The labour Leader thread...

[PermaBanned]

The topic (somewhat predictably) has slid off my reasons for bringing up the point anyhow - which wasn't so much nuclear good/bad but more an interest in more detail on Corbyn's policies (granted its early days and there were/are conferences relating to policy, etc. coming up).

There seems to be a massive vagueness to a lot of it.

When was the last time you saw a party release meticulous details about each and every one of their policies 4.5 years before a general election and a matter of days after the election of a new party leader?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

That doesn't mean them being invaded = us being invaded.

Well the residents of the Falkands and Gibraltar are British citizens, so it kinda does.

 

[Rroff]

Well the residents of the Falkands and Gibraltar are British citizens, so it kinda does.

Border skirmishes (which the Falklands really boils down to) aren't really within the remit for the use of weapons of mass destruction though - sure we could have threatened Argentina with them but that wouldn't have been responsible use of our capabilities (which we should always aspire to).

When was the last time you saw a party release meticulous details about each and every one of their policies 4.5 years before a general election and a matter of days after the election of a new party leader?

Usually there is a bit more substance though - there is very much of an activist/campaigner aspect to it at the moment which I find concerning when connected with some of the more serious issues they are quite vocal about.

 

[RDM]

Then why do we also spend more than anyone else in Europe on our conventional forces and why do the States (who have an unmatched nuclear arsenal) spend more than the next 5 countries combined on their regular military?

By your reasoning, the more nuclear weapons a country has, the less need it has for conventional defence forces yet we tend to see the opposite happening.

That wasn't his reasoning at all. Defensive forces are very different from the ability to project power, our military costs so much because we want to be able to use it in an effectively offensive role not as a defensive force.

 

[Tefal]

Then why do we also spend more than anyone else in Europe on our conventional forces and why do the States (who have an unmatched nuclear arsenal) spend more than the next 5 countries combined on their regular military?

By your reasoning, the more nuclear weapons a country has, the less need it has for conventional defence forces yet we tend to see the opposite happening.

Because we profit from the "skirmishes" and the nukes stop anyone else interfering and escalating them from skirmishes

 

[D.P.]

I thought as much. Those are very specific exceptions that were localised events. In fact it is argued that the mini-war in Kargil did not escalate into all out war because both sides were nuclear. So we could debate that nuclear weapons have helped make the world more peaceful with that very example.

Granted, the statement that no nuclear state has been invaded is a false one. However, I think you're just being pedantic and glazing over what that really means.

The question is would any of the nuclear countries invade another nuclear country if neither of them actually had nuclear weapons? I would surmise no, UK is not going to invade the US for example, the uS won't invade India, or canada, or France, or china.

Similarly, how many non nuclear countries would actually invade a nuclear country if there were no nuclear weapons. Again, I would no. Do we see anyone going to invade US or France or UK, Russia?


MAD is widely disproven so it is pointless suggesting it as a reason for nuclear weapons.

 

[Tefal]

The question is would any of the nuclear countries invade another nuclear country if neither of them actually had nuclear weapons? I would surmise no, UK is not going to invade the US for example, the uS won't invade India, or canada, or France, or china.

Similarly, how many non nuclear countries would actually invade a nuclear country if there were no nuclear weapons. Again, I would no. Do we see anyone going to invade US or France or UK, Russia?


MAD is widely disproven so it is pointless suggesting it as a reason for nuclear weapons.

soviet union and europe?

 

[Rroff]

The question is would any of the nuclear countries invade another nuclear country if neither of them actually had nuclear weapons? I would surmise no, UK is not going to invade the US for example, the uS won't invade India, or canada, or France, or china.

Similarly, how many non nuclear countries would actually invade a nuclear country if there were no nuclear weapons. Again, I would no. Do we see anyone going to invade US or France or UK, Russia?


MAD is widely disproven so it is pointless suggesting it as a reason for nuclear weapons.

The world has been shaped by the possession of nuclear weapons you can't really (selectively) apply the parameters of today retrospectively in that manner.

Without the balance of MAD you can bet Russia would have been much more ambitious in its post-WW2 expansion (its economy really needed it). While its convenient for China to play by western rules at the moment (allows them to catch up on tech parity, etc.) there is no guarantee it will play by them forever - China isn't (often illicitly) harvesting massive amounts of technology knowledge from Western corporations just for commercial reasons or lols.

EDIT: I think its short sighted to look at the world of today and assume it was be a linear extrapolation of the same story in the future - events (natural or man made) connected to 1 or more countries could shift the balance of power with unknown consequences for the geopolitical make up i.e. just one aspect - if the US collapsed financially or suffered a massive natural disaster (which sooner or later its prone to) it could have a huge knock on effect.

 

[Zethor]

The world has been shaped by the possession of nuclear weapons you can't really (selectively) apply the parameters of today retrospectively in that manner.

Without the balance of MAD you can bet Russia would have been much more ambitious in its post-WW2 expansion (its economy really needed it). While its convenient for China to play by western rules at the moment (allows them to catch up on tech parity, etc.) there is no guarantee it will play by them forever - China isn't (often illicitly) harvesting massive amounts of technology knowledge from Western corporations just for commercial reasons or lols.

EDIT: I think its short sighted to look at the world of today and assume it was be a linear extrapolation of the same story in the future - events (natural or man made) connected to 1 or more countries could shift the balance of power with unknown consequences for the geopolitical make up i.e. just one aspect - if the US collapsed financially or suffered a massive natural disaster (which sooner or later its prone to) it could have a huge knock on effect.

You can apply the parameters of today and extrapolate to get a picture of the future. Advanced democracies will not go to war with each other, they share a culture, interests, they're interconnected and reliant on each other. There will probably never be a war between them because they keep getting closer with each passing decade and borders are becoming less relevant or they even dissapear (the EU or Canada/US). The trend is clear, these countries will eventually merge into a single entity and, in the long term, war between them is as likely as war between Essex and Aberdeen.

Furthermore, there's no alternative to the liberal democracy that leads to the same levels of efficiency, innovation and prosperity. In other words, countries such as China or Russia will either transition into democracies or forever play catch up in terms of technology. And since technology dictates who holds the biggest stick in the modern world, those coutries will never be a true threat.
As for massive disasters, you watch too many fantasy films. The natural ones are extremely unlikely and the financial one we've been through has been harsher on the rest of the world compared to the US.

So again I ask, what threats are dettered by British/French/etc nuclear weapons, as long as one democractic superpower has enough of them?

 

[Tefal]

You can apply the parameters of today and extrapolate to get a picture of the future. Advanced democracies will not go to war with each other, they share a culture, interests, they're interconnected and reliant on each other. There will probably never be a war between them because they keep getting closer with each passing decade and borders are becoming less relevant or they even dissapear (the EU or Canada/US). The trend is clear, these countries will eventually merge into a single entity and, in the long term, war between them is as likely as war between Essex and Aberdeen.

didn't they say this before ww1?

and ww2?

There will probably never be a war between them because they keep getting closer with each passing decade and borders are becoming less relevant or they even dissapear (the EU

isn't it in the next two years were voting on whether to leave that?


also not sure if you've noticed the news in the last few months but the eu countries are recreating their borders and shutting down free movement.

Furthermore, there's no alternative to the liberal democracy that leads to the same levels of efficiency, innovation and prosperity.

nazi Germany seemed fairly more advanced than us and you could hardly describe them as liberal?

As for massive disasters, you watch too many fantasy films. The natural ones are extremely unlikely

on a long enough time scale they're a certainty, "the future" is certainly a long enough time scale

 

[Zethor]

didn't they say this before ww1?

and ww2?

no one said anything even remotely similar to what I am saying before WWI or WWII.

isn't it in the next two years were voting on whether to leave that?

It doesn't matter if the UK leaves the EU, it will have relaxed border controls even if it does, just like the Swiss or the Norwegians. I'm talking about the long term trend which is undeniable, borders are becoming less relevant, even across the Atlantic.

also not sure if you've noticed the news in the last few months but the eu countries are recreating their borders and shutting down free movement.

They're not shutting down free movement do you even know what that is? The border issues exist due to non-EU immigrants.

nazi Germany seemed fairly more advanced than us and you could hardly describe them as liberal?

Mobilising a demoralised but generally obedient nation for war is not difficult in an autocracy, creating long term properity and innovation is unheard of in any system, other than the liberal democracy.

on a long enough time scale they're a certainty, "the future" is certainly a long enough time scale

You want to keep nukes in case a meteor strike or some other planetary calamity happens? Why stop at nukes? We should be building underground shelters, an ark maybe? You never know, it's a certainity given enough time...

 

[Rroff]

You want to keep nukes in case a meteor strike or some other planetary calamity happens? Why stop at nukes? We should be building underground shelters, an ark maybe? You never know, it's a certainity given enough time...

The point is that things "like" that can have an impact on the global balance of power - diminishing or increasing a countries impact on the geopolitical landscape can have relatively unpredictable results if the US's role on the world stage was diminished then how that vacuum was filled could have far reaching consequences i.e. China's current ambitions in the South China seas are largely limited by the US having the backs of several contesting players in the region - if they weren't around then there is potential there for localised conflicts to kick off that could easily become a bigger global problem.

Sure on balance of probability most of the big natural disasters in the US aren't that likely to happen within our lifespans but geologically many of them have no reason why they couldn't happen "tomorrow" even though its more likely to be 100s or 1000s of years in the future. Its certainly an aspect that would have to be built into forward planning.

 

[Jono8]

You can apply the parameters of today and extrapolate to get a picture of the future. Advanced democracies will not go to war with each other, they share a culture, interests, they're interconnected and reliant on each other. There will probably never be a war between them because they keep getting closer with each passing decade and borders are becoming less relevant or they even dissapear (the EU or Canada/US). The trend is clear, these countries will eventually merge into a single entity and, in the long term, war between them is as likely as war between Essex and Aberdeen.

Furthermore, there's no alternative to the liberal democracy that leads to the same levels of efficiency, innovation and prosperity. In other words, countries such as China or Russia will either transition into democracies or forever play catch up in terms of technology. And since technology dictates who holds the biggest stick in the modern world, those coutries will never be a true threat.
As for massive disasters, you watch too many fantasy films. The natural ones are extremely unlikely and the financial one we've been through has been harsher on the rest of the world compared to the US.

So again I ask, what threats are dettered by British/French/etc nuclear weapons, as long as one democractic superpower has enough of them?

What an incredibly naive viewpoint you have of the world.

 

[Tefal]

no one said anything even remotely similar to what I am saying before WWI or WWII.

ahh ok league of nations was a total success then was it?

You want to keep nukes in case a meteor strike or some other planetary calamity happens? Why stop at nukes? We should be building underground shelters, an ark maybe? You never know, it's a certainity given enough time...

think again im not talking about stopping the disaster with nukes.

 

[Rroff]

no one said anything even remotely similar to what I am saying before WWI or WWII.

Take Denmark as an example - leading upto WW2 they didn't think Germany would invade them given their interconnection, shared culture, interests, commerce, etc. and put faith in the treaties in place (pretty much everything you said) - even holding back on plans to prepare defences so as to appease Germany and not give them a reason to invade.

Of somewhat interesting note to their credit in the few hours before they surrendered to Germany they fought unprepared, outnumbered 10:1 but inflicted casualties at a rate of 10:1 on the Germans.

The world in the mid 1930s wasn't that unlike today - after the horrors of the first world war, with the increased global communications, business and technology, etc. most considered war with Germany as unlikely as most would consider it today.

 

[Zethor]

ahh ok league of nations was a total success then was it?



think again im not talking about stopping the disaster with nukes.

Rroff thinks we should keep them to protect ourselves in the aftermath.

Take Denmark as an example - leading upto WW2 they didn't think Germany would invade them given their interconnection, shared culture, interests, commerce, etc. and put faith in the treaties in place (pretty much everything you said) - even holding back on plans to prepare defences so as to appease Germany and not give them a reason to invade.

Of somewhat interesting note to their credit in the few hours before they surrendered to Germany they fought unprepared, outnumbered 10:1 but inflicted casualties at a rate of 10:1 on the Germans.

The world in the mid 1930s wasn't that unlike today - after the horrors of the first world war, with the increased global communications, business and technology, etc. most considered war with Germany as unlikely as most would consider it today.

Your example is not valid, for several reasons:

1. Germany was not a democracy at the time.
2. Another large scale conflict in Europe was actually expected, why do you think the Maginot line was created?
3. The world in the 1930s was nothing like today. Nothing in history has ever been like today, the Western world is basically one huge tribe at the moment, the convergence of ideas, ideologies and interests is visible across all layers of society.

Are anti Trident/pro-unilateral disarmament people still pro NATO? Because, if so, we wouldn't actually spend any less on defence, would we? We'd still be at 2% of GDP in terms of defence spending...

I'm very much pro NATO. As long it exists, as long the US control the most powerful nuclear arsenal, Britain doesn't need one. Even if defence spending doesn't decrease, there are other elements in the defence industry that could use the funds wasted on the current nuclear weapons.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

That supposes that the USA will always be the UK's ally and willing to use nuclear weapons in our defence.

 

[Jokester]

The US would not use nuclear weapons in our defense. MAD ensures they will only use nukes to defend themselves.

 

[Rroff]

1. Germany was not a democracy at the time.
2. Another large scale conflict in Europe was actually expected, why do you think the Maginot line was created?
3. The world in the 1930s was nothing like today. Nothing in history has ever been like today, the Western world is basically one huge tribe at the moment, the convergence of ideas, ideologies and interests is visible across all layers of society.

Germany was a democracy - Hitler was voted into power but then progressively stripped the democracy from it over the mid 1930s IMO you put too much faith in democracies.

Maginot line was largely created as a response to WW1 and a precautionary measure (kind of like why some countries maintain nuclear arsenals) against what they considered to be the biggest likely threat to their country - not so much in actual anticipation of WW2 (something that has been tagged on in hindsight). French military planning policy of that time was to assume the worst case scenario that Germany would eventually return to military power (at the time the Maginot line was planned and started to be built Germany was still restricted militarily by the Versaille treaty), that it would attack them again and that they couldn't expect anyone else to come to their aid.

The world of the 1930s wasn't unlike the world of today, granted it is more evolved version today but like today the period had seen massive advances in technology and so on had made the world a smaller place, communications, business, travel had a global reach the western world was enjoying peace and prosperity not unlike today that resulted in many considering another major war was as inconceivable as many consider it today and while I don't deny there is somewhat more truth to that than in the past we are a long way from any point where it would come close to absolutely ruling out major military escalation.

The western world is nothing like a huge tribe at the moment while there is a higher level of social and economic integration there are massive differences in things like ideology and culture (even with a lot more people enjoying shared interests).

 

[Dimi]

He's attending a meeting in Manchester here http://media.cwu.org/peoplespostlive.html

Should be an interest watch for those interested.