Car crash interview: Corbyn says Britain's new nuclear weapons should have no warheads (UK politics)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ketara**

Da Boss wrote:
If a deterrent is necessary I'd like everyone to be allowed to have them. Or is the sauce for the goose not good enough for the gander?

Of course the nations on the security council are all perfect moral paragons who deserve them, and the rest of us filthy proles couldn't be trusted with them.

I think the idea behind nuclear non-proliferation is that the more nations which have them, the greater the odds of armageddon getting kicked off. Whilst the nuclear deterrent is just that, a deterrent, it's not failproof, and the more of the things there are, the greater the risk. God only knows it came close enough to the wire in the Col War enough times, and that was just with two major parties.

It could be argued that everyone should disarm in that case, but so long as one nation retains the capability to make them, it is more or less necessary that at least one other party retain a roughly equal arsenal to forestall them. And since I don't see China or Russia ditching them any time soon, it's more or less imperative the US or UK/France keep ahold of them. Unfortunately, India/Pakistan have such issues that their nuclear deterrent is the only thing holding them from each other (and it could be argued India needs them to retain a counterbalance with China too). Israel meanwhile, keeps them because they're psychologically obsessed with self-defence.

**Grey Templar**

Da Boss wrote:
If a deterrent is necessary I'd like everyone to be allowed to have them. Or is the sauce for the goose not good enough for the gander?

Of course the nations on the security council are all perfect moral paragons who deserve them, and the rest of us filthy proles couldn't be trusted with them.

That's one of the reasons I find the UN to be a massive waste of time.

The UN is incapable of enforcing its own legislation, and thus they can't really do anything to stop proliferation. And once someone has nuclear weapons its not like anybody is going to attack them to take them away.

So really its nothing but hot air.

**Da Boss**

Ketara wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
If a deterrent is necessary I'd like everyone to be allowed to have them. Or is the sauce for the goose not good enough for the gander?

Of course the nations on the security council are all perfect moral paragons who deserve them, and the rest of us filthy proles couldn't be trusted with them.

I think the idea behind nuclear non-proliferation is that the more nations which have them, the greater the odds of armageddon getting kicked off. Whilst the nuclear deterrent is just that, a deterrent, it's not failproof, and the more of the things there are, the greater the risk. God only knows it came close enough to the wire in the Col War enough times, and that was just with two major parties.

It could be argued that everyone should disarm in that case, but so long as one nation retains the capability to make them, it is more or less necessary that at least one other party retain a roughly equal arsenal to forestall them. And since I don't see China or Russia ditching them any time soon, it's more or less imperative the US or UK/France keep ahold of them. Unfortunately, India/Pakistan have such issues that their nuclear deterrent is the only thing holding them from each other (and it could be argued India needs them to retain a counterbalance with China too). Israel meanwhile, keeps them because they're psychologically obsessed with self-defence.

I am also psychologically obsessed with self defense can I have some please?

The logic you use is compelling until you realise it leads to an eternal stalemate. No one can ever give up their weapons because they'll always have to be the first one, or they don't trust the "other side" to have them.

My issues with the security council are a different topic, but safe to say I'm not a fan

Anyhow. Corbyn's suggestion is very stupid, and I'm a big supporter of his. Worst move I've seen him make. I'm pro scrapping Trident, but then using the money to fund actually useful things for people, rather than building another white elephant which doesn't even act as a deterrent, just to keep the unions happy. It's economically and morally indefensible.

**Grey Templar**

Da Boss wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
If a deterrent is necessary I'd like everyone to be allowed to have them. Or is the sauce for the goose not good enough for the gander?

Of course the nations on the security council are all perfect moral paragons who deserve them, and the rest of us filthy proles couldn't be trusted with them.

I think the idea behind nuclear non-proliferation is that the more nations which have them, the greater the odds of armageddon getting kicked off. Whilst the nuclear deterrent is just that, a deterrent, it's not failproof, and the more of the things there are, the greater the risk. God only knows it came close enough to the wire in the Col War enough times, and that was just with two major parties.

It could be argued that everyone should disarm in that case, but so long as one nation retains the capability to make them, it is more or less necessary that at least one other party retain a roughly equal arsenal to forestall them. And since I don't see China or Russia ditching them any time soon, it's more or less imperative the US or UK/France keep ahold of them. Unfortunately, India/Pakistan have such issues that their nuclear deterrent is the only thing holding them from each other (and it could be argued India needs them to retain a counterbalance with China too). Israel meanwhile, keeps them because they're psychologically obsessed with self-defence.

I am also psychologically obsessed with self defense can I have some please?

The logic you use is compelling until you realise it leads to an eternal stalemate. No one can ever give up their weapons because they'll always have to be the first one, or they don't trust the "other side" to have them.

That's the logic behind nuclear deterrent in the first place. If everyone has the capability to wipe everyone out, then nobody will wipe everyone out. Mutually assured destruction, IE: eternal stalemate. Everyone gets to continue about their business

**Smacks**

Grey Templar wrote:
IE: eternal stalemate. Everyone gets to continue about their business

Unless someone inadvertently breaks the stalemate... then we all die horribly. I think that might be the part people object to.

**Grey Templar**

Smacks wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
IE: eternal stalemate. Everyone gets to continue about their business
Unless someone inadvertently breaks the stalemate... then we all die horribly. I think that might be the part people object to.

Well either way its far far too late to turn back now. As soon as nuclear weapons became a possibility it was too late.

**Breotan**

Da Boss wrote:
If a deterrent is necessary I'd like everyone to be allowed to have them. Or is the sauce for the goose not good enough for the gander?

This is a very dangerous point of view. Do you really think the world would be safer if Syria were given nukes? Iran? Perhaps Libya? Or, maybe you'd like to see ISIS with nukes because we wouldn't want to say that sauce for the goose isn't good enough for the genocidal terrorist "state", would we?

**Da Boss**

I guess the only other option is for you guys to give them up then. So sad!

**Kilkrazy**

Both the USA and Russia made significant reductions in numbers of warheads after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

I suspect reduction to zero is not realistic, especially with the various other official and unofficial nuclear states also needing to be in agreement.

On the plus side, there has been very little proliferation in the past 60 years.

**Smacks**

Breotan wrote:
This is a very dangerous point of view. Do you really think the world would be safer if Syria were given nukes? Iran? Perhaps Libya? Or, maybe you'd like to see ISIS with nukes because we wouldn't want to say that sauce for the goose isn't good enough for the genocidal terrorist "state", would we?

That seems like an odd statement from someone who believes that everyone having a gun would make for a safer society. Why is it that on an international level: potentially irresponsible people having access to deadly weapons is "very dangerous", yet on an interpersonal level, it's a god given right?

**Agiel**

I think if Corbyn were to become the PM, his military policy would be as clueless and meandering as John Diefenbaker's Ministry in Canada. If Corbyn's intention was for the W76 warheads of the Trident IIs to be replaced with conventional high-explosive warheads then I should hope he realises that what he is proposing is to turn Trident into an out and out terror weapon (circular error probability of ~100m is very good for a 100kt warhead, but with conventional HE is not at all useful against military targets like silo fields, airbases, or hardened command bunkers). And although I suppose it's theoretically possible to convert the Vanguard SSBNs into Tomahawk trucks (much like how the US Navy converted older Ohio subs into SSGNs), I think the idea of them carrying 112 precision guided cruise missiles could be seen as enablers for the kind of activist military policy Corbyn would very much love to avoid.

Also, relevant blogpost on my good friend Baloogan's website (not written by me):

http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/10/20/mirv/

**Peregrine**

Agiel wrote:
I should hope he realises that what he is proposing is to turn Trident into an out and out terror weapon (circular error probability of ~100m is very good for a 100kt warhead, but with conventional HE is not at all useful against military targets like silo fields, airbases, or hardened command bunkers).

Alternatively, an out and out suicide weapon. What are they supposed to do, call up Russia and say "we swear this ballistic missile launch is just an HE warhead" and hope they don't feel any need to launch a retaliatory strike? That's a pretty stupid risk to take, on top of the absurd expense of those missiles compared to just dropping a few 500lb bombs on whatever you want to destroy.

**Wolfstan**

Yes or No. That should be the argument, not this mess.

I'm a No person as I think our small arsenal of nuclear weapons actually means nothing to the big guys. There is also the fact that it would appear that Drone technology is close to taking away the stealth advantage that subs have at the moment. If that is true then there is a stronger argument for not bothering. £3 billion turning into a large water fountain in the middle of the Atlantic.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

For a while now, we've all heard that Trident will cost around 100 billion pounds, but trying to get an actual breakdown of the cost specifics seems to be a hard task. Does anybody know?

It seems to me that 99 billion gets spent on cup holders in the captain's cabin, and the rest gets spent on nuclear material!

And for anybody who doesn't follow the Scottish press for Trident news, you won't be surprised to learn that there is not a week that goes past when the Trident base (Faslane) isn't suffering a problem from lack of parts, dodgy security, or the subs crashing into the rocks!

It's a fething mess

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Finally, a technical question for the military experts, or even scientists or engineers.

People are saying that Trident could fall prey to underwater drones, but given that modern subs are designed to withstand so much pressure on the hull, could a naval drone reach that far down to trouble a trident sub?

Wouldn't the drone crack under the pressure?

Thanks.

**Smacks**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People are saying that Trident could fall prey to underwater drones, but given that modern subs are designed to withstand so much pressure on the hull, could a naval drone reach that far down to trouble a trident sub?

Wouldn't the drone crack under the pressure?

Thanks.

A drone could likely be built to withstand much greater pressures than a sub, as a sub has the disadvantage of having to keep people alive inside of it. In fact 'unmanned' submersibles of are often preferred for deep sea exploration. Communication with the drone might be more of a limitation, as radio-waves don't travel well through salt water. Modern subs use extremely low frequency transmitters (ELF), but the technology is very sophisticated so it probably wouldn't be practical on a drone.

**Wolfstan**

Smacks wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People are saying that Trident could fall prey to underwater drones, but given that modern subs are designed to withstand so much pressure on the hull, could a naval drone reach that far down to trouble a trident sub?

Wouldn't the drone crack under the pressure?

Thanks.
A drone could likely be built to withstand much greater pressures than a sub, as a sub has the disadvantage of having to keep people alive inside of it. In fact 'unmanned' submersibles of are often preferred for deep sea exploration. Communication with the drone might be more of a limitation, as radio-waves don't travel well through salt water. Modern subs use extremely low frequency transmitters (ELF), but the technology is very sophisticated so it probably wouldn't be practical on a drone.

I'd have to say that I would of thought the compactness of a drone would make it better for high pressure environments, just look at the mini subs and those remote explorer subs.

**Ketara**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Finally, a technical question for the military experts, or even scientists or engineers.

People are saying that Trident could fall prey to underwater drones, but given that modern subs are designed to withstand so much pressure on the hull, could a naval drone reach that far down to trouble a trident sub?

Wouldn't the drone crack under the pressure?

Thanks.

A drone could easily be built to withstand the pressure. The question would how to direct it. Not only would you have issues maintaining remote control capabilities, you'd have issues with locating the submarine when directing the drone. You might be able to spot a sub from above (if exceedingly lucky), but warships have far better and more sensitive detection capabilities than any kind of aerial or underwater drone could have, and submarines still manage to elude them. Modern subs generate so little noise and radar image that the idea of someone sitting in a base with a remote link to an underwater drone via an aerial drone being able to hit it is laughable. Even if the drone operator was on board a nearby vessel and using its detection suite, trying to guide the drone to such a low visibility moving target would be exceptionally difficult.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Peter Hitchens makes a good case that we don't need Trident anymore.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/01/the-bearded-pacifists-are-righttrident-is-a-waste-of-money.html

I personally think its a waste of money. We don't need Trident anymore, and the money would be better spent maintaining our conventional armed forces which are being over stretched and under funded. We're demanding too much of them, but not providing the resources they need. I oppose British military involvement in the Middle East, but because we are involved (increasingly so - we're already deploying ground troops into combat), our military should be properly funded. We can't exactly nuke Raqqa.

Trident is cannibalizing the Defense budget at a time when we need conventional forces.

We don't even truly own our own Trident missile system, according to Hitchens we rely heavily on the Americans.

Spoiler:

The bearded pacifists are right...Trident IS a waste of money

Trident may seem to David Cameron to be a very useful weapon for attacking Jeremy Corbyn. But does it keep Britain safe?
Actually, no. There is a good, hard, patriotic argument for getting rid of this unusable, American-controlled monstrosity before it bankrupts us and destroys our real defences. And lazy, cheap politics shouldn’t blind us to these facts. I write as someone who has nothing against nuclear weapons. I used to deliberately wreck the meetings of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the 1980s, by standing up at the back and asking awkward questions.
I was howled down at my local Labour Party (to which I then belonged) for supporting the deterrent against the Corbyn types (he may even have been there) who wanted us naked in the face of Soviet power.
When I went to work as a reporter in the Soviet empire, I was greatly amused by a visit to Kurchatovsk, HQ of Stalin’s nuclear bomb laboratories. All along the main street were witty banners jeering at the folly of giving up your weapons when your enemy kept his.
How I wished I could have shown them to British ban- the-bombers who (though they were shifty about this) always had a sneaking sympathy for the Soviet Union – as it then was – and scorn for the USA. In those days, vast concentrations of Soviet troops, tanks and planes sat in Germany ready to move westwards. I went to look at them. They were no myth.
Our nuclear bombs neutralised this incessant blackmailing threat. They made sure that if those armies moved one inch beyond their territory, it would end in Armageddon. So they never did move, and the threat was empty. It worked.
Then the facts changed. And, as that clever man John Maynard Keynes once drily remarked: ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’
The Soviet Union collapsed. I watched it happen, before my eyes. Its armies and navies melted away and its empire dissolved. Modern Russia, for all the silly nonsense about a ‘New Cold War’, would be our friend if we let her be, and has no interest in attacking us or any conceivable reason for doing so.
The USA, meanwhile, has ceased to be the arsenal of freedom and has become instead the headquarters of a bumbling neo-liberal policy whose main achievement has been to turn the Middle East into a war zone, which we could easily stay out of if we wanted to.
The principal threat to this country’s prosperity, liberty and independence has been, for many years, the European Union, whose agents work tirelessly inside our borders to subjugate us, our laws, economy, trade and territorial seas, to foreign governance. Trident is useless against this, just as it is against the mass migration now transforming our continent, and against the terrorism of the IRA (to whom we surrendered, despite being a nuclear power) and Islamic State.
WE do not even control Trident, relying on the USA for so much of its technology and maintenance that we could never use it without American approval. How independent is that?
Meanwhile the Army is visibly shrivelling, demoralised, ill-equipped, historic regiments hollowed out and merged, experienced officers and NCOs leaving. Something similar is happening to the Navy, saddled with two vast joke aircraft carriers whose purpose is uncertain, even if they ever get any aircraft to carry. The RAF is a little better off, but not much.
This is caused mainly by the giant bill for renewing Trident, which will probably end up more than £100 billion, at a time when we are heavily in debt already. If there were any obvious or even remote use for it, then maybe this could be justified. But there isn’t. We could easily maintain a small arsenal of H-bombs or nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, just in case, for far less.
It is not just bearded pacifists who doubt its use. Senior civil servants, serious military experts, senior officers in all branches, privately and in some cases publicly reckon it is simply not worth the money. Even if we decide to go ahead with it, I confidently predict we will have to cancel it (at great cost) when the long-awaited economic crisis finally strikes.
It would be a great shame if we failed to have a proper debate about this, just because it was easier to take cheap shots at the Labour Party. A grown-up country, and a grown-up government, would address it now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smacks wrote:
Breotan wrote:
This is a very dangerous point of view. Do you really think the world would be safer if Syria were given nukes? Iran? Perhaps Libya? Or, maybe you'd like to see ISIS with nukes because we wouldn't want to say that sauce for the goose isn't good enough for the genocidal terrorist "state", would we?
That seems like an odd statement from someone who believes that everyone having a gun would make for a safer society. Why is it that on an international level: potentially irresponsible people having access to deadly weapons is "very dangerous", yet on an interpersonal level, it's a god given right?

Because comparing personal defense weapons to Nuclear Weapons is a false equivalence?

**IGtR=**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People are saying that Trident could fall prey to underwater drones, but given that modern subs are designed to withstand so much pressure on the hull, could a naval drone reach that far down to trouble a trident sub?

Wouldn't the drone crack under the pressure?

Thanks.

There is speculation that drones would be used to monitor vibrations or heat output and swarm across the sea in search for them. This is complete speculation and no demonstrations have been proven in this area that would give cause to worry. It was just headline grabbing nonsense. As for all the other headline nonsense it's no more of a mess than anything else it's just misinformed journos like to talk about it because it is a NUCLEAR DEATH MACHINE OF DOOM!! It''s like minor part problems and nothing anymore serious than the rest of the navy but the word nuclear is a headline grabber. If you don't understand logistics or engineering.

**Smacks**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Because comparing personal defense weapons to Nuclear Weapons is a false equivalence?

Saying they are the same would be false equivalence, but I didn't do that. I fully acknowledge that one is for personal defence and one is for national defence. The question isn't about the weapons, it is about people's right to defend themselves with the best means available, and if that makes the environment safer. If there are a group of entities and they all have the power to wipe each other out, then are they more safe or less safe? Why is it more safe when the entity is a person (or a group of people), and less safe when the entity is a country (or a group of people)?

**Wolfstan**

IGtR= wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People are saying that Trident could fall prey to underwater drones, but given that modern subs are designed to withstand so much pressure on the hull, could a naval drone reach that far down to trouble a trident sub?

Wouldn't the drone crack under the pressure?

Thanks.

There is speculation that drones would be used to monitor vibrations or heat output and swarm across the sea in search for them. This is complete speculation and no demonstrations have been proven in this area that would give cause to worry. It was just headline grabbing nonsense. As for all the other headline nonsense it's no more of a mess than anything else it's just misinformed journos like to talk about it because it is a NUCLEAR DEATH MACHINE OF DOOM!! It''s like minor part problems and nothing anymore serious than the rest of the navy but the word nuclear is a headline grabber. If you don't understand logistics or engineering.

Even if you take drones out of the equation there is still the argument over whether Trident-

a. Really scares the people that matter
b. That we'd actually be allowed to use it
c. If we were allowed to use them, compared to the destruction the US could launch, what difference would our contribution make?

Lets be serious here, if it got to the stage where we were able to launch them the world is screwed anyway.

As I've said before, the big players wouldn't go down this route as they know that would be the end for everyone. The other lot of nutters wouldn't care, to them the fact that they managed to drop a nuke on us or trigger a dirty bomb in London, would be a victory.

**Agiel**

Finally, a technical question for the military experts, or even scientists or engineers.

People are saying that Trident could fall prey to underwater drones, but given that modern subs are designed to withstand so much pressure on the hull, could a naval drone reach that far down to trouble a trident sub?

Wouldn't the drone crack under the pressure?

Thanks.

Underwater remote-piloted vehicles controlled from the other side of the planet is a bit of a fantasy given that water tends to be a very poor medium for radio transmissions via SATCOM that makes aerial RPVs possible. Though there are UUVs, these are universally controlled via wire guidance. Though there has been development of autonomous ASW craft, these are unarmed surface vessels whose effectiveness is contingent on operating in permissive environments.

Then there is the problem of actually finding the Trident subs (be they Vanguards or Ohios). Given that Trident has a 6500nm range (for instance an Ohio at pier-side in King's Bay or a Vanguard at HMNB Clyde can basically hit any target it chooses in Russia, for instance), the other guy has _A LOT_ of ocean to look for them, which is kind of the fundamental problem a counter-force strategy against ballistic missile subs faces.

**Grey Templar**

Generally Submarines aren't staying hidden because you walk right past them without detecting them, its because they are hiding in the ocean and its freaking huge, and its impossible to be looking everywhere at once.

Its hard enough to find lost people at sea who want to be found and are floating on the surface. Its almost impossible to find something which is actively trying to hide.

**Smacks**

Grey Templar wrote:
Its hard enough to find lost people at sea who want to be found and are floating on the surface.

Or even a missing Malaysia Airlines passenger jet...

**Peregrine**

Wolfstan wrote:
a. Really scares the people that matter
b. That we'd actually be allowed to use it
c. If we were allowed to use them, compared to the destruction the US could launch, what difference would our contribution make?

The difference is that having an independent nuclear deterrent avoids the scenario where, say, Russia nukes a bunch of UK targets and tells the US "this is between us and the UK, if you stay out of it we won't launch any nukes at you, but we will retaliate if we are attacked". Just how reliable is that alliance between the US and the UK? Would the US commit nuclear suicide to retaliate on your behalf, or would they acknowledge the hopelessness of their position and act in their own best interest? Having an independent nuclear deterrent means you don't have to ask that question. Even if the rest of the world is willing to sacrifice your country as the price of avoiding a larger nuclear war you still have the ability to launch a retaliatory strike and make the cost of attacking you too high for any sane country to accept.

**zedmeister**

Kilkrazy wrote:
At the same time, isn't it a disgrace that Cameron has given members of the government free rein to act against government policy in relation to the EU referendum?

Don't understand why you find it a disgrace? Cameron (or any PM) has no say on how an individual MP may vote on, on matters brought before the house regardless on whether they hold a cabinet brief or not. He can cajole individuals with threats or promises (get promoted to/kick out of cabinet) and that's what the party whips do. But if a minister is dead set on a course and believes it right, whips and threats won't change their mind. And nor should they. If every MP blindly followed the party line, we'd end up back in the Blair era government which really was a Disgrace.

**Kilkrazy**

I find it a disgrace because the government has an official position on the matter and members of the government should either support that or resign as a matter of conscience.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I find it a disgrace because the government has an official position on the matter and members of the government should either support that or resign as a matter of conscience.

What makes you think these spineless cowards have a conscience?

**Kilkrazy**

They don't. That is part of the disgrace.