Corbyn’s childlike and simplistic argument? .....

Seagull27 · Oct 1, 2015

One nuclear strike will instantly wipe out millions of people, 99.999% of whom are civilians who had nothing to do with the conflict. As far as I see it, anyone who is willing to fire a nuclear weapon is nuts, inhumane, probably both. Therefore, they almost certainly wouldn't care about one coming back.

Let's say you're the leader of a country and you've just been told a nuclear weapon has wiped out one of your largest cities and a significant portion of your population. Would you retaliate by sending one back to the offending country to wipe out millions of their civilians, who were equally as uninvolved as your civilians? I would hope the answer is no...

So to sum up, I don't think Trident is a deterrent as anyone mad enough to use a nuclear weapon against any country wouldn't care about the consequences, and wouldn't be put off by the targets having nuclear weapons themselves.

Get rid.

Blue Valkyrie said:
Good timing, Vladimir Corbyn...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/609055/North-Korea-nuclear-strike-direct-Britain-war-Jeremy-Corbyn-Trident-deterrent

Despite being in the Express, which makes it highly questionable, if true then this just reaffirms what I've said above. He's (apparently) ready to have nuclear war, and that's while we already have nuclear weapons. So what's the deterrent?

Blue Valkyrie · Oct 1, 2015

Seagull27 said:
One nuclear strike will instantly wipe out millions of people, 99.999% of whom are civilians who had nothing to do with the conflict. As far as I see it, anyone who is willing to fire a nuclear weapon is nuts, inhumane, probably both. Therefore, they almost certainly wouldn't care about one coming back.

Let's say you're the leader of a country and you've just been told a nuclear weapon has wiped out one of your largest cities and a significant portion of your population. Would you retaliate by sending one back to the offending country to wipe out millions of their civilians, who were equally as uninvolved as your civilians? I would hope the answer is no...

So to sum up, I don't think Trident is a deterrent as anyone mad enough to use a nuclear weapon against any country wouldn't care about the consequences, and wouldn't be put off by the targets having nuclear weapons themselves.

Get rid.

A very dangerous assumption

Seagull27 · Oct 1, 2015

Blue Valkyrie said:
A very dangerous assumption

Do you think ISIS would be put off by us having trident? Or North Korea (which, by the article you linked, suggests that they aren't at all)?

spring hall convert · Oct 1, 2015

I think the one thing this thread does prove is there is at least an appetite to have this debate back on the table.

cunning fergus · Oct 1, 2015

Triggaaar said:
Then I don't ever want him as leader.
The point is that any potential enemy that wants to destroy Britain should know that we absolutely would push the button, if we had to.

Genius. So with Corbyn in charge, we'd have the expense of paying for Trident, without having the one thing that it's supposed to provide.

Your first point is the real nub of this matter, certainly as far as the majority of the electorate will be concerned.

This is a perfect example of Corbyn's personal political principals franking a more political streetwise common sense.

This political issue is not a conventional left/right political issue, but does play to the type of national leader Corbyn would actually be.

Regardless of whether you agree or not with the U.K. Having a nuclear deterrent this matter indicates to the electorate that he would be a weak leader............principled but weak.

deletebeepbeepbeep · Oct 1, 2015

It seems to me that no one has put forward a cogent argument to retain it. Who is trident deterring, what is trident deterring them from doing, is that a genuine threat, if so is trident the vest way of deterring them from doing it or would a cheaper system do it just as well?

Rather than this be a yes no question surely it needs to be a much greater review carried out by military intelligence.

The way the Shadow Cabinet have closed themselves off from this debate is dissapointing, they should all be pushing for a comprehensive review of what trident actually achieves.

Blue Valkyrie · Oct 1, 2015

Seagull27 said:
Do you think ISIS would be put off by us having trident? Or North Korea (which, by the article you linked, suggests that they aren't at all)?

No, but I think the mad kleptocrat in the Kremlin actually would be, and if he ever invades the Baltics and starts thinking of a city to point his nukes at ( in order to threaten NATO against liberating them ), he won't be choosing London, Paris or a US one.

[ He has form for this don't forget. When he conquered Crimea, he then threatened anyone attempting to liberate it with his nuclear arsenal ]

DataPoint · Oct 1, 2015

None of the usual arguments above can guarantee that there would never be a circumstance in the future when the possession of a British Independent Nuclear weapon might be vital to Britain’s security and there is also no external pressure to unilaterally dismantle at this time. If there were, the argument might be different. In the meantime, you can’t argue that because your house hasn’t collapsed for 40 years you no longer require building insurance and therefore cancel your premium - that would be an irresponsible gamble.

When the chips are down we can rely on nobody but ourselves.

Luckily, the common sense of Labour MP’s will ensure that Britain retains it’s only effective security system for the foreseeable future with or without Jeremy Corbyn as leader.

brakespear · Oct 1, 2015

Hamilton said:
This really is a sideshow created by the media to keep them occupied. They must be very bored.

I'd imagine Labour will vote to keep Trident - not that we need it - and then it will all be academic anyway.

Corbyn is merely saying that he wouldn't push the button. Good, I don't want him to. If he or any other prime minister ever did, then we'd all be fried within a few minutes anyway, so what's the point?

This is all handily deflecting from some of the issues that we should be focusing on - jobs, fair pay, taxation of corporations etc. but that's not as interesting to the sensationalist media as a pointless story about pushing the red button. The news editor that came up with that angle must be oh so ever so pleased with themselves. Meanwhile, we're again not talking about the issues that matter.

bang on

Triggaaar · Oct 1, 2015

DataPoint said:
Luckily, the common sense of Labour MP’s will ensure that Britain retains it’s only effective security system for the foreseeable future with or without Jeremy Corbyn as leader.

Yes, but he wouldn't use it, so it would be pointless.

Hamilton · Oct 1, 2015

Triggaaar said:
Then I don't ever want him as leader.
The point is that any potential enemy that wants to destroy Britain should know that we absolutely would push the button, if we had to.

Genius. So with Corbyn in charge, we'd have the expense of paying for Trident, without having the one thing that it's supposed to provide.

The point is that we are inconsequential in the nuclear debate. Our role in international affairs could be just as well played out without investing in Trident as it could be if we did invest in Trident.

Hamilton · Oct 1, 2015

Triggaaar said:
Yes, but he wouldn't use it, so it would be pointless.

It's pointless anyway.

We are never going to start a nuclear war, so if we did ever find ourselves in a position where our prime minister is pressing the button then you can be guaranteed that there would be missiles from other countries in the air already. If that's the case then we're all dead anyhow. Once you're dead, if your leader has pressed the button or hasn't pressed the button it's all rather immaterial isn't it?

Triggaaar · Oct 1, 2015

Hamilton said:
The point is that we are inconsequential in the nuclear debate. Our role in international affairs could be just as well played out without investing in Trident as it could be if we did invest in Trident.

That's debatable.

Hamilton said:
It's pointless anyway.

We are never going to start a nuclear war, so if we did ever find ourselves in a position where our prime minister is pressing the button then you can be guaranteed that there would be missiles from other countries in the air already. If that's the case then we're all dead anyhow. Once you're dead, if your leader has pressed the button or hasn't pressed the button it's all rather immaterial isn't it?

Do you not have any understanding of the concept of a deterrent? Another country is less likely to fire nuclear missiles at a country that also has (and is willing to use) them. We keep nuclear missiles to deter others from using them. How effective that is is of course debatable. You don't seem to think it works, others disagree.

What should be fairly obvious though, is that to pay for them and then state to potential enemies that we won't ever use them is madness.

NooBHA · Oct 1, 2015

DataPoint said:
……. “.

Why don’t people get it? – Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. Their very existence means they will never be used and countries that possess them will never be occupied.

Nuclear weapons are no deterrent to the people most likely to use them.

The most strategic Nuclear nation is Pakistan - Given it's location it is the country most likely to fall to the threat of Fundamentalist. That is why the west so vehemently supports successive Pakistani governments. Were that countries nuclear weapons to fall under the control of the wrong people or even the wrong people getting into power in that country then no deterrent would effectively stop their use.

I don't say that Corbyn is correct in what he is saying but there is no need for the UK to have them whilst it is an ally of the US.

For example. During the ''Cold War'' All of the nuclear weapons trained on London were actually based on the coast just outside Tallin in Estonia. Since they broke away from the USSR, all of the nuclear weapons were removed from Estonia back on to Russian soil.

Since then, Estonia have lived very well, thank you very much without them and the cost to maintain them. So whilst some might want to retain them to retain a status withing the Worlds Nuclear Nations, they are not essential.

alfredmizen · Oct 1, 2015

Hamilton said:
The point is that we are inconsequential in the nuclear debate. Our role in international affairs could be just as well played out without investing in Trident as it could be if we did invest in Trident.

WTF is it with you ?? Can you really not grasp that we have Trident as a deterrent to hostile nuclear powers using their nuclear weapons against us rather than leverage in international affairs ?

Eeyore · Oct 1, 2015

I don't think we should give them up. But neither do I think they should be renewed. We have enough.

Hotchilidog · Oct 1, 2015

Triggaaar said:
That's debatable.

Do you not have any understanding of the concept of a deterrent? Another country is less likely to fire nuclear missiles at a country that also has (and is willing to use) them. We keep nuclear missiles to deter others from using them. How effective that is is of course debatable. You don't seem to think it works, others disagree.

What should be fairly obvious though, is that to pay for them and then state to potential enemies that we won't ever use them is madness.

What nuclear countries are even remotely interested in bombing us? Russia, China? Why would they do that, and why would they be deterred by our tinpot but expensive deterrent, when they have vastly superior arsenals. It's a load of nonsense to think the Britain NEEDS Trident, it does not. It's just willy-waving for the establishment who want to feel important.

I have read today (and sand to corrected if not accurate) that trident would cost represent one quarter of our defence budget, well that seems just brilliant news for our overworked and thinly stretched forces on the ground, pretty sure they could have done something more useful with the cash than waste it on an expensive vanity project that most of the world gets by without.

alfredmizen · Oct 1, 2015

NooBHA said:
Nuclear weapons are no deterrent to the people most likely to use them.

The most strategic Nuclear nation is Pakistan - Given it's location it is the country most likely to fall to the threat of Fundamentalist. That is why the west so vehemently supports successive Pakistani governments. Were that countries nuclear weapons to fall under the control of the wrong people or even the wrong people getting into power in that country then no deterrent would effectively stop their use.

I don't say that Corbyn is correct in what he is saying but there is no need for the UK to have them whilst it is an ally of the US.

For example. During the ''Cold War'' All of the nuclear weapons trained on London were actually based on the coast just outside Tallin in Estonia. Since they broke away from the USSR, all of the nuclear weapons were removed from Estonia back on to Russian soil.

Since then, Estonia have lived very well, thank you very much without them and the cost to maintain them. So whilst some might want to retain them to retain a status withing the Worlds Nuclear Nations, they are not essential.

And you can guarantee we will remain an ally of the US can you ? Also do you not understand that whilst Estonia was part of the USSR , the USSR was very much the Russian empire and its Nukes were considered Russian,the Estonians had no say whatsoever in whether they kept them.

alfredmizen · Oct 1, 2015

Hotchilidog said:
What nuclear countries are even remotely interested in bombing us? Russia, China? Why would they do that, and why would they be deterred by our tinpot but expensive deterrent, when they have vastly superior arsenals. It's a load of nonsense to think the Britain NEEDS Trident, it does not. It's just willy-waving for the establishment who want to feel important.

I have read today (and sand to corrected if not accurate) that trident would cost represent one quarter of our defence budget, well that seems just brilliant news for our overworked and thinly stretched forces on the ground, pretty sure they could have done something more useful with the cash than waste it on an expensive vanity project that most of the world gets by without.

we have about 200 warheads , enough to send both Russia and China back to the stone age.

Blue Valkyrie · Oct 1, 2015

Hotchilidog said:
What nuclear countries are even remotely interested in bombing us? Russia, China? Why would they do that, and why would they be deterred by our tinpot but expensive deterrent, when they have vastly superior arsenals. It's a load of nonsense to think the Britain NEEDS Trident, it does not. It's just willy-waving for the establishment who want to feel important.

I have read today (and sand to corrected if not accurate) that trident would cost represent one quarter of our defence budget, well that seems just brilliant news for our overworked and thinly stretched forces on the ground, pretty sure they could have done something more useful with the cash than waste it on an expensive vanity project that most of the world gets by without.

You mean just Russia - China has about the same number of warheads as the UK.

The thing is the number of warheads becomes a little meaningless as a deterrent over a certain threshold, providing the missiles remain hidden from first strike.
No extra deterrence in turning radioactive dust into more radioactive dust a second time.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Corbyn’s childlike and simplistic argument? .....

Well-known member

Not seen such Bravery!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Not seen such Bravery!

Well-known member

Doctor Worm

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Not seen such Bravery!

Share this page