Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[chef-borjan]

But what if it is right, what if say the US doesn't push the button and a strike happens to California say causing millions of American deaths... then the resulting conventional invasion to overthrow NK ends up with a similar level of casualties...

Perhaps we have another such threat from Iran, this time to the UK, would we ignore the intelligence again that warheads have been moved to a launch facility and their crude attempt at an ICBM is being field up - or would a first strike be more rational?

Yes we're talking about convoluted scenarios...

In reply to your suggestion that someone was trying to screw with us, we might never know - I mean if say North Korea had got to the point where a warhead was being transported to a missile and they were in the position of preparing it... then, in the even the US were to strike, then they might not even find out that they were 'just messing' with us - though I'd suspect that that is also a rather unlikely scenario

If we have this level of granular information, why don't we just sent in conventional strikes?

In your situations, NK might just do a bit of chatter, move a mock missile to a launch pad and that's enough for us to send in a weapon that will kill millions.

 

[FoxEye]

But what if it is right, what if say the US doesn't push the button and a strike happens to California say causing millions of American deaths... then the resulting conventional invasion to overthrow NK ends up with a similar level of casualties...

Perhaps we have another such threat from Iran, this time to the UK, would we ignore the intelligence again that warheads have been moved to a launch facility....

In the Cuban Missile Crisis russian missiles had been move and were operational... US generals did recommend a first strike against Russia precisely because of this, and their belief that Russian might use them. The whole point is that there was no certainty, and history shows that in fact nobody got nuked.

....and their crude attempt at an ICBM is being field up - or would a first strike be more rational?

If the missiles are being prepped for launch it's already too late. In that case we're getting nuked.

And I'm not sure why you expect the intelligence community to be able to give advanced warning? Whilst you might know where the missiles are physically located, you sure as hell won't be able to detect the small launch prep window before they start flying.

We don't actually have spy satellites that can see through concrete bunkers and detect that kind of thing! All in real-time, because launch prep time is minutes and seconds not hours....

Yes we're talking about convoluted scenarios...

No, you're making up a fantasy scenario like in Thunderbirds or a new Tom Clancy film...

 

[FoxEye]

well if we're making up hypotheticals - how about either an asset within the North Korean military, or some intercepted communications ordering a launch in addition to observing a warhead being transported to a launch site and a missile being prepared

Fantasy again.

You don't order a nuclear launch *then* move your missiles into position.

Sorry dowie, this is getting ridiculous.

 

[dowie]

If we have this level of granular information, why don't we just sent in conventional strikes?

In your situations, NK might just do a bit of chatter, move a mock missile to a launch pad and that's enough for us to send in a weapon that will kill millions.

we perhaps would in the case of a single missile and North Korea - I was hoping to avoid getting into hypotheticals for this very reason as you can then have all sorts of convoluted back and forth... though in that scenario we do nothing and the strike actually happens to the US... it is then the second threat that the scenario of a first strike presents itself... given the political fall out of the US being hit with a strike that could have been prevented etc.. now Iran poses a threat and they've multiple locations (if we're going to get even more convoluted) then there is an Iranian backed revolution in the gulf states too so we have no local bases from which to operate conventional aircraft...

(keep in mind that I wanted to avoid getting into specific hypotheticals for the very reason that I don't think they're too helpful when it is simply the principle under discussion and that as there are any number of hypotheticals that could be invented any given individual hypothetical is in itself dependent on various events and unrealistic to occur )

 

[FoxEye]

we perhaps would in the case of a single missile and North Korea - I was hoping to avoid getting into hypotheticals for this very reason as you can then have all sorts of convoluted back and forth... though in that scenario we do nothing and the strike actually happens to the US... it is then the second threat that the scenario of a first strike presents itself... given the political fall out of the US being hit with a strike that could have been prevented etc.. now Iran poses a threat and they've multiple locations (if we're going to get even more convoluted) then there is an Iranian backed revolution in the gulf states too so we have no local bases from which to operate conventional aircraft...

(keep in mind that I wanted to avoid getting into specific hypotheticals for the very reason that I don't think they're too helpful when it is simply the principle under discussion and that as there are any number of hypotheticals that could be invented any given individual hypothetical is in itself dependent on various events and unrealistic to occur )

None of this is more threatening than what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

All the points you are arguing applied equally back then.

Therefore, you would have ordered a first strike against Russia. You can't have it both ways.

Only if you have a time machine

 

[dowie]

I
If the missiles are being prepped for launch it's already too late. In that case we're getting nuked.

not necessarily, it doesn't take long for a UK or US ICBM to strike...

And I'm not sure why you expect the intelligence community to be able to give advanced warning? Whilst you might know where the missiles are physically located, you sure as hell won't be able to detect the small launch prep window before they start flying.

We don't actually have spy satellites that can see through concrete bunkers and detect that kind of thing! All in real-time, because launch prep time is minutes and seconds not hours....

No, you're making up a fantasy scenario like in Thunderbirds or a new Tom Clancy film...

that isn't true either - in the case of North Korea their launches are monitored... and actually I was trying to avoid getting drawn into hypotheticals, it is a bit silly to ask for a made up scenario then to point out that I've presented one -and before that I've had a few pages of rather immature posts from you and then various back and forth posts where you attack things I've not argued for... my initial point was that it is unlikely that we'd ever order a first strike but that we ought to be prepared to conditional on the (unlikely) scenario that an attack on us is imminent

 

[dowie]

None of this is more threatening than what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

All the points you are arguing applied equally back then.

Therefore, you would have ordered a first strike against Russia. You can't have it both ways.

Only if you have a time machine

the scenario you quoted is rather more so and includes a strike already having taken place and the resulting political fall out...

However re: Cuba a first strike against Russian is a rather different scenario as such a strike doesn't prevent them from striking back given the size of their arsenal. My argument was conditional on a strike actually being imminent... but I'd also put forth that I wouldn't be so confident that the same cuban crisis wouldn't be handled differently if it was say Iran or North Korea and that the UK/US could be confident that either of those nations wouldn't be able to retaliate to a first strike.

 

[chef-borjan]

This is like 'terrorism' you see here in Western cities. Fact of the matter is, if someone was actually stupid enough to try and hit us, there isn't much we could do. First striking (aka 'deporting people we don't like because they might be bombers') isn't an option because its not actually effective.

Moving away from the terrorism analogy, its not effective because:

1) we can't see it coming. Yes, other countries are not giving orders if things aren't ready to go or hidden. Why? Because they will be aware that maybe we find out. And then we obliterate them. So they lose, simply because they were not ready or don't know how to keep a secret. This is idiotic from the other country.

2) And if by some miracle we get warnings, no we won't act on them by firing nukes for fear of being wrong (case in point the Cuban missile crisis). Because can kill millions on a guess and kick start a lot of unrest. Conventional weapons are on the table, but you are saying that somehow some launches might occur (and indeed they might).

What does this all mean? It means the best action is to not attempt to first strike.

Anyway, I'm done, going to bed. My hope isn't to convince you dowie, because I think there isn't much chance of that if it happens already. But to those reading this discussion, I hope you can understand the reality of the situation.

 

[dowie]

Anyway, I'm done, going to bed. My hope isn't to convince you dowie, because I think there isn't much chance of that if it happens already. But to those reading this discussion, I hope you can understand the reality of the situation.

you've just re-presented the same arguments already discussed so no you're not going to convince me with by that post that there is no possible scenario whereby we could ever order a first strike

 

[FoxEye]

not necessarily, it doesn't take long for a UK or US ICBM to strike...

If you are a country whose missile tech is so obsolete that it takes hours to prep and launch, you aren't going to be in a position to first strike anyone. As you aren't stupid, you don't issue a first strike order, you improve your technology instead. All our "enemies" are aware of our technology, and aren't going to issue an order which would result in their own destruction with no chance of success.

that isn't true either - in the case of North Korea their launches are monitored... and actually I was trying to avoid getting drawn into hypotheticals, it is a bit silly to ask for a made up scenario then to point out that I've presented one -and before that I've had a few pages of rather immature posts from you and then various back and forth posts where you attack things I've not argued for... my initial point was that it is unlikely that we'd ever order a first strike but that we ought to be prepared to conditional on the (unlikely) scenario that an attack on us is imminent

NK is doing just what I said - improving their technology. There is no chance of NK issuing a first strike order with the level of technology they currently possess.

We *could* nuke NK safely at this time. The point is that we'd upset Russia, China, and probably face sanctions, and possible international isolation, or even military attack by other nations. Who knows? We'd be the bad guys if we did this unilaterally.

Even with NK being unable to nuke us back, the political and military repercussions of us nuking them make it impossible.

Eventually, NK will have improved their technology sufficiently so that MAD will apply.

Sure we can monitor their test launches. Once they have good enough tech, hardened launch sites, etc, the story will be different.

So:

1. We can't nuke them right now because it's politically impossible.
2. We can't nuke them in future because they will have good nukes and missiles too, and MAD will apply.

Conclusion:

You can't use nukes. Nobody can. Thanks to MAD, and the political fallout of using nukes, everybody can have them and talk about using them, but nobody can actually use them.

And with that, I can't say this any better, so I'm finished. For reals

 

[dowie]

you've just gone back to the it is impossible that they'd order a first strike argument - so we're back to going around in circles again... I'll point out that assuming everyone behaves logically like that is flawed

I'd hope that the leadership of NK is sane enough not to but I can't be 100% confident that they are, likewise if Iran ever developed such a weapon I'd hope the religious leaders over there would be sane enough not to but I also can't be 100% confident in that either

I'd say, as I have already, that it is unlikely but not that it is impossible... as we're going round in circles then I'm finished too - I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this if you only deal in absolutes and don't take a probabilistic view of the world

 

[helmet]

For anyone that cares to read, I'm Scottish, Labour for a number of years, now SNP for a number too, with what has gone on since the Labour Manifesto launch, $%£ it, Labour again.
The argument in this thread, my own inner argument as a father with two kids:

We've had Labour, they had a leadership battle internally. We had a guy who held the wheel straight but underneath turned out to be someone with the backbone you'll find in a can of tuna and drove us in circles. Loves the limelight and would have followed a shiny coin down a well. Blair was/is a bad guy, he put forward some compassion to get in, there never was a New Labour, the media sold us that.
The global financial crisis kicked in, everyone suffered, everyone you know, and they still do.
Lets not forget Blair, he took us into war that was nothing to do with us, if you think I mean Iraq you should do a bit more reading.

Along came Cameron, along came ISIS, along came zero hours contracts, along came Amazon Prime, hello oil glut, and Game of Thrones is due to come back on soon.
The argument for the last few pages is which room to put the sofa in, in the castle.
You can't even possibly comprehend what it takes to decide to move your family away from your indigenous land due to fear of being killed in a western/Russian led attack.
Sure we have figureheads for our march on mental health issues, we have voting every Saturday on who is a good singer.
We also have a GD full of people wanting advice on things from what watch to wear to what birthday present to buy, sarcasm, letterboxes, and in occasion, empathy.

Like it or not, there's a distinct lack of empathy in our society, if you can't identify with that and you've read this far you really didn't need me to point it out.
Do you actually think we came this far without empathy? And/or do you think we came this far in the pursuit and benevolence to money?
If the people in Iraq/Syria had whatsapp, had a subway, had mp3 players, had food to feed their family, do you really think we'd need #PrayForNice on twitter?
Treat yourself to some reading/viewing of the Stanford Prison Experiment and try to understand that sometimes you are in the wrong shoes.
And if not understanding that is your greatest life achievement judgment upon someone, you are lost and no wonder you speak the way that you do.

All politics will fail you, it's really about what does not make you throw up.

 

[wildman]

Well this is not true - in the case of Russia it could be a minute (or seconds even) in advance... in the case of a country that needs to use spend a while preparing a missile rather longer..



well if we're making up hypotheticals - how about either an asset within the North Korean military, or some intercepted communications ordering a launch in addition to observing a warhead being transported to a launch site and a missile being prepared

you have been watching too many american movies. You don't give the order, then move your birds, then fuel them then decide to attach the warhead. The whole point of having strike capability is that your birds are ready to fly when your despot leader says fire. In this case Foxeye is correct and you really are in fantasy land.

 

[dowie]

you have been watching too many american movies. You don't give the order, then move your birds, then fuel them then decide to attach the warhead. The whole point of having strike capability is that your birds are ready to fly when your despot leader says fire. In this case Foxeye is correct and you really are in fantasy land.

again this is the problem with making up hypotheticals

but they don't move into position without someone giving orders, NK in this case doesn't exactly have missiles ready to go... and also people aren't necessarily going to decide to strike out of the blue, like literally that minute for no apparent reason... it is perfectly possible for such a decision to be made among the leadership of some country and that to leak out. Perhaps we've got a saboteur at the launch site able to delay the launch... we can keep on throwing in different silly hypotheticals if you like...

Of course it is a fantasy scenario, that was what was asked for and as I've already pointed out that is something I wanted to avoid doing as it can just lead to this futile 'oh they wouldn't do that' or 'ah but then this could happen' etc.. which is all rather pointless. It was the principle that was mentioned, that conditional on an attack being imminent on the UK a first strike could be justified - having to jump though hoops to present a suitable hypothetical scenario (which given that we're talking about an unlikely event is going to be convoluted) then becomes a bit futile.

 

[Rroff]

Of course it is a fantasy scenario, that was what was asked for and as I've already pointed out that is something I wanted to avoid doing as it can just lead to this futile 'oh they wouldn't do that' or 'ah but then this could happen' etc.. which is all rather pointless. It was the principle that was mentioned, that conditional on an attack being imminent on the UK a first strike could be justified - having to jump though hoops to present a suitable hypothetical scenario (which given that we're talking about an unlikely event is going to be convoluted) then becomes a bit futile.

Problem is people are so used to the comforts of the world they live in they can't see the need for the things that help to make it possible and as history has shown over and over they have to learn the hard way.

No matter how peaceful things seem you don't just ignore that other countries around us have capable armed forces and you can't reactively prepare defensive measures to geopolitical shifts that might possibly happen 10, 20 or 30 years from now (in fact those kind of attitudes were a large enabler for ww2). With its legacy the UK requires a larger than normal defensive capability - a nuclear deterrent saves a ton of money compared to the appropriate conventional forces.

Those leading with first strike semantics are kind of missing the point of the doctrine maybe wilfully so.

There are so many aspects to this geopolitically - can anyone really predict what would happen if for instance Russia went through catastrophic economical collapse - one possible outcome we could feel very fortunate for our nuclear deterrent allowing us to sit back relatively securely while other parts of the world became embroiled in conventional war.

 

[Evosparki]

Omg, I'm amazed this forum is voting mostly in favour of labour.

I really don't see the point in a democracy with all these mainstream political parties with the sheer amount of MP's these days their wages and costs, such a total waste of money, all just so that we can vote on policies that will shift money from one economic sector to the other, that will get changed after the following election anyway...

 

[One More Solo]

Not voting Tory because you don't like May.

Not too hard to work out what I meant?

Where did I say anything about my voting intentions or reasons for doing so?

 

[RDM]

anyway Corbs shouldn't answer - a deterrent requires you not to spell out when you would or wouldn't use it

The problem is that Corbyn has answered this in the past and it was an unequivocal 'No'. If he ha changed his mind then he should give his reasoning why, if he hasn't then he should be honest about it rather than evasive.

 

[Lartyconshayo]

He hasn't changed his mind - however once again he has LISTENED to what the party as whole wants and voted on and that was to keep the nuclear deterrent. He will continue to work towards multilateral disarmament as he always has done. I didn't get to see QT last night but it seems it was the usual sideshow of banging on about the usual smears - the immediate things affecting us for any new government will be environment, social care, housing, NHS, education -I wish that people were so passionate about these subjects and spoke at length to understand the minutiae between the parties instead of hounding people over baseless accusations.

At what point did we turn into society where we think someone's willingness to obliterate millions of civilians as the definition of 'sane'

 

[kitch9]

I feel a bit safer knowing that some boomer upset that he missed out on the war isn't in charge of our nuclear subs. That guy on QT was mental.

Clearly the problem with these debates is they tend to attract those who are far too engaged with day to day politics or who have an axe to grind.

So you get those who clap annoying and constantly at their politician of choice for just breathing and nuclear bomb guy.

Waste of time for those of us have lives to live and only run through their choice of vote in their mind 5 mins before entering the ballot box.

My biggest bug bear at the moment is the foreign aid budget when we have skint nurses and the schools need a few more quid. I also don't like the idea of an immigration system refusing access to doctors, engineers and academics whilst we let in the dregs of Eastern Europe uncontrollably.

New Zealand manages to farm its own land and brew its own coffee with a managed immigration system, I'm sure we can figure it out.