The labour Leader thread...

[McPhee]

If the next US president withdraws the US in to isolation, our nukes won't really help us. Any hostile nation capable of hitting us with Nukes is also capable of winning a ground war against us. We might threaten to fire, but we wouldn't. We are too small a landmass - the return barrage would wipe us out. I expect most of us would rather live under Russian or Chinese rule than be wiped out by nuclear weapons.

Without US backing, the only times we would actually fire a nuke is if we were first attacked by a smaller, less well armed state that doesn't have allies with nukes, or if we were in the verge of being wiped out (by that I don't mean losing a war, I mean losing a war in which we are being ethnically cleansed). Being a small, densely populated island, every other occasion would end badly for us.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Again, missing the difference between deploying our nuclear armament and just having them to deter. Who knows what might develop in future and what with North Korea constantly banging the war drum that it will destroy America I'd quite like to know we have the deterrent to ensure that all that remains to be is mere sabre rattling.

Everyone knows we'd never use the nukes we have (we've always said as much), so what kind of deterrent are they in that case?

We should have gone the route of Israel if we wanted to go the "plausible deterrent" route.

An utterly inane question. There is no end of possible scenarios where we may need to use nuclear weapons, but you'll say they are all implausible.

Well yes, at this exact moment in time they are implausible, which is why we're not all preparing for nuclear war. But in the space of weeks or months, that could all change.

If the next American president withdraws the US into isolationism, we're pretty much on our own.

I just don't forsee ANY scenario where we'd use our nukes.

For example, if China fired one nuke at us for whatever reason, do you really think we'd fire one back with the the retalliation that would bring?

Say North Korea developed a couple of war heads. Again, if they fire one at us, do you think we'd fire one back with the risk that they'd have a couple more?

If ISIS got hold of one nuke and fired it at us, what would be the purpose of sending one of our own back? We'd respond with conventional mass warfare, not nukes.

It only makes sense to have nuclear weapons if you're going to be the one to use them first, which quite clearly the UK will never do. Holding them as a "deterrent" makes no sense.

 

[Naff8000]

Everyone knows we'd never use the nukes we have (we've always said as much), so what kind of deterrent are they in that case?

We should have gone the route of Israel if we wanted to go the "plausible deterrent" route.

Show source/s saying "we'd never use the nukes we have (we've always said as much)".

 

[413x]

To he honest if anyone launches a nuclear weapon of today's standards the world will probably end. Imagine the collapse in the economy let alone the radiation fallout
To me that's deterrent enough. If anyone is stupid enough to launch they won't care about what others have. They'll already have proved themselves crazy

 

[413x]

Everyone knows we'd never use the nukes we have (we've always said as much), so what kind of deterrent are they in that case?

We should have gone the route of Israel if we wanted to go the "plausible deterrent" route.



I just don't forsee ANY scenario where we'd use our nukes.

For example, if China fired one nuke at us for whatever reason, do you really think we'd fire one back with the the retalliation that would bring?

Say North Korea developed a couple of war heads. Again, if they fire one at us, do you think we'd fire one back with the risk that they'd have a couple more?

If ISIS got hold of one nuke and fired it at us, what would be the purpose of sending one of our own back? We'd respond with conventional mass warfare, not nukes.

It only makes sense to have nuclear weapons if you're going to be the one to use them first, which quite clearly the UK will never do. Holding them as a "deterrent" makes no sense.

Agree

 

[McPhee]

That's not completely true. If you're a large enough land mass to take the retaliation, building enough nukes to level enemy nations makes a twisted sort of sense in the that some of your people might survive. Wasn't that the entire premise of the Cold War? Problem is, we're neither big enough to take the hits, nor rich enough to build and store that number of nuclear weapons securely.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

The most likely scenario is a limited exchange of nuclear weapons, not total nuclear war.

If we were not nuclear armed and the Russians believed the US wouldn't get involved, it's entirely possible the Russians could bully us with the threat of nuclear weapons. That in itself us an unacceptable position for any sovereign nation to be in, never mind one of the leading great powers.

It's also entirely possible they could use them against us tactically. The only reason nuclear weapons have not been used in various theatres thus far is the threat of US (or from their perspective Russian) involvement and the escalation that comes with that. But that is by no means guaranteed.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

The most likely scenario is a limited exchange of nuclear weapons, not total nuclear war.

No, the most likely scenario is that there would be zero exchange.

If we were not nuclear armed and the Russians believed the US wouldn't get involved, it's entirely possible the Russians could bully us with the threat of nuclear weapons. That in itself us an unacceptable position for any sovereign nation to be in, never mind one of the leading great powers.

It's also entirely possible they could use them against us tactically. The only reason nuclear weapons have not been used in various theatres thus far is the threat of US (or from their perspective Russian) involvement and the escalation that comes with that. But that is by no means guaranteed.

Yeah, and if aliens invaded we'd need nukes to defeat them as well..............

 

[413x]

I really don't think nuclear weapons launching on a nation is viable.
Russia are hardly going to blackmail us with the threat of nuclear war. The major powers are too linked.
Look what happens to the world when we have a bit too much oil, and chinas economy starts to falter.. Or Greece goes bankrupt. If London was hit with a nuclear missile the damage to any other even remotely developed country would be incredible

And if some faction gets one, I doubt they will care about being nuked themselves.
And this would much more likely be a terrorist attack from within than a launch. Even if it was launched by a faction, we could hardly retaliate

 

[Zethor]

America, like any other country, will look after itself first.
If its bad for them to help us they would drop us like a stone.

This isn't the 19th century, the connections between the US and its European allies are so deep that their interests are either identical or very similar. In fact, the core of NATO (the US + Canada + Western developed nations) often acts like a single entity and it has been doing so for decades.

You want our nation to be entirely dependent on the Americans for our defence?

I'm not going to mince my words here: Anyone who opposes the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent is a Grade A moron. There is no rational argument in favour of disarmament.

It's been dependent on the Americans since WWII, the US is the true detterent, it's the reason why Western Europe was not invaded by the Soviets and the reason why their empire collapsed. Nuclear weapons have never dettered any threat nor will they ever do so, they're a deep black pit where money gets thrown periodically and lost forever.

 

[drs101]

You want our nation to be entirely dependent on the Americans for our defence?

I'm not going to mince my words here: Anyone who opposes the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent is a Grade A moron. There is no rational argument in favour of disarmament.

Dont we have you as our deterrent armed to the teeth patrolling our borders?

Really a world without nukes would be a better place, if we were to make a stand and disarm it would set an example to the world, rouge states or small groups that may get their hands on nukes don't care about retaliation.

 

[Rroff]

No, the most likely scenario is that there would be zero exchange.



Yeah, and if aliens invaded we'd need nukes to defeat them as well..............

Alien invasion isn't a predictable threat and very low down the list of things that are likely nation on nation however is not.

 

[the wopster]

That said, Faslane is a great location for our nuclear deterrent as it' relatively sheltered from the open sea. This means that in the event of a war, it's much easier to protect from sea borne attack.

Faslane was chosen because 90% of the time it's under cloud cover so there was less chance of satellites seeing the installation.

 

[Zethor]

Alien invasion isn't a predictable threat and very low down the list of things that are likely nation on nation however is not.

Russia nuking the UK is as likely as aliens invading. It just won't happen. The only realistic scenario in which a nuclear attack occurs is through an act of extremists who somehow gets their hands on the weapon, in which case any detterent means bugger all, they won't care about a potential retaliation, they'd probably welcome it.

 

[scorza]

Russia nuking the UK is as likely as aliens invading. It just won't happen. The only realistic scenario in which a nuclear attack occurs is through an act of extremists who somehow gets their hands on the weapon, in which case any detterent means bugger all, they won't care about a potential retaliation, they'd probably welcome it.

I wish I could borrow your crystal ball mate.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

No, the most likely scenario is that there would be zero exchange.

What do you base that upon? India and Pakistan came close to nuclear war just over a decade ago. The US and Soviets came close to nuclear war on several occasions and the North Koreans are a pretty unpredictable sort.

I really don't think nuclear weapons launching on a nation is viable.
Russia are hardly going to blackmail us with the threat of nuclear war. The major powers are too linked.
Look what happens to the world when we have a bit too much oil, and chinas economy starts to falter.. Or Greece goes bankrupt. If London was hit with a nuclear missile the damage to any other even remotely developed country would be incredible

This was said just prior to the outbreak of WWI by Norman Angell. Are you really going to make that argument?

And if some faction gets one, I doubt they will care about being nuked themselves.
And this would much more likely be a terrorist attack from within than a launch. Even if it was launched by a faction, we could hardly retaliate

Perhaps, perhaps not. But what is guaranteed is that no state will sponsor a terrorist group looking to nuke London, New York or Paris, because they know that if they are found out, they are all dead.

Really a world without nukes would be a better place, if we were to make a stand and disarm it would set an example to the world, rouge states or small groups that may get their hands on nukes don't care about retaliation.

No it wouldn't. That line of thinking is so out of touch with reality. Why would any other nuclear power give up their weapons?

* Pakistan needs nuclear weapons because it's grossly outnumbered by the Indians.
* North Korea is outnumbered by everyone!
* American needs them to maintain it's global dominance.
* Russia won't get rid of them as it's historically as paranoid as hell. More so now its lost it's buffer states in Eastern Europe.
* Iran will continue to pursue them as it wants security from America
* Saudi Arabia will eventually pursue them because Iran does
* You think Turkey will want to surrender its status as a major power in the ME to Iran and Saudi Arabia? They'll arm.

Eventually everyone is going to be arming, not disarming. No fruit loop nonsense about 'making an example' can change the cold hard reality of geopolitics.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Faslane was chosen because 90% of the time it's under cloud cover so there was less chance of satellites seeing the installation.

And 100% of the time that nuking it would cause several million pounds worth of improvements to the area.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Russia nuking the UK is as likely as aliens invading. It just won't happen. The only realistic scenario in which a nuclear attack occurs is through an act of extremists who somehow gets their hands on the weapon, in which case any detterent means bugger all, they won't care about a potential retaliation, they'd probably welcome it.

It really doesn't. The chances of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons without the aid of a state actor is pretty low as you need sophisticated equipment to produce them and they tend to be held in secure locations.

No state is going to risk nuclear reprisals for some nutjob terrorist, especially as most terrorists are not targeting the external threats but internal threats. Even Al Qadeda is as likely to nuke Riyadh as New York.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

And 100% of the time that nuking it would cause several million pounds worth of improvements to the area.

It's a beautiful area of the country

 

[Deleted member 66701]