Who are the non-Jihadi opposition in Syria? Are they organised and fighting anyone?
I assumed the Corbynite, let's hold hands and dance peacefully together Syrians had left the country to get jobs in Germany. Surely Putin isn't bombing refugee camps in Turkey?
I admit to knowing little about the situation on the ground and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Loving seeing the Saudis squeal whilst their evil proxies in Syria and Yemen face a battering, their own forces get bogged down against the brave Houthis, and disquiet at home is on the rise. Sooner we can see that vile country fall, the better.
Given that the local religion is strongly against any infidel, what kind of regime is likely to replace the House of Saud if it fell?
I suspect the answer is the kind of regime which would make you long for teh return of teh House of Saud..
the oppressed Shia minority are much more moderate and their area contains most of the oilfields. Let them have their own state there, deal with them, and let the Wahhabi nutters run their own horrible state without the power to spread their poison to the rest of the eastern hemisphere.
IS in control of Mecca and Medina would present a few problems. Shia couldn't Haj and lots of Brits would.
Christie and Cruz probably but still got one eye. Kasich similarly (a downgrade on my previous position).
It's probably safe to assume that Jeb will push through all the primaries. He has the money and the establishment back-up. At some point he might end up being the only one left standing!
Mr. Wisemann, your definition of 'loony right' appears to include most of the Shadow Cabinet.
Forget right or left.
Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system.
It's not a necessary weapon system.
It's a necessary strategic defence initative
Trident will probably never be used. But our opponents don't definitely know that we probably won't use it.
Hence the danger of Corbyn's statement: in removing uncertainty the only think he achieves is to make the world a more dangerous place
As a mere adjunct of the U.S. deterrent it does no such thing. There is no conceivable scenario where the U.S. would allow us to use it if they weren't going to use theirs. It's another emperor-with-no-clothes fiction that achieves nothing except boost the transatlantic neocon establishment and the coffers of Lockheed Martin.
Evidence?
He wont listen. Ive repeatedly pointed out to him that the chain of command for firing is entirely within Britain's control. He wont have it, he wont believe it. There isnt much point arguing with him.
On Syria, I think Bluerog's analysis is too complicated. Putin simply wants to prove he's a good ally. Ally with him and he sticks to you through thick and thin, regardless of your revolting atrocities, and if necessary intervenes to bomb your opponents. Ally with the West and who knows what they'll do, if anything? Perhaps they'll even conspire to bring you down when they find a better option (cf. Gaddafi, who we were intermittently friendly with when he agreed to give up WMD).
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
And your analysis is far too simple and one-dimensional. Why would Putin ally himself with Assad in the first place? What does he want out of this? What is his end-game?
Russian strategy doesn't change.
She wants a buffer of compliant and/or destabilised countries around her borders. Syria fits reasonably well there with the added bonus of military bases.
It might also send a signal to Turkey that the Turks best defence is served by Russia and not NATO - especially as Turkish Accession to the EU now seems less likely than ever.
Is it not as simple as the port access Syria has ?
This is overstated, especially as the Russians now have a warm weather port inside their sovereign territory (at Sevastopol). It's no doubt helpful.
1) Gain massive influence with Assad, though he's bad and dangerous to know is not mad. 2) Crack down on Islamic terrorism so it can present itself as in the right when it cracks down on the opposition (Or terrorists as it may well call them ) in Russia itself. 3) Embarass the west 4) Exscacerbate the refugee crisis into Europe, so that it can gain soft influence over the more eastern matters. 5) See 2, but also with Ukraine 6) Potentially gain access to another Med port 7) Have a sea route through to the Black sea and Sevastopol. 8) As per Nick's point, prove Putin will be there for you as a loyal friend no matter how many people you gas.
Putin is the best bet Assad has right now, after seeing what happened to Gaddaffi in Libya.
"Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system."
I agree which is why the election of Corbyn was so important. For the first time the question of Trident is going to become a national debate. That several shadow cabinet ministers are in favour doesn't matter a jot. This goes to the heart of progressive politics. Anyone watching the rather pathetic figure of Lord Falconer on Newsnight will know the writing's on the wall.
Precisely. And this isn't just a left-wing view; Peter Oborne was on Radio 4 last night saying exactly the same thing.
As for rentoul's glib comment about protests, the Russians have been called in for assistance by the sovereign government of the country, a very different activity to unilateral military adventurism of the sort that has been so reckless and commonplace by the transatlantic neocon establishment.
The Eurosceptic peer said he has taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and will lead a cross-party exit movement ahead of the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
He's fine to give intellectual credibility but too old to front a campaign - I had to think for a moment to remember who he was, and I shouldn't think most people under 40 will have a clue. Outers desperately need a well-known current politician to lead them who isn't Farage (who is effective but defines Out too narrowly as =UKIP). Boris seems the only plausible possibility that might give them a shot.
On R4 Today this am Lawson was asked if his group would share a platform with other anti EU campaigns; answer (I paraphrase), no, we will not support others but will welcome support from others.
The Eurosceptic peer said he has taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and will lead a cross-party exit movement ahead of the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
He's fine to give intellectual credibility but too old to front a campaign - I had to think for a moment to remember who he was, and I shouldn't think most people under 40 will have a clue. Outers desperately need a well-known current politician to lead them who isn't Farage (who is effective but defines Out too narrowly as =UKIP). Boris seems the only plausible possibility that might give them a shot.
FFS Nick
You may not agree with him, but Lawson was one of the seminal figures in late 20 century politics.
I think you were active in politics from the early 80s onwards so I simply don't believe you had "to think for a moment to remember who he is"
On Syria, I think Bluerog's analysis is too complicated. Putin simply wants to prove he's a good ally. Ally with him and he sticks to you through thick and thin, regardless of your revolting atrocities, and if necessary intervenes to bomb your opponents. Ally with the West and who knows what they'll do, if anything? Perhaps they'll even conspire to bring you down when they find a better option (cf. Gaddafi, who we were intermittently friendly with when he agreed to give up WMD).
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
And your analysis is far too simple and one-dimensional. Why would Putin ally himself with Assad in the first place? What does he want out of this? What is his end-game?
Russian strategy doesn't change.
She wants a buffer of compliant and/or destabilised countries around her borders. Syria fits reasonably well there with the added bonus of military bases.
It might also send a signal to Turkey that the Turks best defence is served by Russia and not NATO - especially as Turkish Accession to the EU now seems less likely than ever.
Is it not as simple as the port access Syria has ?
This is overstated, especially as the Russians now have a warm weather port inside their sovereign territory (at Sevastopol). It's no doubt helpful.
That only really allows 'naval influence' over the Black Sea. A Meditteranean port is much more useful.
The Eurosceptic peer said he has taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and will lead a cross-party exit movement ahead of the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
He's fine to give intellectual credibility but too old to front a campaign - I had to think for a moment to remember who he was, and I shouldn't think most people under 40 will have a clue. Outers desperately need a well-known current politician to lead them who isn't Farage (who is effective but defines Out too narrowly as =UKIP). Boris seems the only plausible possibility that might give them a shot.
FFS Nick
You may not agree with him, but Lawson was one of the seminal figures in late 20 century politics.
I think you were active in politics from the early 80s onwards so I simply don't believe you had "to think for a moment to remember who he is"
Nor do I. He's a wonderful man - great to have on side. I hope he has the energy, but I trust he knows what he's doing. Hopefully he can get an endorsement from Nigella too! (some hopes)
Mr. Wisemann, your definition of 'loony right' appears to include most of the Shadow Cabinet.
Forget right or left.
Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system.
It's not a necessary weapon system.
It's a necessary strategic defence initative
Trident will probably never be used. But our opponents don't definitely know that we probably won't use it.
Hence the danger of Corbyn's statement: in removing uncertainty the only think he achieves is to make the world a more dangerous place
As a mere adjunct of the U.S. deterrent it does no such thing. There is no conceivable scenario where the U.S. would allow us to use it if they weren't going to use theirs. It's another emperor-with-no-clothes fiction that achieves nothing except boost the transatlantic neocon establishment and the coffers of Lockheed Martin.
Evidence?
He wont listen. Ive repeatedly pointed out to him that the chain of command for firing is entirely within Britain's control. He wont have it, he wont believe it. There isnt much point arguing with him.
I think you are thinking of someone else. I don't remember discussing this. it is uncontroversial that it heavily relies on the U.S. for maintenance and if they decided to switch off the taps we'd lose our system entirely in a matter of months. That much we can all agree on, which is already far from ideal for a supposedly independent deterrent. Operational independence is of course harder to pin down due to the inevitable secrecy in the details, but it's not just about chain of command, is it? It's about targeting - and there is lots of evidence to suggest that our targeting of the missiles is dependent on US say-so.
Delighted that Nigel Lawson has become a prominent figure in the OUT campaign, definitely gaining momentum now
OUT campaign? What do you mean?
Oh yes, sorry, got it now - the referendum which will ask Britain if it wants to leave the EU.
That's the one.
The former chancellor Lord Lawson has announced he will lead a Conservative party campaign to leave the EU.
The Eurosceptic peer said he had taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and would lead a cross-party exit movement before the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
Writing in the Times, he warned that David Cameron would secure only “wafer-thin” reforms. Lawson said it was time for the prime minister and the chancellor, George Osborne, to set out “red lines” in the renegotiation of the UK’s membership.
On Syria, I think Bluerog's analysis is too complicated. Putin simply wants to prove he's a good ally. Ally with him and he sticks to you through thick and thin, regardless of your revolting atrocities, and if necessary intervenes to bomb your opponents. Ally with the West and who knows what they'll do, if anything? Perhaps they'll even conspire to bring you down when they find a better option (cf. Gaddafi, who we were intermittently friendly with when he agreed to give up WMD).
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
And your analysis is far too simple and one-dimensional. Why would Putin ally himself with Assad in the first place? What does he want out of this? What is his end-game?
Russian strategy doesn't change.
She wants a buffer of compliant and/or destabilised countries around her borders. Syria fits reasonably well there with the added bonus of military bases.
It might also send a signal to Turkey that the Turks best defence is served by Russia and not NATO - especially as Turkish Accession to the EU now seems less likely than ever.
Is it not as simple as the port access Syria has ?
This is overstated, especially as the Russians now have a warm weather port inside their sovereign territory (at Sevastopol). It's no doubt helpful.
That only really allows 'naval influence' over the Black Sea. A Meditteranean port is much more useful.
The Turks can easily close the Bosphorus Strait and prevent any Russian vessels leaving the Black Sea. It's also why technically the USSR never had aircraft carriers and instead had aircraft-carrying missile cruisers - Turkey barred aircraft carriers from going through the strait.
A major military base in the Mediterranean would be a massive boon for Russia.
Outstanding documentary about a Syrian family that gives a much better flavour of the stresses of being a Syrian and the significance of the civil war than the rather irrelevant 'cowboys and indians' caracatures that seem to matter so much on here
Mr. Palmer, Boris has zero credibility on this, due to his demented position, stated earlier this year (or late 2014) that we should vote No, and then use that as leverage to get a better deal instead of respecting the democratic will of the people.
Yes. Out means out. It does not mean, "let's think about it a bit more."
This is overstated, especially as the Russians now have a warm weather port inside their sovereign territory (at Sevastopol). It's no doubt helpful.
That only really allows 'naval influence' over the Black Sea. A Meditteranean port is much more useful.
This hinges on the position of Turkey who must be questioning the reliance on the United States as an ally given how the US has destabilised the region. If Russia brings stability to Syria, while the EU continues to shuffle Turkish Accession into the long grass, there could be a medium term shift.
Mr. Dair, isn't any shift in Turkish medium/long-term strategic position a bit tricky, given it's in NATO? It could leave, of course, but leaving an organisation is a more significant step than not joining it.
Mr. Wisemann, your definition of 'loony right' appears to include most of the Shadow Cabinet.
Forget right or left.
Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system.
It's not a necessary weapon system.
It's a necessary strategic defence initative
Trident will probably never be used. But our opponents don't definitely know that we probably won't use it.
Hence the danger of Corbyn's statement: in removing uncertainty the only think he achieves is to make the world a more dangerous place
As a mere adjunct of the U.S. deterrent it does no such thing. There is no conceivable scenario where the U.S. would allow us to use it if they weren't going to use theirs. It's another emperor-with-no-clothes fiction that achieves nothing except boost the transatlantic neocon establishment and the coffers of Lockheed Martin.
Ah, yes, the "it's not really independent" thesis so beloved of conspiracy theorists, Putinistas and the loony left.
Who all operate under the umbrella of US weapons, allow their storage within their territory, and in many cases have trained to use them.
Unfortunately for you that is an out and out lie.
It's shameful that the best line the Trident apologists can come up with is a direct lie.
Of course.
'Although the Netherlands does not have weapons of mass destruction made by itself, the country participates in the NATO nuclear weapons sharing arrangements and trains for delivering U.S. nuclear weapons, i.e. it has weapons of mass destruction made by another country.'
1) Gain massive influence with Assad, though he's bad and dangerous to know is not mad. 2) Crack down on Islamic terrorism so it can present itself as in the right when it cracks down on the opposition (Or terrorists as it may well call them ) in Russia itself. 3) Embarass the west 4) Exscacerbate the refugee crisis into Europe, so that it can gain soft influence over the more eastern matters. 5) See 2, but also with Ukraine 6) Potentially gain access to another Med port 7) Have a sea route through to the Black sea and Sevastopol. 8) As per Nick's point, prove Putin will be there for you as a loyal friend no matter how many people you gas.
Putin is the best bet Assad has right now, after seeing what happened to Gaddaffi in Libya.
On your last line: Iran is also a major factor that hasn't been mentioned this morning. Hezbollah's another complicating factor. It'll be interesting to know exactly what Russia and Iran have been talking about behind the scenes.
The vultures are circling Syria. Assad really doesn't have many 'good' choices.
Mr. Dair, isn't any shift in Turkish medium/long-term strategic position a bit tricky, given it's in NATO? It could leave, of course, but leaving an organisation is a more significant step than not joining it.
That's certainly true but it is not an unthinkable scenario. It seems to me that Turkey has plenty of reasons to question their Western outlook at the moment.
Clearly the historical animosity between Russia and the Turks has played its part in this. But grudges don't last forever and the benefit to Turkey may end up being questioned.
Mr. Wisemann, your definition of 'loony right' appears to include most of the Shadow Cabinet.
Forget right or left.
Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system.
It's not a necessary weapon system.
It's a necessary strategic defence initative
Trident will probably never be used. But our opponents don't definitely know that we probably won't use it.
Hence the danger of Corbyn's statement: in removing uncertainty the only think he achieves is to make the world a more dangerous place
It's not about "being used". That's for naive nutters (on both sides).
Trident fails because it is : -
1. Redundant. The American nuclear programme provides the UK with MAD and a deterrent.
2. Not Fit For Purpose. The Trident system (where we can't even fill a single boat with missiles and have quite limited Warheads deployed at any time) does not prrovide MAD, it would barely be a bloody nose for the Great Bear. It does not qualify as a deterrent.
So it isn't needed and doesn't work. £100bn for something that isn't needed and doesn't work is absolutely ridiculous.
Redundacy - disagree. We are not the 51st state and, if you hadn't noticed, America is perfectly willing to sacrifice British interests to achieve it's own objectives. We can't rely on them to always protect us
Trident isn't a MAD system - personally, I think even the Great Bear would think twice about accepting the loss of Moscow and St. Peterburg as a "cost of doing business"
"Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system."
I agree which is why the election of Corbyn was so important. For the first time the question of Trident is going to become a national debate. That several shadow cabinet ministers are in favour doesn't matter a jot. This goes to the heart of progressive politics. Anyone watching the rather pathetic figure of Lord Falconer on Newsnight will know the writing's on the wall.
Precisely. And this isn't just a left-wing view; Peter Oborne was on Radio 4 last night saying exactly the same thing.
Peter Oborne regards the US as our enemy and Islamists as our allies.
Who all operate under the umbrella of US weapons, allow their storage within their territory, and in many cases have trained to use them.
Unfortunately for you that is an out and out lie.
It's shameful that the best line the Trident apologists can come up with is a direct lie.
Of course.
'Although the Netherlands does not have weapons of mass destruction made by itself, the country participates in the NATO nuclear weapons sharing arrangements and trains for delivering U.S. nuclear weapons, i.e. it has weapons of mass destruction made by another country.'
Yes, and Denmark (and others do not allow American nukes on their territory or train to us them. It is not a requirement of NATO membership to host and use nuclear weapons.
Three or four countries host US weapons. The vast majority of NATO does not.
Mr. Dair, isn't any shift in Turkish medium/long-term strategic position a bit tricky, given it's in NATO? It could leave, of course, but leaving an organisation is a more significant step than not joining it.
That's certainly true but it is not an unthinkable scenario. It seems to me that Turkey has plenty of reasons to question their Western outlook at the moment.
Clearly the historical animosity between Russia and the Turks has played its part in this. But grudges don't last forever and the benefit to Turkey may end up being questioned.
Turkey is a VERY popular destination for Russian tourists ! The hotel I went to a couple of years back was ~ 95% Russian (Near Kemer). I know that's not the be all and end all of international relations, but still.
Mr. Dair, isn't any shift in Turkish medium/long-term strategic position a bit tricky, given it's in NATO? It could leave, of course, but leaving an organisation is a more significant step than not joining it.
If Turkey leaves NATO, its shift of focus will not be towards Russia.
And another point: Erdoğan may have gutted the top level of the military and replaced it with his placemen (*), but that does not mean that the remaining military will be happy at leaving NATO. NATO may have problems, but they're nothing compared to the crisis facing Russian forces. Turkey's military may not stand for leaving NATO.
(*) It was quite a funny period in Turkish politics, especially the second stage of it which is still being played out. The Turkish military have always played a stringent role in the country's politics, having coups when they thought the regime was becoming too Islamist. Replacing the military leadership made Erdoğan more secure.
On Syria, I think Bluerog's analysis is too complicated. Putin simply wants to prove he's a good ally. Ally with him and he sticks to you through thick and thin, regardless of your revolting atrocities, and if necessary intervenes to bomb your opponents. Ally with the West and who knows what they'll do, if anything? Perhaps they'll even conspire to bring you down when they find a better option (cf. Gaddafi, who we were intermittently friendly with when he agreed to give up WMD).
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
And your analysis is far too simple and one-dimensional. Why would Putin ally himself with Assad in the first place? What does he want out of this? What is his end-game?
Russian strategy doesn't change.
She wants a buffer of compliant and/or destabilised countries around her borders. Syria fits reasonably well there with the added bonus of military bases.
It might also send a signal to Turkey that the Turks best defence is served by Russia and not NATO - especially as Turkish Accession to the EU now seems less likely than ever.
Is it not as simple as the port access Syria has ?
This is overstated, especially as the Russians now have a warm weather port inside their sovereign territory (at Sevastopol). It's no doubt helpful.
Sevastopol isn't sovereign Russian territory. It's leased from Ukraine.
I'm vaguely aware of Turkey's military coups, and wonder whether this is a permanent shift or whether the army will return to its traditional role (to be polite) in the near-medium future.
The Eurosceptic peer said he has taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and will lead a cross-party exit movement ahead of the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
He's fine to give intellectual credibility but too old to front a campaign - I had to think for a moment to remember who he was, and I shouldn't think most people under 40 will have a clue. Outers desperately need a well-known current politician to lead them who isn't Farage (who is effective but defines Out too narrowly as =UKIP). Boris seems the only plausible possibility that might give them a shot.
FFS Nick
You may not agree with him, but Lawson was one of the seminal figures in late 20 century politics.
I think you were active in politics from the early 80s onwards so I simply don't believe you had "to think for a moment to remember who he is"
Nor do I. He's a wonderful man - great to have on side. I hope he has the energy, but I trust he knows what he's doing. Hopefully he can get an endorsement from Nigella too! (some hopes)
After the UKIP farce, some "Nigella Says NO!!" T-shirts would be a hoot....
Mr. Dair, isn't any shift in Turkish medium/long-term strategic position a bit tricky, given it's in NATO? It could leave, of course, but leaving an organisation is a more significant step than not joining it.
That's certainly true but it is not an unthinkable scenario. It seems to me that Turkey has plenty of reasons to question their Western outlook at the moment.
Clearly the historical animosity between Russia and the Turks has played its part in this. But grudges don't last forever and the benefit to Turkey may end up being questioned.
Turkey is a VERY popular destination for Russian tourists ! The hotel I went to a couple of years back was ~ 95% Russian (Near Kemer). I know that's not the be all and end all of international relations, but still.
The failure of Turkey's attempts at Accession will come back to bite at some stage. Without the benefits of the EU it is not clear what their Western Outlook actually achieves for them other than sending a "screw you" message to Russia for a conflict 150 years ago.
1. Redundant. The American nuclear programme provides the UK with MAD and a deterrent.
Redundacy - disagree. We are not the 51st state and, if you hadn't noticed, America is perfectly willing to sacrifice British interests to achieve it's own objectives. We can't rely on them to always protect us
Thinking out loud here:
I think so long as leadership in the White House and No 10 is 'normal' - Blair; Bush; Reagen; Thatcher; Rubio; Clinton; Cameron; Rubio I think Trident is actually redundant. Currently it IS redundant to my mind.
BUT If the barking mad right of the GOP in the States gets in combined with a loony left Corbyn leadership here, article 5 may be in some doubt - and hence a nuclear detterent is perhaps needed.
On Syria, I think Bluerog's analysis is too complicated. Putin simply wants to prove he's a good ally. Ally with him and he sticks to you through thick and thin, regardless of your revolting atrocities, and if necessary intervenes to bomb your opponents. Ally with the West and who knows what they'll do, if anything? Perhaps they'll even conspire to bring you down when they find a better option (cf. Gaddafi, who we were intermittently friendly with when he agreed to give up WMD).
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
And your analysis is far too simple and one-dimensional. Why would Putin ally himself with Assad in the first place? What does he want out of this? What is his end-game?
Russian strategy doesn't change.
She wants a buffer of compliant and/or destabilised countries around her borders. Syria fits reasonably well there with the added bonus of military bases.
It might also send a signal to Turkey that the Turks best defence is served by Russia and not NATO - especially as Turkish Accession to the EU now seems less likely than ever.
Is it not as simple as the port access Syria has ?
This is overstated, especially as the Russians now have a warm weather port inside their sovereign territory (at Sevastopol). It's no doubt helpful.
Sevastopol isn't sovereign Russian territory. It's leased from Ukraine.
The Eurosceptic peer said he has taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and will lead a cross-party exit movement ahead of the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
He's fine to give intellectual credibility but too old to front a campaign - I had to think for a moment to remember who he was, and I shouldn't think most people under 40 will have a clue. Outers desperately need a well-known current politician to lead them who isn't Farage (who is effective but defines Out too narrowly as =UKIP). Boris seems the only plausible possibility that might give them a shot.
FFS Nick
You may not agree with him, but Lawson was one of the seminal figures in late 20 century politics.
I think you were active in politics from the early 80s onwards so I simply don't believe you had "to think for a moment to remember who he is"
Nor do I. He's a wonderful man - great to have on side. I hope he has the energy, but I trust he knows what he's doing. Hopefully he can get an endorsement from Nigella too! (some hopes)
After the UKIP farce, some "Nigella Says NO!!" T-shirts would be a hoot....
Nicky Morgan is very brave putting her hat in the ring years ahead of the allotted time. ETA for first anonymous unflattering story about her appearing in the press?
Nicky Morgan is very brave putting her hat in the ring years ahead of the allotted time. ETA for first anonymous unflattering story about her appearing in the press?
"Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system."
I agree which is why the election of Corbyn was so important. For the first time the question of Trident is going to become a national debate. That several shadow cabinet ministers are in favour doesn't matter a jot. This goes to the heart of progressive politics. Anyone watching the rather pathetic figure of Lord Falconer on Newsnight will know the writing's on the wall.
Precisely. And this isn't just a left-wing view; Peter Oborne was on Radio 4 last night saying exactly the same thing.
Peter Oborne regards the US as our enemy and Islamists as our allies.
Peter Oborne (like Peter Hitchens) is as mad as a box of frogs.
I find it incredible that anybody still takes any notice of these deluded fools.
If she'd kept her trap shut, Nicky Morgan might have been very well-placed in a few years' time. IF Michael Gove's reforms were a good idea and work, she'd be able to take all the credit for the fruits of those without any of the awkward ruffling feathers of the unions that he had to undertake. However, she has just placed a target on her back.
Rubio is a good bet. The post-debate polling suggested he was everyone's second choice. That's a good thing to be in terms of getting the nomination (less so for winning) - look at Romney, McCain and Kerry. Once the froth has blown off the anti-politics candidates (each of whom is pretty flawed), one of the more boring candidates will rise to the top, and Rubio is a better performer than Bush, with less baggage.
1. Redundant. The American nuclear programme provides the UK with MAD and a deterrent.
Redundacy - disagree. We are not the 51st state and, if you hadn't noticed, America is perfectly willing to sacrifice British interests to achieve it's own objectives. We can't rely on them to always protect us
Thinking out loud here:
I think so long as leadership in the White House and No 10 is 'normal' - Blair; Bush; Reagen; Thatcher; Rubio; Clinton; Cameron; Rubio I think Trident is actually redundant. Currently it IS redundant to my mind.
BUT If the barking mad right of the GOP in the States gets in combined with a loony left Corbyn leadership here, article 5 may be in some doubt - and hence a nuclear detterent is perhaps needed.
And for the pessimists, the storage of our warheads without any capability so they could be implemented with a weapons system should the need arise without breaking NNPT, would be in the region of a few millions per annum.
I'm vaguely aware of Turkey's military coups, and wonder whether this is a permanent shift or whether the army will return to its traditional role (to be polite) in the near-medium future.
Monetary. Apparently they're vastly overstretched, with several foreign ventures going on as they're trying to modernise their forces. Earlier this year they lost six planes in a little over a month in crashes. I cannot see them continuing with this tempo of operation for many more years, unless the modernisation works very well. And they rarely do. The only other alternative is for Russia's economy to boom, and that requires an end to sanctions.
Many at the top of Turkey's military are beholden to either Erdoğan or Gülen. It would take a great deal for these men to swap allegiances. But leaving NATO might encourage those below the placemen.
One of the problems with Turkey's uncertain and sometimes two-faced approach to ISIS is down to these replacements.
Nicky Morgan is very brave putting her hat in the ring years ahead of the allotted time. ETA for first anonymous unflattering story about her appearing in the press?
The dimwittedness of voting against the same-sex marriage bill at Westminster and then tweeting congratulations to Ireland when they passed theirs might be a start.
Mr. Antifrank, some might say it was kind of her to give Osborne some early practice crushing 'unsuitable' candidates [unless she's an Osborne acolyte, of course].
1. Redundant. The American nuclear programme provides the UK with MAD and a deterrent.
Redundacy - disagree. We are not the 51st state and, if you hadn't noticed, America is perfectly willing to sacrifice British interests to achieve it's own objectives. We can't rely on them to always protect us
Thinking out loud here:
I think so long as leadership in the White House and No 10 is 'normal' - Blair; Bush; Reagen; Thatcher; Rubio; Clinton; Cameron; Rubio I think Trident is actually redundant. Currently it IS redundant to my mind.
BUT If the barking mad right of the GOP in the States gets in combined with a loony left Corbyn leadership here, article 5 may be in some doubt - and hence a nuclear detterent is perhaps needed.
And for the pessimists, the storage of our warheads without any capability so they could be implemented with a weapons system should the need arise without breaking NNPT, would be in the region of a few millions per annum.
1. Redundant. The American nuclear programme provides the UK with MAD and a deterrent.
Redundacy - disagree. We are not the 51st state and, if you hadn't noticed, America is perfectly willing to sacrifice British interests to achieve it's own objectives. We can't rely on them to always protect us
Thinking out loud here:
I think so long as leadership in the White House and No 10 is 'normal' - Blair; Bush; Reagen; Thatcher; Rubio; Clinton; Cameron; Rubio I think Trident is actually redundant. Currently it IS redundant to my mind.
BUT If the barking mad right of the GOP in the States gets in combined with a loony left Corbyn leadership here, article 5 may be in some doubt - and hence a nuclear detterent is perhaps needed.
And for the pessimists, the storage of our warheads without any capability so they could be implemented with a weapons system should the need arise without breaking NNPT, would be in the region of a few millions per annum.
Arf. A few as in 'not many, hardly any, scarcely any'. It must cost more than that just to run the floodlighting at Coulport and Burghfield.
Mr. Dair, isn't any shift in Turkish medium/long-term strategic position a bit tricky, given it's in NATO? It could leave, of course, but leaving an organisation is a more significant step than not joining it.
If Turkey leaves NATO, its shift of focus will not be towards Russia.
And another point: Erdoğan may have gutted the top level of the military and replaced it with his placemen (*), but that does not mean that the remaining military will be happy at leaving NATO. NATO may have problems, but they're nothing compared to the crisis facing Russian forces. Turkey's military may not stand for leaving NATO.
(*) It was quite a funny period in Turkish politics, especially the second stage of it which is still being played out. The Turkish military have always played a stringent role in the country's politics, having coups when they thought the regime was becoming too Islamist. Replacing the military leadership made Erdoğan more secure.
Turkey has November elections I believe. Erdogan lost his majority in the last one.
1. Redundant. The American nuclear programme provides the UK with MAD and a deterrent.
Redundacy - disagree. We are not the 51st state and, if you hadn't noticed, America is perfectly willing to sacrifice British interests to achieve it's own objectives. We can't rely on them to always protect us
Thinking out loud here:
I think so long as leadership in the White House and No 10 is 'normal' - Blair; Bush; Reagen; Thatcher; Rubio; Clinton; Cameron; Rubio I think Trident is actually redundant. Currently it IS redundant to my mind.
BUT If the barking mad right of the GOP in the States gets in combined with a loony left Corbyn leadership here, article 5 may be in some doubt - and hence a nuclear detterent is perhaps needed.
And for the pessimists, the storage of our warheads without any capability so they could be implemented with a weapons system should the need arise without breaking NNPT, would be in the region of a few millions per annum.
Again much preferable to Trident 2.
You must be joking! It would be massive cost in long-term maintenance of the warheads alone (nuclear weapons age and literally decay), and you cannot just magic up a delivery system out of thin air, or train the people who will have to use it immediately.
It would be akin to starting a whole new weapons program.
"Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system."
I agree which is why the election of Corbyn was so important. For the first time the question of Trident is going to become a national debate. That several shadow cabinet ministers are in favour doesn't matter a jot. This goes to the heart of progressive politics. Anyone watching the rather pathetic figure of Lord Falconer on Newsnight will know the writing's on the wall.
Corbyn is not a credible figure to lead such a debate. This is one of the many problems with him. He'll lead a debate inside Labour, but out in the real world no-one will care very much as they know Corbyn will never be in power.
Presumably anyone calling for the removal of Trident, is also expecting us to leave NATO, since we would remain a likely nuclear target for any 'enemy' whilst still hosting joint US/NATO facilities.
There are plenty of nato members with no nuclear weapons.
Who all operate under the umbrella of US weapons, allow their storage within their territory, and in many cases have trained to use them. They're all targets.
Doesn't Spain not allow nuclear weapons on it's territory despite being a member of NATO?
I am not sure our politics is mature enough to have a genuine debate on Trident. The positions are entrenched on either side.
Given the £100bn price tag alone, we should seriously consider what a post Trident Britain might look like.
It doesn't even take much imagination to consider this.
We would either look like the Netherlands where you host a few token nukes (which is pretty much what Trident is - a token).
Or we would look like Denmark where we are a member of NATO with no nuclear presence.
Both options are infinitely preferable to spending £100bn on Trident 2.
I am not sure the public are ready for a foreign policy that equates Britain to Holland or Denmark. There would have to be another way to satisfy our legacy.
Trident is a subject where I agree with Jeremy Corbyn. It seems like a complete waste of money to me and the one thing that Britain can do in foreign policy still is set an example. Unilateral nuclear disarmament now seems entirely appropriate.
I think we spend far too much on defence anyway, but if we are going to spend 2% or whatever, I'd rather we spent it on stuff we're actually going to use.
Mr. Dair, isn't any shift in Turkish medium/long-term strategic position a bit tricky, given it's in NATO? It could leave, of course, but leaving an organisation is a more significant step than not joining it.
If Turkey leaves NATO, its shift of focus will not be towards Russia.
And another point: Erdoğan may have gutted the top level of the military and replaced it with his placemen (*), but that does not mean that the remaining military will be happy at leaving NATO. NATO may have problems, but they're nothing compared to the crisis facing Russian forces. Turkey's military may not stand for leaving NATO.
(*) It was quite a funny period in Turkish politics, especially the second stage of it which is still being played out. The Turkish military have always played a stringent role in the country's politics, having coups when they thought the regime was becoming too Islamist. Replacing the military leadership made Erdoğan more secure.
Turkey has November elections I believe. Erdogan lost his majority in the last one.
Indeed. It should be very interesting, and also not a little worrying.
I am not sure our politics is mature enough to have a genuine debate on Trident. The positions are entrenched on either side.
Given the £100bn price tag alone, we should seriously consider what a post Trident Britain might look like.
The problem is one of the sides is much smaller than the other
You could have said exactly the same about Scottish Independence or EU Membership before those debates became focused in the public mind.
Similar considerations should be made by Monarchists.
Mr Dair, you'd think labour would be the party to oppose trident but they clearly aren't going to. Who does that leave?
It may be important to you and other Scots but the vast majority of the rest of the UK aren't fussed. Scottish independence is important to the Scots, nobody else cares
The Eurosceptic peer said he has taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and will lead a cross-party exit movement ahead of the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
He's fine to give intellectual credibility but too old to front a campaign - I had to think for a moment to remember who he was, and I shouldn't think most people under 40 will have a clue. Outers desperately need a well-known current politician to lead them who isn't Farage (who is effective but defines Out too narrowly as =UKIP). Boris seems the only plausible possibility that might give them a shot.
FFS Nick
You may not agree with him, but Lawson was one of the seminal figures in late 20 century politics.
I think you were active in politics from the early 80s onwards so I simply don't believe you had "to think for a moment to remember who he is"
Nor do I. He's a wonderful man - great to have on side. I hope he has the energy, but I trust he knows what he's doing. Hopefully he can get an endorsement from Nigella too! (some hopes)
After the UKIP farce, some "Nigella Says NO!!" T-shirts would be a hoot....
What Ukip farce?
The farce of UKIP allowing itself to be the plaything of Farage. Either it's a serious political party that is happy to be putting its name to LEAVE, or it is a joke organisation around the ego of one guy peddling a shoddy sub-FRANKIE SAY T-shirt range on the biggest question the people of the UK have been asked in forty years.
1. Redundant. The American nuclear programme provides the UK with MAD and a deterrent.
Redundacy - disagree. We are not the 51st state and, if you hadn't noticed, America is perfectly willing to sacrifice British interests to achieve it's own objectives. We can't rely on them to always protect us
Thinking out loud here:
I think so long as leadership in the White House and No 10 is 'normal' - Blair; Bush; Reagen; Thatcher; Rubio; Clinton; Cameron; Rubio I think Trident is actually redundant. Currently it IS redundant to my mind.
BUT If the barking mad right of the GOP in the States gets in combined with a loony left Corbyn leadership here, article 5 may be in some doubt - and hence a nuclear detterent is perhaps needed.
And for the pessimists, the storage of our warheads without any capability so they could be implemented with a weapons system should the need arise without breaking NNPT, would be in the region of a few millions per annum.
Arf. A few as in 'not many, hardly any, scarcely any'. It must cost more than that just to run the floodlighting at Coulport and Burghfield.
There are lot of stupid comments on the site this morning from kippers, nats, and Corbynistas, but that "few millions" takes the biscuit
Total (capital (submarines, missiles, warheads etc), maintenance, running & decommissioning) cost over 35 years......
Or......0.4% of annual UK Government spending.
You're right, we're not likely to get a mature debate.....
I love the way the Left have taken non-renewal of Trident as the replacement for them needing to continually shake the money tree. It's not much more than chump change in the scheme of things. I honestly think most of the Corbynistas believe it costs £100bn a year....
Total (capital (submarines, missiles, warheads etc), maintenance, running & decommissioning) cost over 35 years......
Or......0.4% of annual UK Government spending.
You're right, we're not likely to get a mature debate.....
I have huge respect for the post-war generation of politicians like Harold Macmillan who were committed to the idea of "never again" and successfully created the post-war settlement. They carefully built institutions and balanced power structures that delivered unprecedented peace and stability.
Now we are led by their successors who are determined to muck around with this settlement, often for short term political reasons, rather than to update and thereby secure the settlement for another generation.
If we are to make changes, they need to be approached carefully with real thought.
Mr. Palmer, Boris has zero credibility on this, due to his demented position, stated earlier this year (or late 2014) that we should vote No, and then use that as leverage to get a better deal instead of respecting the democratic will of the people.
Yes. Out means out. It does not mean, "let's think about it a bit more."
I'm an Inner, and lots of us feel that Boris will say almost anything if it fits what he wants to convey on the spur of the moment, but we have to acknowledge that it's never done him much harm with his fans, has it? I think he'd be a major asset for Out and odds-on as next Tory leader if Out won.
To reply to Charles - I was active in UK politics in 1982-85 and then from 1995, but not much in between, and Lawson is a distant half-memory like Barber or Macleod. I really don't think he's a household name. If he'll be leading the campaign, that's great for In.
I love the way the Left have taken non-renewal of Trident as the replacement for them needing to continually shake the money tree. It's not much more than chump change in the scheme of things. I honestly think most of the Corbynistas believe it costs £100bn a year....
I'm sure that is the case, as I have many times over the years heard people talk about the cost (whichever £X billions figure is used) and how it could be alternately spent that implied that they believed it was an annual cost.
I worked for two years in London in the seventies and I remember the 'Nuclear free zone' stickers. I suspect Corbyn had a hand in it.
How impressive. If a five megaton bomb dropped nearby they would automatically be protected by the shield of righteousness. Or else the Russians would say to themselves "We mustn't destroy Brent, its a right-on sort of place."
We really are going back to those times. We can print new stickers ... "Common sense free zone."
I am not sure our politics is mature enough to have a genuine debate on Trident. The positions are entrenched on either side.
Given the £100bn price tag alone, we should seriously consider what a post Trident Britain might look like.
The problem is one of the sides is much smaller than the other
You could have said exactly the same about Scottish Independence or EU Membership before those debates became focused in the public mind.
Similar considerations should be made by Monarchists.
Mr Dair, you'd think labour would be the party to oppose trident but they clearly aren't going to. Who does that leave?
It may be important to you and other Scots but the vast majority of the rest of the UK aren't fussed. Scottish independence is important to the Scots, nobody else cares
I am quite hopeful that the 2016 SNP Manifesto will include, on the list of "trigger points" for the Second Referendum : -
4. Were the Untied Kingdom Government to commission a replacement for Trident and intend to base the system in Scotland.
"“Currently the Law Society’s Guarantee Fund Sub-Committee decides if SSDT findings should be formally reported to the authorities. The committee comprises both solicitors and non-solicitors."
"Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system."
I agree which is why the election of Corbyn was so important. For the first time the question of Trident is going to become a national debate. That several shadow cabinet ministers are in favour doesn't matter a jot. This goes to the heart of progressive politics. Anyone watching the rather pathetic figure of Lord Falconer on Newsnight will know the writing's on the wall.
Precisely. And this isn't just a left-wing view; Peter Oborne was on Radio 4 last night saying exactly the same thing.
Peter Oborne regards the US as our enemy and Islamists as our allies.
On the first I have considerable sympathy. On the second I don't believe your statement adequately represents his opinion, which is that we have the 'wrong Islamists' as our current allies. Saudi Arabian axis rather than Iran/Syria etc. Again there's an argument to be made.
I'm afraid quasi-fascist scaremongering on 'security' won't be quite as effective when the British public's desire for war has been permanently dampened by one too many pointless foreign adventures. Especially as it will be made more and more clear to the public that Trident isn't really independent. Without an actual invasion of British territory it probably wouldn't have been been that effective then.
I think the loony right are overestimating the British public's desire to be Airstrip One.
False choice. Moving away from the US does not mean that Britain's defence policy has to mean hiding under a bush, or rolling out the red carpet to Hamas.
Against an increasingly confident Russia, a rising China and various assorted nutcases across the world, Security is increasingly relevant.
Tory policy has been to make us less secure, not more so.
To an extent I would agree. Big changes need to be made to Britain's defence and foreign policies.
However, Labour's policies - to the extent that they can be determined - would be far, far worse.
I'm glad we can find some common ground I'm trying to be constructive these days, life's too short. However my argument would be that Trident does nothing for our security at all. (Of course it is still labour policy to keep this ridiculous white elephant). And a policy where we don't follow the U.S. into every one of their ill-fated geopolitical games would make us infinitely more secure. labour policy will be very pro-armed forces - give them the right tools to face the genuine threats we do face and don't get involved in any more unnecessary wars where our soldiers get killed for spurious purposes.
"I'm trying to be constructive these days"
Then try posting constructively. Going around calling everyone you disagree with neocons isn't exactly constructive.
As for: "labour policy will be very pro-armed forces": Yes, I agree. If Corbyn's past words are anything to go by, he will be very pro- other countries' armed forces.
I ask you the question I asked you at the end of the last thread: what so you see as the UK's desired end-game in Syria, and how do you propose we get there?
people in glass houses , were you not calling people "morons" just the other day
I am not sure our politics is mature enough to have a genuine debate on Trident. The positions are entrenched on either side.
Given the £100bn price tag alone, we should seriously consider what a post Trident Britain might look like.
The problem is one of the sides is much smaller than the other
You could have said exactly the same about Scottish Independence or EU Membership before those debates became focused in the public mind.
Similar considerations should be made by Monarchists.
Mr Dair, you'd think labour would be the party to oppose trident but they clearly aren't going to. Who does that leave?
It may be important to you and other Scots but the vast majority of the rest of the UK aren't fussed. Scottish independence is important to the Scots, nobody else cares
I am quite hopeful that the 2016 SNP Manifesto will include, on the list of "trigger points" for the Second Referendum : -
4. Were the Untied Kingdom Government to commission a replacement for Trident and intend to base the system in Scotland.
Tick tock.
In some ways I sympathise with you, England would be very happy with Scottish independence, unfortunately you eschewed the opportunity.
Trident is a subject where I agree with Jeremy Corbyn. It seems like a complete waste of money to me and the one thing that Britain can do in foreign policy still is set an example. Unilateral nuclear disarmament now seems entirely appropriate.
I think we spend far too much on defence anyway, but if we are going to spend 2% or whatever, I'd rather we spent it on stuff we're actually going to use.
All spending on defence is an act of readiness and deterrence. We may never use any of some categories e.g: tanks.
Comments
I assumed the Corbynite, let's hold hands and dance peacefully together Syrians had left the country to get jobs in Germany. Surely Putin isn't bombing refugee camps in Turkey?
I admit to knowing little about the situation on the ground and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Mind you it would create a use for Trident!
Oh yes, sorry, got it now - the referendum which will ask Britain if it wants to leave the EU.
1.6% of UK adults identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual in 2014 http://t.co/swGbEpuXgM http://t.co/D2sw4NfBg0
1) Gain massive influence with Assad, though he's bad and dangerous to know is not mad.
2) Crack down on Islamic terrorism so it can present itself as in the right when it cracks down on the opposition (Or terrorists as it may well call them
3) Embarass the west
4) Exscacerbate the refugee crisis into Europe, so that it can gain soft influence over the more eastern matters.
5) See 2, but also with Ukraine
6) Potentially gain access to another Med port
7) Have a sea route through to the Black sea and Sevastopol.
8) As per Nick's point, prove Putin will be there for you as a loyal friend no matter how many people you gas.
Putin is the best bet Assad has right now, after seeing what happened to Gaddaffi in Libya.
On R4 Today this am Lawson was asked if his group would share a platform with other anti EU campaigns; answer (I paraphrase), no, we will not support others but will welcome support from others.
He's certainly an optimist.
FFS Nick
You may not agree with him, but Lawson was one of the seminal figures in late 20 century politics.
I think you were active in politics from the early 80s onwards so I simply don't believe you had "to think for a moment to remember who he is"
You may not agree with him, but Lawson was one of the seminal figures in late 20 century politics.
I think you were active in politics from the early 80s onwards so I simply don't believe you had "to think for a moment to remember who he is"
Nor do I. He's a wonderful man - great to have on side. I hope he has the energy, but I trust he knows what he's doing. Hopefully he can get an endorsement from Nigella too! (some hopes)
It's shameful that the best line the Trident apologists can come up with is a direct lie.
it is uncontroversial that it heavily relies on the U.S. for maintenance and if they decided to switch off the taps we'd lose our system entirely in a matter of months. That much we can all agree on, which is already far from ideal for a supposedly independent deterrent.
Operational independence is of course harder to pin down due to the inevitable secrecy in the details, but it's not just about chain of command, is it? It's about targeting - and there is lots of evidence to suggest that our targeting of the missiles is dependent on US say-so.
The former chancellor Lord Lawson has announced he will lead a Conservative party campaign to leave the EU.
The Eurosceptic peer said he had taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and would lead a cross-party exit movement before the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
Writing in the Times, he warned that David Cameron would secure only “wafer-thin” reforms. Lawson said it was time for the prime minister and the chancellor, George Osborne, to set out “red lines” in the renegotiation of the UK’s membership.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm
https://twitter.com/Mark__Lawrence/status/649483916571725824
A major military base in the Mediterranean would be a massive boon for Russia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06f146k/storyville-20142015-28-a-syrian-love-story
'Although the Netherlands does not have weapons of mass destruction made by itself, the country participates in the NATO nuclear weapons sharing arrangements and trains for delivering U.S. nuclear weapons, i.e. it has weapons of mass destruction made by another country.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
All lies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
The vultures are circling Syria. Assad really doesn't have many 'good' choices.
I didn't know it was, but if it is, they should make such a thing.
Clearly the historical animosity between Russia and the Turks has played its part in this. But grudges don't last forever and the benefit to Turkey may end up being questioned.
Trident isn't a MAD system - personally, I think even the Great Bear would think twice about accepting the loss of Moscow and St. Peterburg as a "cost of doing business"
Three or four countries host US weapons. The vast majority of NATO does not.
And another point: Erdoğan may have gutted the top level of the military and replaced it with his placemen (*), but that does not mean that the remaining military will be happy at leaving NATO. NATO may have problems, but they're nothing compared to the crisis facing Russian forces. Turkey's military may not stand for leaving NATO.
(*) It was quite a funny period in Turkish politics, especially the second stage of it which is still being played out. The Turkish military have always played a stringent role in the country's politics, having coups when they thought the regime was becoming too Islamist. Replacing the military leadership made Erdoğan more secure.
I'm vaguely aware of Turkey's military coups, and wonder whether this is a permanent shift or whether the army will return to its traditional role (to be polite) in the near-medium future.
After the UKIP farce, some "Nigella Says NO!!" T-shirts would be a hoot....
Given the £100bn price tag alone, we should seriously consider what a post Trident Britain might look like.
I think so long as leadership in the White House and No 10 is 'normal' - Blair; Bush; Reagen; Thatcher; Rubio; Clinton; Cameron; Rubio I think Trident is actually redundant. Currently it IS redundant to my mind.
BUT If the barking mad right of the GOP in the States gets in combined with a loony left Corbyn leadership here, article 5 may be in some doubt - and hence a nuclear detterent is perhaps needed.
Keep up at the back.
What Ukip farce?
I find it incredible that anybody still takes any notice of these deluded fools.
We would either look like the Netherlands where you host a few token nukes (which is pretty much what Trident is - a token).
Or we would look like Denmark where we are a member of NATO with no nuclear presence.
Both options are infinitely preferable to spending £100bn on Trident 2.
Again much preferable to Trident 2.
Many at the top of Turkey's military are beholden to either Erdoğan or Gülen. It would take a great deal for these men to swap allegiances. But leaving NATO might encourage those below the placemen.
One of the problems with Turkey's uncertain and sometimes two-faced approach to ISIS is down to these replacements.
I hope people paid attention to my wise words that he had no chance of getting the nomination.
Similar considerations should be made by Monarchists.
Twas ever thus
Was Michelle Thomson your source for that figure?
It would be akin to starting a whole new weapons program.
I think we spend far too much on defence anyway, but if we are going to spend 2% or whatever, I'd rather we spent it on stuff we're actually going to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_general_election,_November_2015#Opinion_polls
Or......0.4% of annual UK Government spending.
You're right, we're not likely to get a mature debate.....
It may be important to you and other Scots but the vast majority of the rest of the UK aren't fussed. Scottish independence is important to the Scots, nobody else cares
The farce of UKIP allowing itself to be the plaything of Farage. Either it's a serious political party that is happy to be putting its name to LEAVE, or it is a joke organisation around the ego of one guy peddling a shoddy sub-FRANKIE SAY T-shirt range on the biggest question the people of the UK have been asked in forty years.
@HTScotPol: Secretary of @Lawscot probity cttee at last year's annual dinner of @MichelleThomson's Business for Scotland group http://t.co/Qsro0VSNpm
Now we are led by their successors who are determined to muck around with this settlement, often for short term political reasons, rather than to update and thereby secure the settlement for another generation.
If we are to make changes, they need to be approached carefully with real thought.
To reply to Charles - I was active in UK politics in 1982-85 and then from 1995, but not much in between, and Lawson is a distant half-memory like Barber or Macleod. I really don't think he's a household name. If he'll be leading the campaign, that's great for In.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34411066/tom-daley-announces-engagement-to-partner-dustin-lance-black-in-times-newspaper
I worked for two years in London in the seventies and I remember the 'Nuclear free zone' stickers. I suspect Corbyn had a hand in it.
How impressive. If a five megaton bomb dropped nearby they would automatically be protected by the shield of righteousness. Or else the Russians would say to themselves "We mustn't destroy Brent, its a right-on sort of place."
We really are going back to those times. We can print new stickers ... "Common sense free zone."
4. Were the Untied Kingdom Government to commission a replacement for Trident and intend to base the system in Scotland.
Tick tock.
He's on the record saying the result of a vote to leave should be renegotiation. That's a ridiculous, contemptible, untenable position.
"“Currently the Law Society’s Guarantee Fund Sub-Committee decides if SSDT findings should be formally reported to the authorities. The committee comprises both solicitors and non-solicitors."
No legs no none at all noo legs here ...
Popcorn time.