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.

Fething hell!

Jeremy Corbyn has succeeded in making Donald Trump look like Albert Einstein!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-trident-compromise-no-nuclear-warheads

There is an argument to keep Trident.

There is an argument to scrap Trident.

But this clusterfeth! A nuclear deterrent without nuclear warheads!

Corbyn is a Tory plant -it's the only rational explanation.

God help us...

What he is saying is pay for it but never have it.
It's an appeasement to the trades unions, at any cost.

It proves more about Corbyns economic illiteracy than his military policy.

So basically this guy is saying "we should have no missiles, but I don't want the guys who use them to lose their job so they can just chill out in submarines... just don't tell anyone there's no missiles so they'll be deterred tho".

That's useless. It means rearming a second strike system when its needed....

Trident is ment to be a floating arsenal, impossible to counter. Not vulnerable shore based fixed storage, a key target for a first strike attack.

The mans a danger!

 n0t_u wrote:
So basically this guy is saying "we should have no missiles, but I don't want the guys who use them to lose their job so they can just chill out in submarines... just don't tell anyone there's no missiles so they'll be deterred tho".

That's what he's saying...

I first read this article 5 hours ago, and I'm still numb with shock. How could any sane politician say this?

I'm against Britain having a nuclear deterrent, but Corbyn's plan is...just... I need to lie down!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
What he is saying is pay for it but never have it.
It's an appeasement to the trades unions, at any cost.

It proves more about Corbyns economic illiteracy than his military policy.

This is a historic moment on dakka - I agree with Orlanth!

Dave and Osborne are laughing all the way to 2025.

So what happens when the enemy finds out that the subs aren't armed...

 jhe90 wrote:
That's useless. It means rearming a second strike system when its needed....

Trident is ment to be a floating arsenal, impossible to counter. Not vulnerable shore based fixed storage, a key target for a first strike attack.

The mans a danger!

I'm against Trident renewal, and used to vote Labour, but I don't even have a clue to what the feth is happening to Labour these days...

It's nuts...

Even the pro-nuclear weapons side can see some logic in scrapping Trident and spending the money on the NHS or something, but this plan?

I need alcohol!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
So what happens when the enemy finds out that the subs aren't armed...

We send them a piece of paper with a picture of a giant mutated cockroach crawling through a ruined city, and hope they get scared

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
That's useless. It means rearming a second strike system when its needed....

Trident is ment to be a floating arsenal, impossible to counter. Not vulnerable shore based fixed storage, a key target for a first strike attack.

The mans a danger!

I'm against Trident renewal, and used to vote Labour, but I don't even have a clue to what the feth is happening to Labour these days...

It's nuts...

Even the pro-nuclear weapons side can see some logic in scrapping Trident and spending the money on the NHS or something, but this plan?

I need alcohol!

I'm for it but this is. Just decide if you want it or not. Not this half arsed stupidity. Fear that more than his rampant leftisam, your a leader, you have to chose.

Plus comments on negotiating over Falklands. Only about 3 chose not to stay British....

Deal with the issues like immigration, refugees, NHS, not this distraction. Falklands is a non issue, they chose to be British, we should honour that and defend there choice.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
So what happens when the enemy finds out that the subs aren't armed...

We send them a piece of paper with a picture of a giant mutated cockroach crawling through a ruined city, and hope they get scared

I can see stag two of this plan, having disarmed, being sending a particular film to the world's embassies then. :p

 Wyrmalla wrote:
So what happens when the enemy finds out that the subs aren't armed...

The captain of the sub sends any passing enemy ships a very firm letter requesting them to leave UK waters under penalty of possible fines from the UN or something.

At the rate he is going we wont need to be invaded.

No outsourcing of totalitarianism is necessary. Corbyn is running roughshod over his own party lately breaking its own rules to fill the cabinet with his cronies, most of whom are dangerously leftist.

If they get into power and have their hands on the tools of state, especially as they currently are we can have a fairly nasty regime on our hands.

Corbyn might have a woolly persona, but he has an angry vicious streak that surfaces from time to time. I think he will be a whole lot different when in power, and not in a nice way either.

The next logical step would then be to issue all of HM's Armed Forces with these

I would say that what he is proposing would be blocked before it got made law - but as we can see from the dishonest actions of the Tories, they can push through laws without consultation through loopholes and separate, rigged chambers.

While yes, the money from Trident could be used for the NHS - a better idea would be to sue the bankers who caused the economic collapse (something most other countries have done), fine companies abusing tax loopholes and to stop selling assets to Tory chums then buying them back again when they fail (costing excessively more than the selling price).

Corbyn is daft, but he's an honest fool. I'd still rather him in power compared to the current snakes (and that's saying a lot)

Well played Mr Corbyn, well played.

A move this idiotic can only mean he has out foxed the world and has actually devised a foolproof scheme to turn the whole globe into a socialist Utopia when Comrade Corbyn and Commisar Abbots authorit-tie will be supreme!

That or he's made yet another gaff.....hmmmmmm?

As things stand, Corbyn wants the Labour party to take an anti-nuclear stance. Unfortunately, the unions are dead set on the trident submarines, as they represent a considerable amount of work. Corbyn's proposal here is an attempted mid-way meeting, essentially he's saying to build an equivalent number of submarines, and just equip them with conventional weapons. That way, the work is guaranteed, the Unions come on board, and he can advance his anti-nuclear weaponry agenda.

Of course, the newspapers portray as if he's talking about building submarines with no weapons on though. Because y'know, anything for a headline. It's not like he has enough radical ideas without weighting headlines, y'know...?

 Ketara wrote:
As things stand, Corbyn wants the Labour party to take an anti-nuclear stance. Unfortunately, the unions are dead set on the trident submarines, as they represent a considerable amount of work. Corbyn's proposal here is an attempted mid-way meeting, essentially he's saying to build an equivalent number of submarines, and just equip them with conventional weapons. That way, the work is guaranteed, the Unions come on board, and he can advance his anti-nuclear weaponry agenda.

Of course, the newspapers portray as if he's talking about building submarines with no weapons on though. Because y'know, anything for a headline. It's not like he has enough radical ideas without weighting headlines, y'know...?

They aren't weighted headlines. ICBM launchers aren't much good for anything else, you cant just fill them with torpedoes.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
As things stand, Corbyn wants the Labour party to take an anti-nuclear stance. Unfortunately, the unions are dead set on the trident submarines, as they represent a considerable amount of work. Corbyn's proposal here is an attempted mid-way meeting, essentially he's saying to build an equivalent number of submarines, and just equip them with conventional weapons. That way, the work is guaranteed, the Unions come on board, and he can advance his anti-nuclear weaponry agenda.

Of course, the newspapers portray as if he's talking about building submarines with no weapons on though. Because y'know, anything for a headline. It's not like he has enough radical ideas without weighting headlines, y'know...?

They aren't weighted headlines. ICBM launchers aren't much good for anything else, you cant just fill them with torpedoes.

Conventional warheads on the ICBMs then?

 Ketara wrote:
As things stand, Corbyn wants the Labour party to take an anti-nuclear stance. Unfortunately, the unions are dead set on the trident submarines, as they represent a considerable amount of work. Corbyn's proposal here is an attempted mid-way meeting, essentially he's saying to build an equivalent number of submarines, and just equip them with conventional weapons. That way, the work is guaranteed, the Unions come on board, and he can advance his anti-nuclear weaponry agenda.

Of course, the newspapers portray as if he's talking about building submarines with no weapons on though. Because y'know, anything for a headline. It's not like he has enough radical ideas without weighting headlines, y'know...?

If Corbyn said that's he morally against nuclear weapons, and would rather spend the billions on the NHS instead, then even his pro-trident opponents could see the logic in that.

Even YOU could see a purpose behind that! No offence

But this half-way house? Spend billions on the subs to keep the unions happy, but not equip them with nuclear weapons to appease the CND mob?

Words fail me...

Satire is dead...really dead this time!

Well to be fair the decision on is going to be over and done before he can do anything that would block it

so there will be submarines contracted for with an unbreakable contract (or only breakable if you pony up the full contract price for nothing), so if he's not going to have nuclear warheads in the they might as well be equipped with conventional stuff

It's not as if these subs could be repurposed for other sub duties (eg hunter/killers), they are what they are

Oh and this is the man who said he would never use nukes building a nuclear delivery system he will not arm and soending billions on them.

They will be boomers though, there designed is mobile missile launch platforms, not hunter killers.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
As things stand, Corbyn wants the Labour party to take an anti-nuclear stance. Unfortunately, the unions are dead set on the trident submarines, as they represent a considerable amount of work. Corbyn's proposal here is an attempted mid-way meeting, essentially he's saying to build an equivalent number of submarines, and just equip them with conventional weapons. That way, the work is guaranteed, the Unions come on board, and he can advance his anti-nuclear weaponry agenda.

Of course, the newspapers portray as if he's talking about building submarines with no weapons on though. Because y'know, anything for a headline. It's not like he has enough radical ideas without weighting headlines, y'know...?

They aren't weighted headlines. ICBM launchers aren't much good for anything else, you cant just fill them with torpedoes.

Conventional warheads on the ICBMs then?

A £billion per vehicle bomb? Very feasible..................

 Orlanth wrote:

If they get into power and have their hands on the tools of state, especially as they currently are we can have a fairly nasty regime on our hands.

Ironically we already do.

Mcluskey has said he is pleased with Corbyns comments.

Typical of Seventies labour thinking. There is no political or strategic benefit to a nuclear less nuclear deterent. Spending Billions for short term approval.

A few months ago, I started a thread that criticised British army generals for threatening to mutiny if Corbyn became Prime Minister.

At this rate, I'll be joining the mutineers!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
As things stand, Corbyn wants the Labour party to take an anti-nuclear stance. Unfortunately, the unions are dead set on the trident submarines, as they represent a considerable amount of work. Corbyn's proposal here is an attempted mid-way meeting, essentially he's saying to build an equivalent number of submarines, and just equip them with conventional weapons. That way, the work is guaranteed, the Unions come on board, and he can advance his anti-nuclear weaponry agenda.

Of course, the newspapers portray as if he's talking about building submarines with no weapons on though. Because y'know, anything for a headline. It's not like he has enough radical ideas without weighting headlines, y'know...?

If Corbyn said that's he morally against nuclear weapons, and would rather spend the billions on the NHS instead, then even his pro-trident opponents could see the logic in that.

Even YOU could see a purpose behind that! No offence

But this half-way house? Spend billions on the subs to keep the unions happy, but not equip them with nuclear weapons to appease the CND mob?

Words fail me...

Satire is dead...really dead this time!

Eh. It depends on the details. If we're talking about literally having a bunch of submarines that launch cruise missiles, there are certainly uses for them (see Russia's eployment of the Kh-55 during the Syrian conflict). Whatever replacement for Trident is planned hasn't been built yet, so there's plenty of time to adapt the design so it could launch both nuclear and conventional warheads as needed. If you look a bit deeper into the announcement:-

Ms Thornberry said the idea of submarines equipped with conventional warheads, but with the potential to have a nuclear capability, was a posture adopted by Japan.

Frankly, I'm not aware of any ICBM subs operated by Japan, so I think she might be talking out her arse there. But regardless of that, I suspect the ploy they're trying to push here is that if whatever new batch of subs has the capability to use nukes, any subsequent administration who needs them can build them again and mount them for deployment without needing to design an entire new class of submarines. In other words, 'Get rid of them, because the world is a safe place, and if we need them again in ten years, we can get them again with minimal effort'.

Which by itself, is something of a halfway house. It's certainly a more practical idea than just binning them, and hoping that we have a six year warning of any sort of nuclear problems. And like I said, it also preserves the jobs the SNP are so desperately worried about (making getting them and the Unions on board a lot easier). Frankly, I suspect it's the most practical anti-nuclear approach I've seen taken to the issue so far in terms of feasible anti-nuclear solutions. Certainly, it deserves a better response than the media guff surrounding it thus far.

Having said all of that, I believe that needing a few months to build and mount nukes is about as good as needing six years to build a new submarine class in a crisis (aka, useless). Better to have and not need, than the reverse, eh wot? There are certain classes where modularity and the ability to change roles are useful (see our current destroyers), but I regard nukes as being too crucial to play that game with. YMMV.

Honestly, when are you going to "need" nuclear weapons? If someone's insane enough to press the button, you're either retaliating out of spite or you're the insane person who launched first.

Guess how many countries that have nuclear weapons have been invaded by a hostile force? I'll give you a hint, it's pretty low.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Guess how many countries that have nuclear weapons have been invaded by a hostile force? I'll give you a hint, it's pretty low.

Just to be a bit Cheeky;

The US, invaded by Japan
The UK, invaded by Argentina
The USSR, invaded by Germany (twice)
France, invaded by Germany (twice)
Belgium, invaded by Germany (twice)
Netherlands, invaded by Germany (twice)
North Korea, invaded by the US
Japan, invaded by the US
South Korea, invaded by North Korea
Pakistan, invaded by India (but claims to have never invaded India)
India, invaded by Pakistan (but claims to have never invaded Pakistan)
Italy, invaded by everyone
Turkey, invaded by everyone
Germany, invaded by everyone (twice)
China, invaded by everyone (thrice)
Israel, invaded by everyone (thrice)

I'm starting to sense a pattern here

*included in this list are countries that don't necessarily have Nukes but could easily procure them if they wanted (Japan, South Korea)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, when are you going to "need" nuclear weapons? If someone's insane enough to press the button, you're either retaliating out of spite or you're the insane person who launched first.

Because the fact if you fire, you know your going to be killed in response

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, when are you going to "need" nuclear weapons? If someone's insane enough to press the button, you're either retaliating out of spite or you're the insane person who launched first.

Because the fact if you fire, you know your going to be killed in response

You're assuming someone's mad enough to use nuclear weapons but still sane enough to care about living.