The odds of Russia nuking the UK would be vastly higher as of now even before we factor in the Corbyn tribes' fantasy of trashing Trident.
The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
The odds of Russia nuking the UK would be vastly higher as of now even before we factor in the Corbyn tribes' fantasy of trashing Trident.
Its not particularly likely but its certainly not something we can take off the table (though my point was really about nation on nation escalation in general and not specifically Russia) - they've probed out response capabilities something like 60 times this year already and that isn't done purely for the lol factor. (though I suspect its done more of a trolling nature than any actual belligerence).
Just because a weapon is ineffective in some scenarios isn't a reason not to have it in your arsenal... also one of the underpinning factors of the MAD doctrine is that its one thing to think your enemy won't use their weapons of mass destruction against you and another to know they won't use them. If we are at the point where someone is ok with throwing a nuke at us they are probably not just trying to make a point and a threat to our existence - not having nukes definitely won't help us even if having them is of questionable value in that scenario.
Last edited:
I see one main argument for disarmament - saving equivalent to 1.5% of the benefit budget, what other 'for' points are there? I see many arguments against disarmament and I'd say most of them outweigh that argument for.
Just because you cannot foresee any scenario isn't good enough. Nobody foresaw Hitler, nobody foresaw ISIL, nobody foresaw 9/11. Tragic events happen and unfold. To scrap a massive capability on the blind faith that we cannot predict any reason to have them in the future is juvenile and dangerous.
Just because you support a particular party doesn't mean you have to subscribe to every one of their policies you do realise?
You can challenge them on logical and sensible grounds you know, it won't make you a traitor. The debate is pointless anyway, there is absolutely no chance the government will scrap its nuclear arsenal.
We kinda did... With all the scenarios you mentioned, wouldn't take a genius to realise someone who burns books and was imprisoned, somehow becoming the leader of a beleaguered nation isnt going to be obvious...
We knew, but leadership said appeasement and that was that.
9/11?... The CIA admitted it knew, big woop right?
ISIL? Big surprise there eh? Destabilise a region and expect daisies to sprout.
Now Crimea would have been a more apt example, not trying to be a dick, but ..
..but you are being one...right?
Those things you just listed, we're clearly talking different time frames. Yes we see things coming months, maybe a year or two ahead. Global situations just don't happen over night. Do you understand this, the real world? I'll give you a clue, it doesn't exist on your armchair in this forum. I'm talking about the long term. Did you see ISIL coming 20 years ago then? Tell me what's next oh great Strider? In fact don't, you're just another poster who thinks if he posts last he has won a debate so it will be yet more drivel. I'm not interested in your drivel. Direct your replies to someone else.
I see one main argument for disarmament - saving equivalent to 1.5% of the benefit budget, what other 'for' points are there? I see many arguments against disarmament and I'd say most of them outweigh that argument for.
Just because you cannot foresee any scenario isn't good enough. Nobody foresaw Hitler, nobody foresaw ISIL, nobody foresaw 9/11. Tragic events happen and unfold. To scrap a massive capability on the blind faith that we cannot predict any reason to have them in the future is juvenile and dangerous.
Just because you support a particular party doesn't mean you have to subscribe to every one of their policies you do realise?
The saving for disarmament wouldn't be '1.5% of the welfare budget'. It would be £2.4bn/year plus the cost of replacing Trident itself. The overall cost is estimated at £100bn over the next 40 years. Ignoring the debate about whether or not we need it for a moment, that isn't an insignificant amount of money. It could be said to be a reasonable price for the security it brings, but trying to make out that it's an insignificant sum is silly.
With regard to WW2 though - in some ways in the 1930s to most British people a war with Germany seemed as unlikely as say a war with France does today - infact it was part of the reason Hitler was so successful early on - even governments thought that with the horrors of WW1 so relatively recent and the huge global expansion and progress of technology, communications, society, industry/commerce and so on that war was inconceivable even in some cases denying it right upto the point the bullets were flying overhead and the Nazis were streaming over their borders.
Now obviously we can't predict every possibly threat but that doesn't mean we should as some seem to think just accept that and do nothing until we are forced to deal with a threat, its naive and stupid to ignore that the geopolitical landscape can change very quickly even today and that we are a long way from being able to take the possibility of nation on nation aggression off the table.
The sums sound big, our GDP is also that, pretty big. We have to work in percentiles and 1.5% isn't much for maintaining what is a mighty asset to avert any potential future threat.
We simply cannot predict what threats there may be in future. It's like me being born with the Hammer of Thor in my hands and then throwing it away "it's a bit heavy isn't it? No thanks"
Why are you trying to reason and debate, it's clear that's not what he wants.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
It's naive and stupid to think nuclear weapons are the solution.
I made a point, that you can predict some events, if even vaguely. I couldn't give a toss about the submarines honestly, we spend vastly more on social structures that are permanently underfunded.
There really isn't anything to discuss regarding this issue, Corbyn doesn't have the clout to do everything he wants.
I won't continue.
Last edited:
I think they're an enabler/disabler. I agree though, they're not the solution to most things. Peace, diplomacy, political discourse and progression are. Lets not kid ourselves though, this tiny island didn't become so powerful by being a bunch of limp wristed morris dancers (no disrespect to morris dancers! - they never did wrong to me).
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,594
- Location
- La France
It doesn't matter what Corbyn wants as a Labour Party led by him will never be voted into government.
Nuclear weapons have never been a/the solution, they are what we have to work with.
As per my original post though what I'm really interested in is hearing what the alternatives are and so far no one, especially not Corbyn, has suggested something credible as an alternative solution.
I think that is one of the other things (in terms of consequences of weakening our military might) - we didn't get to become so relatively powerful for a small nation without stepping on some toes... some haven't forgotten that - even with peaceful forward ambitions that doesn't magically undo that legacy.
Last edited:
There isn't a solution.
I don't know why people can't grasp nukes and always go when would they ever be used.
They would be used if invaded, which isn't going to happen when countries have nukes.
Do you think NK would exist now, if they didn't have nukes?
Can't be un invented, other states wouldn't disarm if we do. It's Lala land for those who think they would.
Also going there's never been any situation than been prevented from nukes, well it's impossible to say either way as we've had nukes and live in the mist peaceful time in history.
Polices and relations can change over night. For the foresable future they are cheap enough to keep.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
But libraries aren't? Nor a decent wage for doctors?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
The point is that there doesn't need to be an alternative. Nukes are a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.
What? NK doesn't have nukes (not deliverable at least).
So, the USA and the USSR didn't decomission thousands of nukes each? Mutual disarmamanet is entirely plausible (and possible).
Last edited by a moderator:
So you are saying that it is impossible that at any point in the future we will ever find ourselves at war again with another nation?
That's got to do with? Nothing.
Scrapping nukes is not going to stop that, that is down to government policies. Out of almost 800billion, nukes cost just under 2billion a year. Scrapping them isn't going to free up large amounts if money for solving the issues you say, only massive budget reorganisation is, which I bet you like most of the public would be against.
Because doing what is needed is not popular. The only popular option is to increase debt at an ever increasing rate,