Current Affairs The Labour Party

[The binman chronicles]

This is the thing with modern British politics; everyone focuses on an issue that fundamentally does not exist. Corbyn or any PM is not required for our nuclear deterrent to function.

Can you expand on the above please? Else I will probably end up replying on something completely different. Are you saying that just the fact that we have them is the deterrent or because we won't ever have to use them anyhow?

The above is not a particular issue for me but I know a lot of people who do have an issue with it. He should have just kept quiet about it, it's just one of those faux pas that he is prone to that turns a non issue into something.

 

[tsubaki]

Can you expand on the above please? Else I will probably end up replying on something completely different. Are you saying that just the fact that we have them is the deterrent or because we won't ever have to use them anyhow?

The above is not a particular issue for me but I know a lot of people who do have an issue with it. He should have just kept quiet about it, it's just one of those faux pas that he is prone to that turns a non issue into something.

Our only nuclear weapons (or the only ones we admit having) is Trident carried aboard our submarines. Of these one is on patrol, acting as a deterrent - which means they are mainly submerged and out of direct radio contact.

That means they can’t be used in the way that the US ones are (ie: the PM can’t just push a button) so what happens is that the sub periodically checks to see if we still exist. If they can’t raise us, or establish we’ve been obliterated, they consult the instructions they’ve been given.

Of course the PM could theoretically order a nuclear attack, but that would probably depend on the availability of a sub (and could involve waiting hours for them to check in). It may not be that useful as a “we need to do this right now” system, though as a “we’ve been dead six hours, but now you can have some too” it’s unrivalled.

 

[zzr45]

That means they can’t be used in the way that the US ones are (ie: the PM can’t just push a button) so what happens is that the sub periodically checks to see if we still exist. If they can’t raise us, or establish we’ve been obliterated, they consult the instructions they’ve been given.

Therein lies the problem, the orders come from the PM of the day. If Corbyn's are not to retaliate (which is the indication he's given) then they won't be launched and the whole issue of second strike deterrence is somewhat null and void. Cold War problem in reality, but one that still nags at people.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Our only nuclear weapons (or the only ones we admit having) is Trident carried aboard our submarines. Of these one is on patrol, acting as a deterrent - which means they are mainly submerged and out of direct radio contact.

That means they can’t be used in the way that the US ones are (ie: the PM can’t just push a button) so what happens is that the sub periodically checks to see if we still exist. If they can’t raise us, or establish we’ve been obliterated, they consult the instructions they’ve been given.

Of course the PM could theoretically order a nuclear attack, but that would probably depend on the availability of a sub (and could involve waiting hours for them to check in). It may not be that useful as a “we need to do this right now” system, though as a “we’ve been dead six hours, but now you can have some too” it’s unrivalled.

Get what you saying regarding that ours is only submarine based but it says on the gov website that the order to fire has to come from the PM and only him/her. If you have already said you won't use them and you're a well known CND supporter, you are giving any potential enemies a good insight that they could use a nuclear/chemical attack without the fear of a WMD response.

 

[Number_25]

WHY AREN'T YOU WILLING TO COMMIT TO THE INSTANTANEOUS SLAUGHTER OF SEVERAL BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, JEREMY?

 

[zzr45]

WHY AREN'T YOU WILLING TO COMMIT TO THE INSTANTANEOUS SLAUGHTER OF SEVERAL BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, JEREMY?

I happen to know a family that were killed by a nuclear missle because the person that held the counter derrerent signalled his intent not to use it. How does that make you feel?

This is the problem with the Socialist Mind Control Ivory Tower Dwellers. Very happy to ignore nuclear holocausts when then they aren’t happening to them.

Also I was at a conference the other day and someone noted that in porn the Male phallus in fact looks like a missle. Therefore when socialists watch porn they are in fact worshipping nuclear war. QED.

 

[tsubaki]

Get what you saying regarding that ours is only submarine based but it says on the gov website that the order to fire has to come from the PM and only him/her. If you have already said you won't use them and you're a well known CND supporter, you are giving any potential enemies a good insight that they could use a nuclear/chemical attack without the fear of a WMD response.

Therein lies the problem, the orders come from the PM of the day. If Corbyn's are not to retaliate (which is the indication he's given) then they won't be launched and the whole issue of second strike deterrence is somewhat null and void. Cold War problem in reality, but one that still nags at people.

Not really - the point is that the boat still exists; if we have been nuked then the decision to launch rests with the captain based on the instructions he has.

If those instructions are not to retaliate under any circumstances and to seek a safe port, but the person who wrote that is ash (as is the country he used to lead) then it has the same effect that a letter saying “[Poor language removed] it, go nuts” would; they are instructions from someone who no longer exists. Given that its likely that most of the crew will have also lost every member of their family as well what happens then is anyone’s guess.

 

[The binman chronicles]

WHY AREN'T YOU WILLING TO COMMIT TO THE INSTANTANEOUS SLAUGHTER OF SEVERAL BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, JEREMY?

Billions is a bit overly dramatic don't you think? Perhaps Russia and America's stock piles might be able to do that but we don't have that many missiles.

The point of having a nuclear option is you don't have to use it, but when you say you aren't going to use it no matter what, then it becomes the world's most expensive crap art installation.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Not really - the point is that the boat still exists; if we have been nuked then the decision to launch rests with the captain based on the instructions he has.

If those instructions are not to retaliate under any circumstances and to seek a safe port, but the person who wrote that is ash (as is the country he used to lead) then it has the same effect that a letter saying “[Poor language removed] it, go nuts” would; they are instructions from someone who no longer exists. Given that its likely that most of the crew will have also lost every member of their family as well what happens then is anyone’s guess.

That's just looking at it from the worst possible scenario. Say a small suitcase nuke went off in Manchester and orginated from the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our reaction is...? (If a counter nuclear strike is off the table)

 

[tsubaki]

That's just looking at it from the worst possible scenario. Say a small suitcase nuke went off in Manchester and orginated from the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our reaction is...? (If a counter nuclear strike is off the table)

That is a good question, though it applies equally well to all Governments not just Corbyn. I mean, has the spectre of Sunni extremism gone away as the result of the post-9/11 reaction?

 

[The binman chronicles]

That is a good question, though it applies equally well to all Governments not just Corbyn. I mean, has the spectre of Sunni extremism gone away as the result of the post-9/11 reaction?

Indeed not. But a nuclear/chemical attack on British soil would require a significant response don't you think? I don't mean a ground war as much this time and even with that the problem last time was somehow it shifted from the Taliban (which was justified) to Iraq (which wasn't) and then we kept cocking it up from there on.

But that is the point of our warheads, you hope they think twice about the consequences and the people they love before carrying out such an attack. Of course we can get bogged down in all the scenarios like what if they are completely stateless group which may rule out any retaliatory strike. I hope to god we never see one and if there is one, whoever authorises a British response has to think long and hard about what they will be doing if the worst came to worst. But you just can't rule it out beforehand as it ceases to be our protection that we pay an exorbitant amount of money for.

 

[tsubaki]

Indeed not. But a nuclear/chemical attack on British soil would require a significant response don't you think? I don't mean a ground war as much this time and even with that the problem last time was somehow it shifted from the Taliban (which was justified) to Iraq (which wasn't) and then we kept cocking it up from there on.

But that is the point of our warheads, you hope they think twice about the consequences and the people they love before carrying out such an attack. Of course we can get bogged down in all the scenarios like what if they are completely stateless group which may rule out any retaliatory strike. I hope to god we never see one and if there is one, whoever authorises a British response has to think long and hard about what they will be doing if the worst came to worst. But you just can't rule it out beforehand as it ceases to be our protection that we pay an exorbitant amount of money for.

Again though, whilst they are at sea (or exist) the opinions of the PM of the day do not matter to any real degree - and to be honest, as protection they are not really that effective in and of themselves.

What they are is revenge weapons, and there is something to be said for having them but really anyone who claims they could be sensibly used for anything else is chatting a degree of wham.

 

[roydo]

I always think a central point to the pro/anti nukes discussion is missed when the question of if a PM would or wouldnt order their use.

Whatever private conviction a person has on the issue, when they become PM that must fly out of the window. Upon taking office, they assume the position as being responsible, first and foremost, for the protection of the UK population. That trumps any private concerns or convictions on their use I am afraid.

Now, voting for their removal from our defence is completely different; thats a private matter. But if we have them when someone takes office, any PM has to put the safety of the UK above their own views.

 

[tsubaki]

I always think a central point to the pro/anti nukes discussion is missed when the question of if a PM would or wouldnt order their use.

Whatever private conviction a person has on the issue, when they become PM that must fly out of the window. Upon taking office, they assume the position as being responsible, first and foremost, for the protection of the UK population. That trumps any private concerns or convictions on their use I am afraid.

Now, voting for their removal from our defence is completely different; thats a private matter. But if we have them when someone takes office, any PM has to put the safety of the UK above their own views.

They do, but again you shouldn’t think that is how our deterrent works.

In the event of a proper nuclear exchange the PM - any PM - may not even get to the point of being awake, never mind get to the point where they have to mull over what to do. We are many seconds flight time closer to the potential enemies than the US is after all.

This notion that you have to put the safety of the country first is not really borne out by what we have to “defend” ourselves in that situation. If we are nuked properly, all the deterrent could do is avenge us. If we are only nuked a little bit, by terrorists say, they are of no use.

 

[roydo]

In the event of a proper nuclear exchange the PM - any PM - may not even get to the point of being awake, never mind get to the point where they have to mull over what to do.

Thats exactly why one of the first things a new PM has to do is write down what his or her response orders would be, which is then circulated to those who need to know.