. . . but he right for the wrong reason. Jesus you couldn't make up this (*)(*)(*)(*)! The UK is on the brink of a nervous breakdown.
What in particular is Corbyn right about? His statement about keeping the subs but not the missiles perhaps?
He's right that we don't need Trident per se because this is the era of urban terrorism not territorial-based uniformed armies; but on the other hand we do need a nuclear deterrent 'in the basement' as the Japanese call theirs. In other words we only need to have enough nuclear capability to ensure a viable threaten an aggressor, and if there's time, deliver it as and when by submarine or ICBM. There's no need to have 4 giant subs on hand for around the clock/around the calendar patrols. For example, the ones we have now have been patrolling day and night for over 20 years, and for what? A secondary reason is that the West would never but never initiate a nuclear strike so what's the point of having the ability to do so when it would be too late to use it?
Well the few times that people have released a nerve agent into a densely populated area had only resulted in low casualties Having two or three in the basement isn't enough to be counted as a viable retaliatory measure and if they're not ready to be used then you may as well not have them.
Anthrax anybody? Well they would be ready wouldn't they? They'd just need to loaded onto the means of delivery??[/quote] Tell this bloke** that the first one will be dropped over Pyongyang. Then when it is, we won't need the other two because our notional enemy would know their capital city will be next! So you're in favour of Trident I take it? **
No not recently. [/QUOTE] Yes but that takes time. And if another threat emerges? Sure. I don't see what the fuss is all about considering the military takes only a very small amount of the UK's annual budget.
Yes but that takes time. And if another threat emerges? Sure. I don't see what the fuss is all about considering the military takes only a very small amount of the UK's annual budget.[/QUOTE] A 'small amount' which could be used to pay off a good part of our national debt? Incidentally, with a proven and well practiced procedure it wouldn't take much time to load the device: if the Japanese whom I admire, and can teach our useless government a thing or two, are content with the arrangement I don't see why we can't do the same. We obviously don't see eye-to-eye on this.
I doubt that as £300m is pretty small in comparison It would take hours to load and prepare a nuclear missile by which time it would be too late and that fact alone would make a first strike by an enemy more feasible.
Oh is that all? That's pretty alright then! So what's the hurry? Why would it be 'too late' to retaliate?
You could always have a look at annual government spending and see how it tallies with other budgets To deter an enemy from launching. If the the enemy thinks that he can attack without consequence then he might just do that. Because the enemy might just strike at wherever the weapons are stored.
The problem with nuclear weapons in the modern world is the assumption that the kind of national leader who would launch a nuclear strike against the UK (or anywhere for that matter) isn’t going to care about any revenge strikes (let’s be honest here and stop playing with words like retaliatory). All we’d achieve is killing hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of innocent people while the foreign leaders who ordered the attack sit safely in their remote underground bunkers or up in their private jets. A revenge attack would only greatly increase the risk of escalating and expanding the conflict and would wipe out much of the international support we’d have as victims. I think we nations like the UK need to use what authority and power we still have to declare nuclear weapons completely off the table and agree that anyone who does use them in the future will personally face the unconditional (but conventional) response from the rest of the civilised world. As it stands we have zero moral backing to demand any other country doesn’t develop nuclear programs as long as we not only maintain but continue to develop our own – that’s why we had to give Iran so much in return for agreeing to stop their program. If our position is that nuclear weapons are necessarily for our defence from other potentially nuclear armed nations though, surely those nations are perfectly entitled to say they need nuclear weapons as a defence against us.
I don't think Kim Jong-un would give a toss about global condemnation, do you? On the contrary, knowing there won't be any er, retaliation (sorry but it's a good word) from other similarly moral ( ) countries, he'd carry on nuking and very soon would be king of the world. Back to the drawing-board for you, Joe m'lad?
Who said anything about condemnation? I was thinking along the lines of kidnap and summary execution. The point is that he would be punished rather than the largely innocent population of his nation. Youre tied to the idea that the only possible response to a nuclear attack is a nuclear response (which, given it would be tactically and politically pointless, could only be motivated by revenge). There are all sorts of different forms of retaliation, especially in the context of what would then be a pariah government around the world and quite likely within its own borders. If someone gets attacked, they generally get sympathy. If they simply respond in kind, neither side in the resultant conflict tends to get general sympathy. If two nations kick of a nuclear World War 3, nobody is going to care who started it.
You can't de-arm until all the nutters do as well. Maintaining a defence while being totally committed to never using it other than when attacked is a completely consistent position. But since Corbyn's already lost the 2020 election, all this does is amplify his loss, doesn't make a lick of difference to Trident issues. Probably a good thing for Labour, as it'll be easier to ditch him.
The dead wouldn’t be any less dead with added company but the living would be more likely to remain living if a single strike wasn’t wilfully escalated to actual mutually assured destruction.
Can't let 'em get away with it Joe; I mean if we've been nuked we might as well go for broke and make it MAD? Once it kicked off there would be no way of stopping it.
