@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Do you think we couldn't hit them with Trident, or just that we wouldn't dare to?
A huge part of the deterrent is that the enemy knows you'll use it if you have to. Which is why the PM is correct to say that Mr Corbyn is a threat to national security.
How do you hit ISIS with Trident. Target Luton!!
IS would not be deterred even if we could target them IMO
Mass picketing and secondary picketing are different things. Peaceful picketing at your place of work is permitted and protected in law to the extent that your employer cannot obtain injunctions to stop it.
Secondary picketing at a place other than your work is always illegal and can be dealt with by injunction or give rise to damages claims. Mass picketing, intending to intimidate, is also illegal whether it is at your place of work or not.
Secondary action arises where someone induces or seeks to persuade a person not employed by the employer in the dispute to breach their contract or to interfere with their performance of that contract. It is excluded from the legal protections given to primary action including peaceful picketing.
What would be the legal position if somebody turns up unsolicited on a picket line - eg if members of the public suddenly appeared outside hospitals to display their support for the doctors?
Nothing at all. Providing there were no offences disclosed (intimidation, obstruction of the highway etc.) I can go and stand outside my local hospital all day long if I like.
But would there be any implications for the union if members of the public spontaneously joined their picket lines?
Incidentally, got a second (parody) Twitter account for Sir Edric, @HeroOfHornska. Unlike the serious (ish) MorrisF1 account it'll occasionally mock politics. As per today.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
It's nonsense, of course. Our defence budget is £40bn a year. The nuclear deterrent costs (and this includes all aspects of it) somewhere in the region of £2.5bn a year.
That's what I thought, Mr. Blue. But rather than call the person who made the claim a deranged loony, I thought it only fair to ask where he had got his figures from.
The truthful answer I suspect is an "up-ticked" comment he read at the foot of a Guardian article. (One probably planted - and up-ticked - by the Kremlin, I may add.)
Mass picketing and secondary picketing are different things. Peaceful picketing at your place of work is permitted and protected in law to the extent that your employer cannot obtain injunctions to stop it.
Secondary picketing at a place other than your work is always illegal and can be dealt with by injunction or give rise to damages claims. Mass picketing, intending to intimidate, is also illegal whether it is at your place of work or not.
Secondary action arises where someone induces or seeks to persuade a person not employed by the employer in the dispute to breach their contract or to interfere with their performance of that contract. It is excluded from the legal protections given to primary action including peaceful picketing.
What would be the legal position if somebody turns up unsolicited on a picket line - eg if members of the public suddenly appeared outside hospitals to display their support for the doctors?
Nothing at all. Providing there were no offences disclosed (intimidation, obstruction of the highway etc.) I can go and stand outside my local hospital all day long if I like.
But would there be any implications for the union if members of the public spontaneously joined their picket lines?
I guess it depends on whether the union encouraged and promoted such activity.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Do you think we couldn't hit them with Trident, or just that we wouldn't dare to?
A huge part of the deterrent is that the enemy knows you'll use it if you have to. Which is why the PM is correct to say that Mr Corbyn is a threat to national security.
How do you hit ISIS with Trident. Target Luton!!
IS would not be deterred even if we could target them IMO
The question was about Russia rather than ISIS. Bombing Raqqa is possible but there will inevitably be non-military casualties, although modern weapons are more controllable than the WWII era bombs used against Japan.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Fair enough, but this is what the debate boils down to. Does one believe in the idea of mutual deterrence or not?
The trouble is that a lot of people simply can't comprehend the concept of the nuclear deterrent.
For example, a sign of its success is that the nukes are not actually fired and detonated. And yet that is used as an argument to get rid of it.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Corbyn has managed to once again embarrass himself in an interview, which explains why he doesn't do them. Ask his supporters though and this reticence is because of the evil right wing media....this is why they are going to get smashed at the next GE.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
Wouldn't nuking a UK target then getting the UK to nuke a fair sized M.E. city killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians be seen as a massive coup by a millenarian, jihadi death cult?
Possibly. It would be the end of their Caliphate though. Also, whatever your ideology, there's always an appeal in not being vaporised.
I'd assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the Caliphate is more an idea than a fixed set of borders, transferrable if necessary.
One of the strategies of radical Islam since long before Al Qaeda or Isis were gleams in a mullah's eye was to get the West and its allies to kill loads of muslims; a vaporised Raqqa would be a great radicaliser in those terms. In any case I'm sure the ISIS high command would find good strategic reasons to be far way from an impending nuclear attack.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
It's nonsense, of course. Our defence budget is £40bn a year. The nuclear deterrent costs (and this includes all aspects of it) somewhere in the region of £2.5bn a year.
That's what I thought, Mr. Blue. But rather than call the person who made the claim a deranged loony, I thought it only fair to ask where he had got his figures from.
Money has already been spent on the programme. Between 2011 and 2015 some 15% of the cost will have been spent. Labour and their apologists are simply inventing figures to pretend that costs are far greater than current costs.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Do some reading. You don't understand ISIS.
Do some reading yourself ISIS supporters are everywhere impossible to target IMO.
Wipe out IS leaders and some other radical group will take its place, as per OBL wipeout being the end of Islamic Terrorism
I doubt that Trident will be a very salient issue in 2020. Labour won the 1964 election despite its pledge not to proceed with Polaris and the Tories making it a major campaign issue. That was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built.
Corbyn has managed to once again embarrass himself in an interview, which explains why he doesn't do them. Ask his supporters though and this reticence is because of the evil right wing media....this is why they are going to get smashed at the next GE.
I thought Thornberry's interview on the Politics Show today was worse, in some ways.
Labour's frontbench team is almost 100% utterly dreadful.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
I was going to post something on social media about Corbyn's announcement...but didn't bother in the end as the policy will probably be changed by this afternoon
I've not watched the broadcast yet. I'll settle down with some popcorn to watch the replay later. From what I see online though the public will have been given the following messages today:
* Under Labour there will be nuclear submarines but no nukes. * We might hand the Falklands to Argentina.
And you can still get Tories with most seats at 1.38 on Betfair.
What makes it worse is that I have a lot of friends on social media who are Corbynites and to them he is the Messiah...it is so genuinely awful to see the same posts being shared and retweeted. I try to reason with them but it's useless....a bit like a Trident submarine without a warhead
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Fair enough, but this is what the debate boils down to. Does one believe in the idea of mutual deterrence or not?
The trouble is that a lot of people simply can't comprehend the concept of the nuclear deterrent.
For example, a sign of its success is that the nukes are not actually fired and detonated. And yet that is used as an argument to get rid of it.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
I doubt that Trident will be a very salient issue in 2020. Labour won the 1964 election despite its pledge not to proceed with Polaris and the Tories making it a major campaign issue. That was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built.
The world will be in an even bigger mess in 2020 than it is now, so the idea of getting rid of our nukes will be even more ridiculous come 2020.
The only period during which the idea of disarming looked sensible was the early to mid 1990s. We did a lot of conventional forces disarming during that time of course, as well as reduce our nuclear arsenal.
Since 2000 however the world is becoming more perilous and the decline in global security is accelerating.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
l only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Do you think we couldn't hit them with Trident, or just that we wouldn't dare to?
A huge part of the deterrent is that the enemy knows you'll use it if you have to. Which is why the PM is correct to say that Mr Corbyn is a threat to national security.
It would be interesting to put the ISIS-strike-thesis to Corbyn.
He says he wouldn't ever push the button because he is thinking in 1970s-80s terms (of course) where it is the USSR who've zapped us, and there is no point in replying as the world is all but wiped out, anyway.
So what would he do? Write a strongly worded letter to the Evening Standard? Wait for the next bomb in London, while hiding in his favourite Ecuadorian diner?
Really, what? What would the Labour leader DO?
Good afternoon all. One thing about Corbyn is that you don't have to be psychic to figure out his position on any given subject, he's delightfully unambiguous.
He'd argue that retaliation wouldn't bring our dead back to life; that we would need to focus on helping the maimed, irradiated survivors, and that, in a way, we were reaping the harvest of our decades long war-mongering in the Middle East.
And didn't the same thing happen with HMS Warrior in 1860, when all our wooden ships essentially become obsolete overnight?
Not really my field or period, but from memory of my visit to HMS Warrior, was not she designed and built because the Frogs built an iron warship first? Even though we had not long before been at war as allies of the French*, the idea that they would have an advantage at sea was just not acceptable to the UK.
* A fact that the British Commander in the field had trouble coming to terms with - he kept describing the enemy as the French, and the French as the enemy.
It was the Gloire, but she was outclassed a year later by the Warrior.
As the first ocean-going ironclad, Gloire rendered obsolete traditional unarmoured wooden ships-of-the-line, and all major navies had no choice but to build ironclads of their own. However Gloire was soon herself rendered obsolete by the launching in 1860 of the British HMS Warrior, the world's first iron-hulled ironclad warship.
I seem to remember that the Warrior was massively bigger more powerful better armoured than the Gloire and could have seen off the entire French fleet single-handed. All it did was spend its time patrolling the channel along with sister ship Black Prince. I guess the fact that it was totally iron built not just wooden iron clad allowed it not to rot away and be useful in reserve and so survive.
AIUI it was the combination of technology that went into it. For one thing, no weapon in the world could penetrate her hull for five years after she was built.
ISTR that the hull was actually composite: it was an iron plates, with 18" (I think) wood behind, then the iron hull. The wood gave good protection against cannon.
Although the ?Armstrong? breech loaders weren't very good, and she couldn't steer well at all. The wood acted as a buffer, insulation, I think to stop bolts and plates springing if struck. A change from iron clad wood to wood lined iron!
@DavidGauke: To summarise Labour's proposed Trident policy: in favour of spending £bns on defence jobs as long as it doesn't contribute to our defence.
Parts of that are redundant
summarise Labour's proposed policy: in favour of spending £bns
Corbyn has managed to once again embarrass himself in an interview, which explains why he doesn't do them. Ask his supporters though and this reticence is because of the evil right wing media....this is why they are going to get smashed at the next GE.
I thought Thornberry's interview on the Politics Show today was worse, in some ways.
Labour's frontbench team is almost 100% utterly dreadful.
I read about Livingstones quotes on any questions as well, that top team are an incestuous joke.
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
Wouldn't nuking a UK target then getting the UK to nuke a fair sized M.E. city killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians be seen as a massive coup by a millenarian, jihadi death cult?
Possibly. It would be the end of their Caliphate though. Also, whatever your ideology, there's always an appeal in not being vaporised.
I'd assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the Caliphate is more an idea than a fixed set of borders, transferrable if necessary.
One of the strategies of radical Islam since long before Al Qaeda or Isis were gleams in a mullah's eye was to get the West and its allies to kill loads of muslims; a vaporised Raqqa would be a great radicaliser in those terms. In any case I'm sure the ISIS high command would find good strategic reasons to be far way from an impending nuclear attack.
You are indeed wrong. ISIS want an ACTUAL Caliphate, with (expanding) borders. A real entity, on the ground, and their best bet of achieving this fanciful ambition is building on what they have now, which is not unimpressive - a large swathe of Iraq and Syria, 10 million people. Oil and antiquities. And in the heart of the Mid East, where they can play Shia against Sunni.
It is most unlikely they will get such a geopolitical chance anywhere else. Libya is a sideshow. far from the cradle of Islam. They believe that Syria-Iraq is it, the precious void they can fill; they also think they are the hog's bollocks, Koranically speaking.
They don't want to be vaporised. They want all out war with the West, but only when they have a chance of winning. Which be a long time coming. as even they realise. So they must grow, and prove their statehood (hence things like ISIS coins and legal systems).
ISIS are NOT al-Qaeda. They have very different objectives. This is one reason they hate each other.
If they are sensible, geostrategically, they will have more than an eye on Saudi Arabia as well. That's one reason why what's going on in Yemen is so important.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
It was the Bush administration that withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001. So I would put pressure on the US to reengage with the ABM Treaty, or a new treaty, and then seek to pressure all sides to limit their stocks of nuclear weapons. Whilst the chance of an accident is slim, it gets considerably smaller the lower the number that are around. I would also seek to abide by our commitment at the end of the Cold War and not expand NATO further east or grant asylum to the likes of Boris Berezovsky. A friendly Russia is vital to our national security in combating terrorism, as well as important to our economic interests.
Personally I think Trident is a waste of money and actually harms our national security. I would be inclined to keep a few hanging around that could be delivered via cruise missile etc. That would be acceptable from a cost benefit analysis.
And didn't the same thing happen with HMS Warrior in 1860, when all our wooden ships essentially become obsolete overnight?
Not really my field or period, but from memory of my visit to HMS Warrior, was not she designed and built because the Frogs built an iron warship first? Even though we had not long before been at war as allies of the French*, the idea that they would have an advantage at sea was just not acceptable to the UK.
* A fact that the British Commander in the field had trouble coming to terms with - he kept describing the enemy as the French, and the French as the enemy.
It was the Gloire, but she was outclassed a year later by the Warrior.
As the first ocean-going ironclad, Gloire rendered obsolete traditional unarmoured wooden ships-of-the-line, and all major navies had no choice but to build ironclads of their own. However Gloire was soon herself rendered obsolete by the launching in 1860 of the British HMS Warrior, the world's first iron-hulled ironclad warship.
I seem to remember that the Warrior was massively bigger more powerful better armoured than the Gloire and could have seen off the entire French fleet single-handed. All it did was spend its time patrolling the channel along with sister ship Black Prince. I guess the fact that it was totally iron built not just wooden iron clad allowed it not to rot away and be useful in reserve and so survive.
AIUI it was the combination of technology that went into it. For one thing, no weapon in the world could penetrate her hull for five years after she was built.
ISTR that the hull was actually composite: it was an iron plates, with 18" (I think) wood behind, then the iron hull. The wood gave good protection against cannon.
Although the ?Armstrong? breech loaders weren't very good, and she couldn't steer well at all.
The wood acted as a buffer, insulation, I think to stop bolts and plates springing if struck. A change from iron clad wood to wood lined iron!
Yup - the problem was the bolts went all the way through the plates.
If hit directly on a bolt head (and yes, they were recessed), the bolts tended to break. The wood absorbing the shockwave helped.
What fixed the problem was the later discovery that if the bolts were fitted to slots in the *back* of the plate, the shock issue practically vanished.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Ukraine was invaded precisely because it gave up nuclear weapons.
Now Poland is negotiating with China for nuclear reactors....
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
It was the Bush administration that withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001. So I would put pressure on the US to reengage with the ABM Treaty, or a new treaty, and then seek to pressure all sides to limit their stocks of nuclear weapons. Whilst the chance of an accident is slim, it gets considerably smaller the lower the number that are around. I would also seek to abide by our commitment at the end of the Cold War and not expand NATO further east or grant asylum to the likes of Boris Berezovsky. A friendly Russia is vital to our national security in combating terrorism, as well as important to our economic interests.
Personally I think Trident is a waste of money and actually harms our national security. I would be inclined to keep a few hanging around that could be delivered via cruise missile etc. That would be acceptable from a cost benefit analysis.
Cruise missiles can be intercepted far too readily to be considered a true deterrent.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
It's nonsense, of course. Our defence budget is £40bn a year. The nuclear deterrent costs (and this includes all aspects of it) somewhere in the region of £2.5bn a year.
That's what I thought, Mr. Blue. But rather than call the person who made the claim a deranged loony, I thought it only fair to ask where he had got his figures from.
Probably the anti-nuclear lot - they keep on raising the price of Trident renewal. Mind you, alot of the less observant lefties seem to think that the price is £100 billion a year.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Which country with a nuclear deterrent has ever been invaded ?
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Ukraine was invaded precisely because it gave up nuclear weapons.
Now Poland is negotiating with China for nuclear reactors....
That's not entirely true. Although Ukraine inherited weapons and bases from the USSR, it was Russia which had (and has) the software to arm them.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Do you think we couldn't hit them with Trident, or just that we wouldn't dare to?
A huge part of the deterrent is that the enemy knows you'll use it if you have to. Which is why the PM is correct to say that Mr Corbyn is a threat to national security.
Cruise missiles can be intercepted far too readily to be considered a true deterrent.
The uncertainty of such a system (because of ability to intercept but also because it would rely on our government to actively arm and actively give the word to fire) would mean that not only would it not be a deterrent but actually increase instability.
The beauty of our present system is that it is straightforward - if you nuke Britain you will be nuked in return, automatically* and without much hope of intercepting the nukes.
*unlike the other great powers, our nuclear deterrent is "automatic" in the sense that the submarine commander, if he believes the UK has been destroyed, can take immediate action (according to what the PM has written in his letter, stored in the commander's safe).
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Ukraine was invaded precisely because it gave up nuclear weapons.
Now Poland is negotiating with China for nuclear reactors....
That's not entirely true. Although Ukraine inherited weapons and bases from the USSR, it was Russia which had (and has) the software to arm them.
They had actual nukes. And the facilities to build more - they had actual warhead building plants in Ukrainian territory. And plutonium.
With access to modern designs down to the detailed blueprint level, nuclear material and operating facilities to make more & a functional rocket industry, the Ukrainians were all set to have their own deterrent.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
Cruise missiles can be intercepted far too readily to be considered a true deterrent.
The uncertainty of such a system (because of ability to intercept but also because it would rely on our government to actively arm and actively give the word to fire) would mean that not only would it not be a deterrent but actually increase instability.
The beauty of our present system is that it is straightforward - if you nuke Britain you will be nuked in return, automatically* and without much hope of intercepting the nukes.
*unlike the other great powers, our nuclear deterrent is "automatic" in the sense that the submarine commander, if he believes the UK has been destroyed, can take immediate action (according to what the PM has written in his letter, stored in the commander's safe).
The only letter Corbyn could write would be a 'Dear John...' one.
@FalklandsGov: The right to self-determination and have a say in our own future is fundamental to people of the #Falklands. Any decisions affect our lives.
@MrHarryCole: Corbyn's dangerous rhetoric has not gone down well with those whose livelihood he is so cavalier about. https://t.co/0dIAadkMhc
FFS, you pitiful moron. ISIS is not a terrorist group, it is a terrorist STATE. They have a capital, a flag, a currency, an economy, an army, an education system, an oil industry, a national magazine, a media organisation, a code of sexual slavery, and a nice gold coinage.
It may be risible, but their state of 10 million people takes itself very seriously. States can be deterred.
And now I'm going to watch Revenant.
I'm sorry you felt the need to resort to personal abuse to defend your ludicrous brainfart theory. Enjoy your film - perhaps unsurprisingly you seem to prefer fiction to fact.
Cornish Blue..Why don't we just apply to become another American state..stop all this EU nonsense
Or - and here's a radical thought - perhaps the world's 5th largest economy could be an independent, sovereign state, with its own nuclear deterrent and main security alliances being that of NATO membership and close working with the other 4 Anglo-Saxon nations (the US, Canada, Australia, NZ), together with free trade arrangements (which don't boil over into political union..) with whichever nations or blocs who fancy having one..?
Why are we fixating on IS? Generals are rightly criticised for fighting the last war.
We have a deterrent because we don't know what the next threat will be. We don't get rid of it because we think past and current threats don't warrant its retention.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Which country with a nuclear deterrent has ever been invaded ?
Why doesn't the government give the Falklands the right to elect an MP to the HoC, they surely deserve one. Although their population is just under 3000 you can jumble it will all the other small pieces left from the British empire to create an overseas seat, like the French. the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Dutch do. There wouldn't be much resistance by MP's for a seat whose constituency office would be literally in the Caribbean.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Ukraine was invaded precisely because it gave up nuclear weapons.
Now Poland is negotiating with China for nuclear reactors....
Loon, people in the East and South of Ukraine rose up because they saw their government violently overthrown and saw the new government making threatening statements, has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear weapons. They would have done so anyway and what would your government in Kiev have done, nuked the Donbass and Crimea? You certainly wouldn't have got sign off from even the US to do that, and I should hope not us.
Am I the only pb-er who wants Trump to win the presidency?
I reckon he'd be quite good, certainly no worse than Obama. He'd be a barrel of laughs and he'd probably run the economy fairly well, as a businessman who knows how to delegate. And most of his wackier ideas are designed to win the GOP. He'll tack left once he has the NOM.
It would be pretty hilarious. I cannot say the idea does not worry me, but on the other hand surely the USA is strong enough to survive even a really bad president. It already has done after all.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Ukraine was invaded precisely because it gave up nuclear weapons.
Now Poland is negotiating with China for nuclear reactors....
Loon, people in the East and South of Ukraine rose up because they saw their government violently overthrown and saw the new government making threatening statements, has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear weapons. They would have done so anyway and what would your government in Kiev have done, nuked the Donbass and Crimea? You certainly wouldn't have got sign off from even the US to do that, and I should hope not us.
Wow, do you get your information fed straight into your brain direct from the Kremlin?
A middle-aged woman in Italy was forced to ask the fire brigade for help after she lost the keys to her chastity belt.
The woman, who has not been named under Italian privacy law, turned up at a fire station on Wednesday morning in Padua, in Italy’s Veneto region, and said she needed help with lock she could not open.
Firefighters, believing she had locked herself out of her house, began asking for details about where she lived.
It was only then that the woman revealed the specific nature of the problem, pulling up a jumper to reveal an iron chastity belt.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Which country with a nuclear deterrent has ever been invaded ?
The US would not give us our toys to play with Russia, unless at its own behest. Not a chance.
Last time you mentioned this you were wittering on about how the fact Apple can block an iPhone signal means the US could stop a Trident missile being fired.
Which was, on so many levels, ridiculous.
I'll give you a hand: look up Permissi(on/ive) Active Link . Which our warheads and missiles do not have. The Yanks are nowhere in our command chain ...
Your hatred of the US is only exceeded by the size of your tinfoil hat.
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
A middle-aged woman in Italy was forced to ask the fire brigade for help after she lost the keys to her chastity belt.
The woman, who has not been named under Italian privacy law, turned up at a fire station on Wednesday morning in Padua, in Italy’s Veneto region, and said she needed help with lock she could not open.
Firefighters, believing she had locked herself out of her house, began asking for details about where she lived.
It was only then that the woman revealed the specific nature of the problem, pulling up a jumper to reveal an iron chastity belt.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Which country with a nuclear deterrent has ever been invaded ?
UK, the Falklands?
The nuclear deterrent deters nuclear strike/blackmail etc.
It has also deterred direct conflict using conventional forces between the great powers (hence the proxy wars instead).
I would suggest that those two aspects are a good enough reason to retain a nuclear deterrent!
Why doesn't the government give the Falklands the right to elect an MP to the HoC, they surely deserve one. Although their population is just under 3000 you can jumble it will all the other small pieces left from the British empire to create an overseas seat, like the French. the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Dutch do. There wouldn't be much resistance by MP's for a seat whose constituency office would be literally in the Caribbean.
An interesting idea. I assumed the reason we didn't and the french did was our left over empire bits are deemed separate territories, whereas with France they are regarded as parts of France proper, but don't know about the others. Would they even want an MP in our parliament?
@FalklandsGov: The right to self-determination and have a say in our own future is fundamental to people of the #Falklands. Any decisions affect our lives.
@MrHarryCole: Corbyn's dangerous rhetoric has not gone down well with those whose livelihood he is so cavalier about. https://t.co/0dIAadkMhc
Am I the only pb-er who wants Trump to win the presidency?
I reckon he'd be quite good, certainly no worse than Obama. He'd be a barrel of laughs and he'd probably run the economy fairly well, as a businessman who knows how to delegate. And most of his wackier ideas are designed to win the GOP. He'll tack left once he has the NOM.
I do, loving his foreign policy stances and immigration policies. Would see some of the loons on here heads explode too.
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Why doesn't the government give the Falklands the right to elect an MP to the HoC, they surely deserve one. Although their population is just under 3000 you can jumble it will all the other small pieces left from the British empire to create an overseas seat, like the French. the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Dutch do. There wouldn't be much resistance by MP's for a seat whose constituency office would be literally in the Caribbean.
The Falklands would have to become part of the UK before they could elect to the Commons.
@FalklandsGov: The right to self-determination and have a say in our own future is fundamental to people of the #Falklands. Any decisions affect our lives.
@MrHarryCole: Corbyn's dangerous rhetoric has not gone down well with those whose livelihood he is so cavalier about. https://t.co/0dIAadkMhc
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Oh dear God.
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
Am I the only pb-er who wants Trump to win the presidency?
I reckon he'd be quite good, certainly no worse than Obama. He'd be a barrel of laughs and he'd probably run the economy fairly well, as a businessman who knows how to delegate. And most of his wackier ideas are designed to win the GOP. He'll tack left once he has the NOM.
It would be pretty hilarious. I cannot say the idea does not worry me, but on the other hand surely the USA is strong enough to survive even a really bad president. It already has done after all.
Trump is not G.W.Bush, for once he doesn't have the IQ of a radish, he's a different kettle of fish, I compare him to Berlusconi. (G.W.B. once said that he hoped to bring peace between fish and humanity at a pre-election rally, to give you an idea)
But you can easily see how americans can elect Trump as president, the idea is in their heads for a while, you only need to make them angry enough:
Cruise missiles can be intercepted far too readily to be considered a true deterrent.
The uncertainty of such a system (because of ability to intercept but also because it would rely on our government to actively arm and actively give the word to fire) would mean that not only would it not be a deterrent but actually increase instability.
The beauty of our present system is that it is straightforward - if you nuke Britain you will be nuked in return, automatically* and without much hope of intercepting the nukes.
*unlike the other great powers, our nuclear deterrent is "automatic" in the sense that the submarine commander, if he believes the UK has been destroyed, can take immediate action (according to what the PM has written in his letter, stored in the commander's safe).
There are other factors. AIUI (from a conversation with a mate), all nuclear states are required by convention to tell others of the launch of any large missiles that could be a nuke launch: this is because the major powers have early-warning satellites to detect launches. If it is a scheduled launch, it is essentially ignored. This is one reason NK's missiles are bad news - they don't always follow the protocol.
I'd love to know more, or if I've been sold a pup on this one.
But if you had routinely-armed cruise missiles, the launch of any cruise missile - conventional or not - could be taken as a threat of a nuclear strike. I don't know how the US and Russia got around this, as they both had nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Perhaps the slower speed of cruise missiles and their vulnerability makes them more of a tactical than a strategic weapon?
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Which country with a nuclear deterrent has ever been invaded ?
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
6% of £40bn (the defence budget) is £2.4bn £25bn capital cost over 30 years (a conservative/lower estimate) is £0.8bn
Total per year = £3.2bn
Total government expenditure... around £700bn
The defence budget is set to rise year on year, as per the 2% of gdp pledge. This won't affect the spend as a percentage, but it will mean a real terms rise year on year. Your expenditure figure is a year one figure, mine is averaged out.
Cruise missiles can be intercepted far too readily to be considered a true deterrent.
The uncertainty of such a system (because of ability to intercept but also because it would rely on our government to actively arm and actively give the word to fire) would mean that not only would it not be a deterrent but actually increase instability.
The beauty of our present system is that it is straightforward - if you nuke Britain you will be nuked in return, automatically* and without much hope of intercepting the nukes.
*unlike the other great powers, our nuclear deterrent is "automatic" in the sense that the submarine commander, if he believes the UK has been destroyed, can take immediate action (according to what the PM has written in his letter, stored in the commander's safe).
There are other factors. AIUI (from a conversation with a mate), all nuclear states are required by convention to tell others of the launch of any large missiles that could be a nuke launch: this is because the major powers have early-warning satellites to detect launches. If it is a scheduled launch, it is essentially ignored. This is one reason NK's missiles are bad news - they don't always follow the protocol.
I'd love to know more, or if I've been sold a pup on this one.
But if you had routinely-armed cruise missiles, the launch of any cruise missile - conventional or not - could be taken as a threat of a nuclear strike. I don't know how the US and Russia got around this, as they both had nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Perhaps the slower speed of cruise missiles and their vulnerability makes them more of a tactical than a strategic weapon?
Correct... and this is why the Lib Dem review on nuclear weapons a few years back was such a joke and was hardly considered by the MoD.
Either we have our present system of a minimum nuclear deterrent (renewed) OR we don't bother at all.
Those are the two options frankly. (The third would be to increase our nuclear capabilities, but that would fly in the face of the nuclear proliferation treaties...)
Cornish Blue..Why don't we just apply to become another American state..stop all this EU nonsense
Or - and here's a radical thought - perhaps the world's 5th largest economy could be an independent, sovereign state, with its own nuclear deterrent and main security alliances being that of NATO membership and close working with the other 4 Anglo-Saxon nations (the US, Canada, Australia, NZ), together with free trade arrangements (which don't boil over into political union..) with whichever nations or blocs who fancy having one..?
Radical stuff. *rolls eyes*
I'm not sure where you get anglo saxon from. The USA is a mass immigration country with I would guess a strictly limited anglo saxon content. Canada is not that much different and has a large immigrant community, thats before you get to its French component. Your suggestion of Australia NZ holds more water but Australia has a growing local immigrant population and is on the opposite side of the world with its own distinct outlook. All are quite clearly English Speaking of course but all I would suggest have quite different cultures. Australia is a fine country but it does have a history of a distinct British antipathy. I do not want to start a new hare running and can only be brief, but its really a bit fanciful to think that these 4 otherwise fine but widely spread countries offer serious alternative trading and security alliances beyond the treaties we have with them already and which are shared with others.
Am I the only pb-er who wants Trump to win the presidency?
I reckon he'd be quite good, certainly no worse than Obama. He'd be a barrel of laughs and he'd probably run the economy fairly well, as a businessman who knows how to delegate. And most of his wackier ideas are designed to win the GOP. He'll tack left once he has the NOM.
It would be pretty hilarious. I cannot say the idea does not worry me, but on the other hand surely the USA is strong enough to survive even a really bad president. It already has done after all.
Trump is not G.W.Bush, for once he doesn't have the IQ of a radish, he's a different kettle of fish, I compare him to Berlusconi. (G.W.B. once said that he hoped to bring peace between fish and humanity at a pre-election rally, to give you an idea)
But you can easily see how americans can elect Trump as president, the idea is in their heads for a while, you only need to make them angry enough:
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Oh dear God.
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
I am quite well read in terms of great power history and have no need to consult Wilkipedia but still see no reason why we should operate as a great power in the military sense. Much prefer to follow Japan - Germany - and in particular the Scandinavian countries. Remember Gutavus Adolphus? We have so many pretensions which end up exposing our hypocrisy and humbug to the world at large.
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Oh dear God.
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
But that's just what we aren't being with Trident. Trident is speaking loudly and having a small (unusable) stick. There is nothing 'wrong' with being a great power, provided you are generally a force for good, but you get to be a great power by 'peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice' (to borrow from Adam Smith) - not by bankrupting yourself purchasing the trappings. You don't get to be powerful by doing what powerful countries do - you get there by doing what they did to become powerful.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
Which deterent-less countries are currently being threatened with nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail etc?
Which country with a nuclear deterrent has ever been invaded ?
UK, the Falklands?
Is that your best effort?
It was quite effortless, actually...
If you indicate that something isn't going to be fought for then it's bloody obvious that the country invading isn't going to escalate to a full nuclear response. Even most Cold War war-gaming didn't start with an immediate missile exchange in response to, say, a Soviet invasion of West Berlin.
Britain's (and the US's and France's) nuclear weapons very likely *did* prevent Saddam from using chemicals during the Kuwait war.
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Oh dear God.
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
But that's just what we aren't being with Trident. Trident is speaking loudly and having a small (unusable) stick. There is nothing 'wrong' with being a great power, provided you are generally a force for good, but you get to be a great power by 'peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice' (to borrow from Adam Smith) - not by bankrupting yourself purchasing the trappings. You don't get to be powerful by doing what powerful countries do - you get there by doing what they did to become powerful.
If Trident is unaffordable, God knows what the benefits system is.
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Oh dear God.
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
I am quite well read in terms of great power history and have no need to consult Wilkipedia but still see no reason why we should operate as a great power in the military sense. Much prefer to follow Japan - Germany - and in particular the Scandinavian countries. Remember Gutavus Adolphus? We have so many pretensions which end up exposing our hypocrisy and humbug to the world at large.
We are a permanent member of the UN security council and as such along with our economic and military position we are a great power. Like France. You have heard of France have you? Nuclear armed France?
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Oh dear God.
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
But that's just what we aren't being with Trident. Trident is speaking loudly and having a small (unusable) stick. There is nothing 'wrong' with being a great power, provided you are generally a force for good, but you get to be a great power by 'peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice' (to borrow from Adam Smith) - not by bankrupting yourself purchasing the trappings. You don't get to be powerful by doing what powerful countries do - you get there by doing what they did to become powerful.
If Trident is unaffordable, God knows what the benefits system is.
I couldn't agree more. But in this thread we happen to be discussing Trident.
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Oh dear God.
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
I am quite well read in terms of great power history...
Then why did you immediately equate it with "all the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe"?
I would argue that our height of being a great power came during the two world wars, not during the empire building of the 19th century (which every European country - almost - were involved in, even Belgium...) We used our great power strength (even sacrificing much of it) to help defend the world against the three fascist powers of the time.
With the exception of France the rest of Europe is happy to rely on the US umbrella. Why should we not do the same?
Because they're not reliable. See 1914 and 1939 for details.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO? A. A lot of free riders.
I was not aware that the US is so keen to see other European countries develop their own nuclear weapons!
No, but the way NATO should work is that every member chips in to the mutual defence. The great powers (the US, the UK and France) chip in with nuclear weapons (and a ton of conventional forces too) and the other members should (in return for the benefit of the nuclear umbrella) chip in with decent conventional forces and allowing the US et al use of bases etc. Hence the 2% minimum spend of GDP.
Why should we be a 'great power'? All the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe.
Oh dear God.
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
I am quite well read in terms of great power history...
Then why did you immediately equate it with "all the delusions of empire again and our history as a massive aggressive power across the globe"?
I would argue that our height of being a great power came during the two world wars, not during the empire building of the 19th century (which every European country - almost - were involved in, even Belgium...) We used our great power strength (even sacrificing much of it) to help defend the world against the three fascist powers of the time.
Then you'd be totally wrong. I've studied the British Empire and 19th and 20th century political and economic history to undergraduate level, and the high watermark was around 1850. After that we faced relative decline industrially and economically vs. ROW.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
6% of £40bn (the defence budget) is £2.4bn £25bn capital cost over 30 years (a conservative/lower estimate) is £0.8bn
Total per year = £3.2bn
Total government expenditure... around £700bn
The defence budget is set to rise year on year, as per the 2% of gdp pledge. This won't affect the spend as a percentage, but it will mean a real terms rise year on year. Your expenditure figure is a year one figure, mine is averaged out.
Total Defence expenditure over 30 years is 1.2 trillion. Any piece of defence expenditure can be added up over its lifetime to arrive at a large figure. The Typhoon, the F35. We currently have and are affording Trident. We can afford to replace it in the same basis as previously. The additional comparable cost is minimal if at all.
Comments
IS would not be deterred even if we could target them IMO
https://twitter.com/HeroOfHornska/status/688721891830448128
When you're getting a portrait done but all you really want to do is promote your book. http://t.co/ciaBFntshQ
For example, a sign of its success is that the nukes are not actually fired and detonated. And yet that is used as an argument to get rid of it.
The nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7... right now it is in action. And it is successfully deterring other nuclear powers from nuclear strike, nuclear blackmail, etc.
I'd assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the Caliphate is more an idea than a fixed set of borders, transferrable if necessary.
One of the strategies of radical Islam since long before Al Qaeda or Isis were gleams in a mullah's eye was to get the West and its allies to kill loads of muslims; a vaporised Raqqa would be a great radicaliser in those terms.
In any case I'm sure the ISIS high command would find good strategic reasons to be far way from an impending nuclear attack.
Labour's frontbench team is almost 100% utterly dreadful.
The only period during which the idea of disarming looked sensible was the early to mid 1990s. We did a lot of conventional forces disarming during that time of course, as well as reduce our nuclear arsenal.
Since 2000 however the world is becoming more perilous and the decline in global security is accelerating.
Final Round Outright In-Play, Porteous, Haydn , 7.50 Single £60.00 E/W, £120.00 (Pot. Ret. £588.00)
He'd argue that retaliation wouldn't bring our dead back to life; that we would need to focus on helping the maimed, irradiated survivors, and that, in a way, we were reaping the harvest of our decades long war-mongering in the Middle East.
ISTR that the hull was actually composite: it was an iron plates, with 18" (I think) wood behind, then the iron hull. The wood gave good protection against cannon.
Although the ?Armstrong? breech loaders weren't very good, and she couldn't steer well at all.
The wood acted as a buffer, insulation, I think to stop bolts and plates springing if struck. A change from iron clad wood to wood lined iron!
Parts of that are redundant
summarise Labour's proposed policy: in favour of spending £bns
That's like arguing against flood insurance because you've never been flooded.
Q. What does the US get out of NATO?
A. A lot of free riders.
You're quite right - I don't have figures to back up that statement. I was confusing procurement and overall budgets. The Government's own projections suggest maintenance of the Trident replacement will cost 6% of the annual defence budget, on top of the £25 billion cost of the new submarines. That's based on it lasting till 2060. On the following article I make that about £5.2 billion a year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-defence-trident-exclusive-idUSKCN0SJ0EP20151025?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter
Personally I think Trident is a waste of money and actually harms our national security. I would be inclined to keep a few hanging around that could be delivered via cruise missile etc. That would be acceptable from a cost benefit analysis.
Yup - the problem was the bolts went all the way through the plates.
If hit directly on a bolt head (and yes, they were recessed), the bolts tended to break. The wood absorbing the shockwave helped.
What fixed the problem was the later discovery that if the bolts were fitted to slots in the *back* of the plate, the shock issue practically vanished.
Now Poland is negotiating with China for nuclear reactors....
The US would not give us our toys to play with Russia, unless at its own behest. Not a chance.
The beauty of our present system is that it is straightforward - if you nuke Britain you will be nuked in return, automatically* and without much hope of intercepting the nukes.
*unlike the other great powers, our nuclear deterrent is "automatic" in the sense that the submarine commander, if he believes the UK has been destroyed, can take immediate action (according to what the PM has written in his letter, stored in the commander's safe).
With access to modern designs down to the detailed blueprint level, nuclear material and operating facilities to make more & a functional rocket industry, the Ukrainians were all set to have their own deterrent.
But they were sold a bill of goods....
Trump 32 +4
Cruz 18 -3
Bush 13 +3
Rubio 11 -1
Carson 9 0
Christie 4 -2
Fiorina 3 -2
Rest 2 and lower
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/2016/01/17/trump-holds-lead-in-south-carolina-cruz-in-second-as-bush-moves-up-to-third-in-contest/
It's a post debate poll.
Dear Captain, I'm afraid there are no nukes left. Kind regards - and good luck! Jeremy
@falklands_utd: He's not welcome. https://t.co/iuWDXkiL6Z
£25bn capital cost over 30 years (a conservative/lower estimate) is £0.8bn
Total per year = £3.2bn
Total government expenditure... around £700bn
@MrHarryCole: Corbyn's dangerous rhetoric has not gone down well with those whose livelihood he is so cavalier about. https://t.co/0dIAadkMhc
Radical stuff. *rolls eyes*
We have a deterrent because we don't know what the next threat will be. We don't get rid of it because we think past and current threats don't warrant its retention.
Although their population is just under 3000 you can jumble it will all the other small pieces left from the British empire to create an overseas seat, like the French. the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Dutch do.
There wouldn't be much resistance by MP's for a seat whose constituency office would be literally in the Caribbean.
But you apparently think the French are? Ha that's a good one.
The HoC could waste several hours discussing it, if they’re not too busy….
Which was, on so many levels, ridiculous.
I'll give you a hand: look up Permissi(on/ive) Active Link . Which our warheads and missiles do not have. The Yanks are nowhere in our command chain ...
Your hatred of the US is only exceeded by the size of your tinfoil hat.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPujYMAYY7Q
It has also deterred direct conflict using conventional forces between the great powers (hence the proxy wars instead).
I would suggest that those two aspects are a good enough reason to retain a nuclear deterrent!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine
A class of coal fired submarines. Utterly useless, lots of jobs.
How long before Corbyn comes up with this?
Labour lost 4 times - 79, 83, 87, 92 - why won't they lose 4 more - 10, 15, 20, 25 - unless they realise the core vote isn't enough?
Rather than build Trident subs why doesn't Corbyn just give every worker involved 2 million quid and send them home? Would be cheaper
Heck, the Isle of Man isn't even in the UK...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_M-class_submarine
It's nothing to do with delusions or empire or whatever.
We are the 5th largest economy on the planet. That alone means we are a great power, whether we like it or not.
Why is being a great power so bad anyway? Do you even know what a great power is? It just means that you hold a particular degree of power viz other great powers. Read up on it on Wikipedia or whatever. It has nothing to do with empires or whatever... that was just how the great powers exercised their power in the 19th century.
We can be a "quiet" great power if we chose to - using our power to defend ourself and give our nation prosperity at home. A "Switzerland" model... albeit with nukes lol
(G.W.B. once said that he hoped to bring peace between fish and humanity at a pre-election rally, to give you an idea)
But you can easily see how americans can elect Trump as president, the idea is in their heads for a while, you only need to make them angry enough:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/watch-lewis-blacks-side-splitting-2011-monologue-about-president-trump-is-even-more-hilarious-now/
I'd love to know more, or if I've been sold a pup on this one.
But if you had routinely-armed cruise missiles, the launch of any cruise missile - conventional or not - could be taken as a threat of a nuclear strike. I don't know how the US and Russia got around this, as they both had nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Perhaps the slower speed of cruise missiles and their vulnerability makes them more of a tactical than a strategic weapon?
Edit:
http://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/187150.htm
and
http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0211/doc13.htm#01
Either we have our present system of a minimum nuclear deterrent (renewed) OR we don't bother at all.
Those are the two options frankly. (The third would be to increase our nuclear capabilities, but that would fly in the face of the nuclear proliferation treaties...)
The USA is a mass immigration country with I would guess a strictly limited anglo saxon content.
Canada is not that much different and has a large immigrant community, thats before you get to its French component.
Your suggestion of Australia NZ holds more water but Australia has a growing local immigrant population and is on the opposite side of the world with its own distinct outlook.
All are quite clearly English Speaking of course but all I would suggest have quite different cultures. Australia is a fine country but it does have a history of a distinct British antipathy. I do not want to start a new hare running and can only be brief, but its really a bit fanciful to think that these 4 otherwise fine but widely spread countries offer serious alternative trading and security alliances beyond the treaties we have with them already and which are shared with others.
Worth taking a look at the most recent long-term GDP estimates, released in December by the Centre for Economics and Business Research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMF_ranked_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal)#Long_term_GDP_estimates
[you will have to copy and paste the URL I'm afraid..]
China and the US as the two superpowers, followed by four great powers: India, Japan, Germany and the UK.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/688733423675011074
Britain's (and the US's and France's) nuclear weapons very likely *did* prevent Saddam from using chemicals during the Kuwait war.
I would argue that our height of being a great power came during the two world wars, not during the empire building of the 19th century (which every European country - almost - were involved in, even Belgium...) We used our great power strength (even sacrificing much of it) to help defend the world against the three fascist powers of the time.
How does criticism of #Islam cause terrorism, if terrorism has nothing to do with Islam?
#Paris #GrandMufti #Auspol
We currently have and are affording Trident. We can afford to replace it in the same basis as previously. The additional comparable cost is minimal if at all.