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

[sparkie]

It didn't bother Leopoldo Galtieri...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that Crown Dependencies are protected by the UK nuclear arsenal

 

[BigGully]

But isn't the decision someone else's already? It's not ours. Britain is never going to be in a position whereby we are starting a nuclear war. That will be left to the Americans, the Russians and the Chinese. Not us. Bless us.

Our best deterrent at the moment is being a peaceful financial haven.

We're not in the race here.

Well the European nuclear deterrent is interlinked with the Americans for sure, but they need geographical advantage to be a genuine deterrent so whether you want to just financially contribute or have a stake in the hardware its at the very least politically linked anyway.

Firstly if you accept a deterrent is necessary from at least a trusted ally, then you are going have to contribute a shed load of money anyway, or are you saying we should withdraw entirely from any stake within any deterrent and just align our own position with the USA, Russia or China to fulfil national security ?

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, if Ukraine hadn't given up it's nukes, it's unlikely Putin would have invaded, so at least 1 of those 200 didn't "get along just fine"

Ukraine, of course, is well known for having developed and held on to nuclear weapons, and then abandoned them ... which precipitated a Russian invasion
You mentioned in a previous post that Corbyn was one of Putin's useful idiots. Well, I've only heard one English (I refrain from using the words British or UK) politician big up Putin. His name is Nigel Farage.

 

[alfredmizen]

What you have to ask yourself, is whether our 200 or so warheads is the deterrent, or whether our allies 5000 warheads are?

How do we sit at diplomatic tables saying to countries they cannot develop their own when we are renewing the effectiveness of ours? Is it enough that the US and France have nuclear arsenal's greater than ours to protect the interests of the West, and to provide security and the deterrent - or do we stand alone in making a deterrent?

There is a real debate to be had about this, and at the moment it is just yes or no, without really talking about the why. Simply saying it is a deterrent isn't enough for me. Perhaps we do need it, but so far it is a very simplistic debate.

200 warheads is enough to send ANY country back to the stone age, as for The warheads of France and the US , would you really trust France with our security ? these are the ''european partners'' that sold exocets to the argentinians during the falklands war, and until recently and im not sure if its changed, US military strategy and long term interest was firmly directed towards the pacific theatre, chinese expansionism and aggressive stance on Taiwan, what people fail to understand is that the US defence of ''freedom'' is intrinsically linked to its own interests , I.E i would NEVER rely on them , just look at how they were prepared to leave us to our fate in 1939.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

There are 196 countries in the world - nine of them have nukes. Am I to assume 187 of these countries are in immediate peril of being wiped out ?

Nukes are out dated and not required - we certainly shouldn't be renewing ours.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

Splendid. The OP has just made a convincing argument for every single one of the world's 195 countries to possess nuclear weapons. That way, everyone would be so much safer. And the British armaments industry would surely be booming! However…

Not only did the USA's possession of nuclear weapons fail to deter the 19 Saudi jihadists of 9/11 (how could it have, since they all wanted to die anyway) but our own country's possession of nuclear weapons did nothing to deter General Galtieri from invading the Falklands in 1982. Was Thatcher actually prepared to press the nuclear button? Galtieri, correctly, assumed not and carried on invading.

Which brings up another very important point. For deterrence to work, the enemy has to believe that the British Prime Minister really would press the mass-murder button. Tony Blair professed himself a committed Christian, to the extent of converting to Roman Catholicism. How likely was it that a truly devout Blair really would be prepared to murder countless millions of innocent men, women and children and ultimately face his God after committing the most disgusting act of mass genocide in world history? If you don't believe your enemy is actually prepared to do this, there is no deterrent.

So who is our enemy? Russia? Does anyone seriously think that Vladimir Putin would want to fire his nuclear weapons at the UK? Why would he do that? What would remain to be worth occupying, with the capital and the country rendered poisonously uninhabitable for decades?

A growing number of senior British military figures have admitted that in the 21st-century possession and deployment of nuclear weapons can confer no actual military advantage. These are weapons of a Cold War past which have no value against the threats we are facing today. Will Islamic terrorists be deterred? Where do you even begin to point your weapons when the enemy is a bunch of religiously-inspired ideas held by madmen scattered across the globe?

Only six countries in the world actually possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, Britain… And of course Israel. But we're not allowed to mention that. All the other 190 countries in the world see no need for them. Where is Switzerland's deterrent? Australia's? How can all those 190 countries be so stupid as to live in such danger of attack and invasion? Or is it just possible that nuclear weapons only work against the other five countries that possess them? In which case, disarmament is the only solution.

No, the only enemies who would undoubtedly like to fire nuclear weapons at the UK are the madmen of Isis who, if they got their hands on them would be delighted to aim Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at all and sundry. They most certainly would not be deterred by the thought that they would face annihilation themselves. It's in their job description to welcome it.

Jeremy Corbyn's stance on the Trident debate is based on straightforward logic, accompanied by a lifelong revulsion for the idea that the job of a British Prime Minister is to be willing to commit a disgusting act of mass murder and contribute to extinction of our planet. Despite the efforts of our great British media, support for his stance appears to be growing.

 

[alfredmizen]

It didn't bother Leopoldo Galtieri...

Is that a serious post ?? Really ?? If so then its pointless debating with you.

 

[Hamilton]

Yep Russia will be at our door the moment we give up Trident I'm sure.

They're already here. Have you been to Knightsbridge recently?

 

[Bold Seagull]

200 warheads is enough to send ANY country back to the stone age, as for The warheads of France and the US , would you really trust France with our security ? these are the ''european partners'' that sold exocets to the argentinians during the falklands war, and until recently and im not sure if its changed, US military strategy and long term interest was firmly directed towards the pacific theatre, chinese expansionism and aggressive stance on Taiwan, what people fail to understand is that the US defence of ''freedom'' is intrinsically linked to its own interests , I.E i would NEVER rely on them , just look at how they were prepared to leave us to our fate in 1939.

If it's a 'deterrent' then you only need them to have them. It has already stopped being a deterrent if you need them to be fired.

Even taking 50% of the huge budget required to maintain Trident could make our actual usable defence much stronger. We lose men on the ground because their vehicles aren't armoured enough, or they aren't equipped with the latest gear. My cousin did tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the British forces were known as the 'borrowers' by the Americans. How can it be right we spend such a huge sum of our defence budget on an item whose primary function is never to be used when we're cutting back our actual spending on defence?

That is the real debate. If in your argument you are relying on France of the US to fire their nuclear weapons on our behalf, then the deterrent has already failed.

 

[pastafarian]

There are 196 countries in the world - nine of them have nukes. Am I to assume 187 of these countries are in immediate peril of being wiped out ?

Nukes are out dated and not required - we certainly shouldn't be renewing ours.

I don’t think you have thought this through

If we got rid of nukes, Super Villains would become obsolete and the James Bond Franchise would be all but redundant.

Do you want that on your conscience?

 

[alfredmizen]

If it's a 'deterrent' then you only need them to have them. It has already stopped being a deterrent if you need them to be fired.

Even taking 50% of the huge budget required to maintain Trident could make our actual usable defence much stronger. We lose men on the ground because their vehicles aren't armoured enough, or they aren't equipped with the latest gear. My cousin did tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the British forces were known as the 'borrowers' by the Americans. How can it be right we spend such a huge sum of our defence budget on an item whose primary function is never to be used when we're cutting back our actual spending on defence?

That is the real debate. If in your argument you are relying on France of the US to fire their nuclear weapons on our behalf, then the deterrent has already failed.

Read my post properly, and THEN answer eh ?

 

[Hamilton]

I really don't know how the Germans have survived without a nuclear deterent!

Nor the Spanish...

Italians.

Swedes, Norwegians, Portuguese...

etc.

 

[sparkie]

Splendid. The OP has just made a convincing argument for every single one of the world's 195 countries to possess nuclear weapons. That way, everyone would be so much safer. And the British armaments industry would surely be booming! However…

Not only did the USA's possession of nuclear weapons fail to deter the 19 Saudi jihadists of 9/11 (how could it have, since they all wanted to die anyway) but our own country's possession of nuclear weapons did nothing to deter General Galtieri from invading the Falklands in 1982. Was Thatcher actually prepared to press the nuclear button? Galtieri, correctly, assumed not and carried on invading.

Which brings up another very important point. For deterrence to work, the enemy has to believe that the British Prime Minister really would press the mass-murder button. Tony Blair professed himself a committed Christian, to the extent of converting to Roman Catholicism. How likely was it that a truly devout Blair really would be prepared to murder countless millions of innocent men, women and children and ultimately face his God after committing the most disgusting act of mass genocide in world history? If you don't believe your enemy is actually prepared to do this, there is no deterrent.

So who is our enemy? Russia? Does anyone seriously think that Vladimir Putin would want to fire his nuclear weapons at the UK? Why would he do that? What would remain to be worth occupying, with the capital and the country rendered poisonously uninhabitable for decades?

A growing number of senior British military figures have admitted that in the 21st-century possession and deployment of nuclear weapons can confer no actual military advantage. These are weapons of a Cold War past which have no value against the threats we are facing today. Will Islamic terrorists be deterred? Where do you even begin to point your weapons when the enemy is a bunch of religiously-inspired ideas held by madmen scattered across the globe?

Only six countries in the world actually possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, Britain… And of course Israel. But we're not allowed to mention that. All the other 190 countries in the world see no need for them. Where is Switzerland's deterrent? Australia's? How can all those 190 countries be so stupid as to live in such danger of attack and invasion? Or is it just possible that nuclear weapons only work against the other five countries that possess them? In which case, disarmament is the only solution.

No, the only enemies who would undoubtedly like to fire nuclear weapons at the UK are the madmen of Isis who, if they got their hands on them would be delighted to aim Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at all and sundry. They most certainly would not be deterred by the thought that they would face annihilation themselves. It's in their job description to welcome it.

Jeremy Corbyn's stance on the Trident debate is based on straightforward logic, accompanied by a lifelong revulsion for the idea that the job of a British Prime Minister is to be willing to commit a disgusting act of mass murder and contribute to extinction of our planet. Despite the efforts of our great British media, support for his stance appears to be growing.

What is this confusion about The Falklands and Galtieri ?

They are a Crown Dependency, not part of the UK.

If the nukes were actually 'The Royal Nukes' or something similar, then the argument would stand up, but the UK deterent does not cover these territories not part of the UK.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I don’t think you have thought this through

If we got rid of nukes, Super Villains would become obsolete and the James Bond Franchise would be all but redundant.

Do you want that on your conscience?

Shit, I hadn't thought about James Bond, no, I'm sorry, we should renew Trident to ensure 007 remains in employment.

 

[mikeyjh]

I really don't know how the Germans have survived without a nuclear deterent!

Nor the Spanish...

Italians.

Swedes, Norwegians, Portuguese...

etc.

Yeah, they just get on with being confident nations without the willy waving that is nuclear weapon ownership

 

[BigGully]

There are 196 countries in the world - nine of them have nukes. Am I to assume 187 of these countries are in immediate peril of being wiped out ?

Nukes are out dated and not required - we certainly shouldn't be renewing ours.

By saying outdated you seem to imply that they had some worth previously.

How has a nuclear deterrent now become outdated, whilst other nations nuclear capacity hasnt changed or perhaps been enhanced.

When and how has the perception of the deterrent changed ?

I suspect years of non proliferation and no threat of nuclear attack due to that deterrent has made you complacent and lazy to just how successful it has been.

 

[glasfryn]

the way I have always seen this is that who cares if we have a deterrent (one puny submarine) if ever used would do some damage to our enemies whoever they are, while we (if there are any of us left, among the cockroaches) whould be laughing at the fact that we got one back, while slowly dying.
childlike and simplistic it maybe but there it is spend billions on a replacement or spend it on schools, hospitals.
this always reminds me of a joke my Dad told me years ago
Churchill,Stalin and Rosevelt were having a quiet drink in a London pub, discussing the outcome of the war.
when the barman appeared at their table saying "I am actually and angel who has come to give you a wish each"
he turned to the Russian who said "after the war I want the USA to suffer horrible floods that kill everyone there"
the president of America asked " I would like a massive earthquake to strike Russia and kill everyone"
the angel then turned to Churchill who said "I would like a double whiskey but please serve these two gentlemen first"

 

[Nibble]

We need to first stop antagonising volatile countries for their natural resources and THEN get rid of our nukes. I'd say we just use all of them at once on Russia mad the Middle East, get rid of them for good.

 

[alfredmizen]

I really don't know how the Germans have survived without a nuclear deterent!

Nor the Spanish...

Italians.

Swedes, Norwegians, Portuguese...

etc.

They survived because barring the swedes they were members of NATO which did have a nuclear deterrent, as ive asked in other posts , would you , given the tendencies of the US to become very isolationist when it suits , trust them to use their nuclear deterrent to protect europe if it didnt suit them ? have you factored in all the possible algorithms of an aggressively expansionist china taking up all the american interests in the pacific theatre whilst a russian leader seeks to quell unrest at home by embarking on foreign adventures in europe ? there are literally thousands of possible scenarios , and i for one would feel far more comfortable with a big stick that deters possioble predators.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I'm having a few issues with my next door neighbour. It started when we repaired a fence after the winter storms of 2013 and half inched half an inch of his garden and has moved on to him occasionally tutting if the kids are loud on the trampoline or we are tardy with the weeding in the front garden. I'm thinking of spending all this month's salary on a massive fk off gun that I can ostentatiously display in the window just in case he's thinking of popping round with a knife any time soon. I'm sure the kids won't mind starving for a couple of weeks. After all, it's their safety I'm thinking of.