just 'a pile of expensive junk that will never be fired in anger' acting as a deterrent: it's an international policy force-multiplier.

 

Just like aircraft carriers...of which we don't currently have any, thanks to New Labour's contract negotiating prowess.

No more than the PRC, Russia or the US would ever have a go at one another, or India and Pakistan would ever have at one another large-scale, or anyone would ever have a pop at Pyongyang for the foreseeable future.

 

Their nuclear-less proxies though...well these have been fair game, and accordingly manipulated into conflicts every now and then, ever since 1945. Who'd have thought?

Ah, so you're one of those wishing for wold peace. Noble. If a tad unrealistic, in view of approx. 5,000 years of human history.

 

something similar did occur to me. a crackpot like corbyn as prime minister is the total worst case senario.

 

if britain was threatened with nuclear attack, would any nato nuclear power come to the aid of a nuclear armed britain who was refusing to use its own weapons? i think we all know the answer to that one.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2015 at 09:21 ----------

 

These hypothetical defence situations are interesting but not really relevant.

 

There's absolutely no point in discussing the option of dropping Trident and expecting the rest of NATO to defend us.

Trident is our main contribution to NATO. We're expected to contribute 2% of GDP to the common defence, so if we're not spending that on Trident we'd have to negotiate providing something else. Either way you've not saved any money.

 

Besides didn't Corbyn say that he also wanted to pull out of NATO anyway?

You're not discussing what's proposed. The idea is to kill Trident and pull out of NATO. Even if that wasn't the idea, killing Trident most likely can't be decoupled from pulling out of NATO.

 

 

it is all a cover for labour quietly dropping the corbyn pledge to do away with tuition fees.