|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Thoughts on Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Why do you assume that? 100 years ago approximately 90% of housing was privately rented in the UK. Home ownership was beyond the means, not to say the dreams, of the vast majority of people. Houses became more affordable in relation to salary/wages as councils began to build large scale affordable housing.
It's quite reasonable to assume that council housing made rental properties less lucrative, which in turn would have reduced the price of houses as they would have ceased to be good income-earning assets.
The last three decades have seen that situation go into reverse. There is every reason to expect that we will return to a similar situation as 1915, albeit with better quality housing.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Not quite so. Well into the C20 council housing was often actually more expensive to rent than some private rented housing, because the quality was better- so you probably got more for your money but that's no good if you hadn't got the money in the first place. This was also a period (after 1915 and especially after 1945) of private sector rent controls. But on your second point Stuart Low, who is a housing academic at York, makes a similar argument to yours. He argues that the key decision point came in the early 1970s when much of the council housing built in the 30s, 40s and 50s had had its debt paid off: then, he argues, council rents could have been made much lower and that would have brought down rents all round because council renting could have developed as a low-cost mass alternative. But, he says, the Heath government decided not to allow this, just because it would have reduced values and landlord income in the private sector.
[ 01. October 2015, 07:54: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Mass killing. 'Mas murder' begs the question. You may think it'd be murder, and others might think it'd be murder, but rightly or wrongly quite a lot of established opinion doesn't think that killing lots of civilians by aerial bombing or missile attack in a war is mass murder.
I can understand why some people wouldn't want to call it murder but by any meaningful definition that makes sense and avoids political spin it is murder.
Not so. Murder is killing outside certain legally defined parameters and with certain legally defined mental intentions. As it happens I think that it would be wrong to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike because the whole case for having nuclear weapons is to deter such a strike and if they've failed in that there's no justification for their use. I also think that conventional bombing of cities is morally wrong. But I wouldn't use the word 'murder' to describe even the bombing of Dresden or Coventry.
Semantics. Still an evil action that should not have been done. I'm not that bothered whether it ticks the "murder" box or not; ordinary people still ended up dead in their thousands while presenting no threat to the people killing them.
Enoch; I did not say that anyone was a bloodthirsty maniac waiting for a chance to kill; I said they do not accept that mass killing is always wrong. If they did, they would not advocate a nuclear deterrent. That they do shows that they think there are circumstances in which killing millions of civilians is justified. I am glad that at least Corbyn agrees with me that there are no such circumstances.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Why do you assume that? 100 years ago approximately 90% of housing was privately rented in the UK.
The last three decades have seen that situation go into reverse. There is every reason to expect that we will return to a similar situation as 1915, albeit with better quality housing.
In this case the situation would be even worse, as you'd be positing deep economic depression. Economic growth since the 70s has been propped up by the premise that people's outgoings post retirement would be lower than that during their lifetime because their housing costs had already been paid for.
[ 01. October 2015, 08:52: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Why do you assume that? 100 years ago approximately 90% of housing was privately rented in the UK.
The last three decades have seen that situation go into reverse. There is every reason to expect that we will return to a similar situation as 1915, albeit with better quality housing.
In this case the situation would be even worse, as you'd be positing deep economic depression. Economic growth since the 70s has been propped up by the premise that people's outgoings post retirement would be lower than that during their lifetime because their housing costs had already been paid for.
Which of course isn't economic growth at all, but an increase in the cash value of a certain type of asset. You may as well treat an increase in the price of gold as economic growth.
If anything has kept rentals high it has been a shortage of rented accomodation, both in the social and private sectors coupled with an overheated credit supply for house buying (and we all know what that led to). I've bored everyone before with my posts about the number of empty homes in Britain (between 500,000 and a million depending on how and what you count) but if even a tenth were brought into use it would house upwards of quarter of a million people and reduce rents.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
But freeing up empty homes would hit landlords hard in the pocket, destabilise the buy-to-let market, and as a knock-on, push mortgage-holders into negative equity.
If you already have a house, it's in your best interests to make sure that the supply of housing stays below demand.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But freeing up empty homes would hit landlords hard in the pocket, destabilise the buy-to-let market, and as a knock-on, push mortgage-holders into negative equity.
If you already have a house, it's in your best interests to make sure that the supply of housing stays below demand.
Maybe.
But I would like to see some proper data on this. I would speculate that given how much demand out-strips supply, it would be really easy to create a 'soft-landing.' Even releasing 100,000 new homes now wouldn't (I think) cause a crashing in rents, just a (much-needed) stabalisation.
And I speak as a private landlord.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Here's the Empty Homes Network website. Links to Government statistics are here, which shows a reduction in empty social housing, but there's still a lot of it around.
The headline figure is that over 200,000 homes have been empty for over six months in England, and 610,000 overall.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Which of course isn't economic growth at all, but an increase in the cash value of a certain type of asset. You may as well treat an increase in the price of gold as economic growth.
No, I'm not referring to house prices at all - but going to the original post, which assumes that 90% of people will continue to have to pay rents till they die (and remember the life expectancy in 1915 was around 55) - which will entail greater savings throughout their life in order to make this possible. Hence a decrease in consumer spending and a knock on effect on growth (and ironically an increase in asset bubbles due to the glut in savings, coupled with a lack of investment opportunities).
[ 01. October 2015, 12:38: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735
My mistake, they require several days notice to fire. And they have to get the warheads serviced in Georgia, USA - so they'll be bugger all use if we ever end up in serious conflict with the USA.
ahem, *missile bodies* serviced in the USA - we build our own warheads.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace.
Do they? It may have kept a certain kind of peace but does anyone argue that it has averted all war?
... asserted that Trident is 'independent of the USA'.
That'll have the White House snorting into their cheerios in the morning.
I'm finally going to call someone on this - citations on the non-operational independence-from-the-US of UK trident please? Preferably governmental rather than pressure group...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I thought we needed the UN to release the codes to allow us to launch our nukes, even with massive weapons of destruction over our heads. I saw it on Doctor Who, it must be true.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735
My mistake, they require several days notice to fire. And they have to get the warheads serviced in Georgia, USA - so they'll be bugger all use if we ever end up in serious conflict with the USA.
ahem, *missile bodies* serviced in the USA - we build our own warheads.
That's not more autonomous - they are of little use without the body of the missile.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735
My mistake, they require several days notice to fire. And they have to get the warheads serviced in Georgia, USA - so they'll be bugger all use if we ever end up in serious conflict with the USA.
ahem, *missile bodies* serviced in the USA - we build our own warheads.
That's not more autonomous - they are of little use without the body of the missile.
That's not really to do with autonomy in the strict sense - missile bodies and rocket motors are on a rotation of several years for maintenance - so just a small percentage at any one time. So realistically the worst they could say would be:
"I can't believe you've just fired all those nuclear missiles - if you think we're giving you any more you can think again."
Given the end of days scenario represented by use of nuclear weapons I'm not sure the threat of impounding the small percentage of the total that happens to be Stateside at the time is much of a cramp on autonomy to be honest!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... asserted that Trident is 'independent of the USA'.
That'll have the White House snorting into their cheerios in the morning.
I'm finally going to call someone on this - citations on the non-operational independence-from-the-US of UK trident please? Preferably governmental rather than pressure group...
It's a fair cop, guv, but are state secrets likely to be the thing I can look up on the internet?
Let me put it another way: can you think of any scenario whatsoever that would lead to the UK launching its nuclear weapons without the clear and certain knowledge that the USA has done the same, and at the same mutual enemy?
I can't. I can envisage the USA launching without approval from its NATO allies. I can envisage the USA launching without telling its NATO allies. I cannot for the life of me believe the UK would dare do anything of the sort.
I therefore conclude, with some degree of certainty, that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... I can't. I can envisage the USA launching without approval from its NATO allies. I can envisage the USA launching without telling its NATO allies. I cannot for the life of me believe the UK would dare do anything of the sort.
I therefore conclude, with some degree of certainty, that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent.
That's a non sequitur. It might also mean that the UK is more likely to be more considerate towards its allies and take its commitments to co-operate with them more seriously.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Here is Hansard from 1995 reporting questions concerning the independence (or otherwise) of Trident. Lord Henley (for the government) is being distinctly cagey.
AFAICS we aren't supposed to know if Trident (or its predecessor, Polaris), is independent. My take is that it is only independent once it has failed to deter, Britain has been turned to glass (well, mostly), Radio 4 has ceased broadcasting and the PM's letters to Trident commanders say "Fire".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
My take is that it is only independent once it has failed to deter, Britain has been turned to glass (well, mostly), Radio 4 has ceased broadcasting and the PM's letters to Trident commanders say "Fire".
I don't disagree with that at all.
However, given those are the only conceivable circumstances in which we'd be firing I'd have said that the independence vests precisely in the fact that it's up to someone in/from the UK whether we fire or not. Precisely because we can choose whether or not to launch the things any time we like, without being ordered to by another state or converesely another state vetoing it. Sounds pretty independent, regardless of who we're paying for roadside breakdown assistance in the meantime.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
can you think of any scenario whatsoever that would lead to the UK launching its nuclear weapons without the clear and certain knowledge that the USA has done the same, and at the same mutual enemy?
*Dark Forces Humour Alert*
Just noticed that last bit - the joke in the British forces was always that regardless of what everyone else was doing, in the event of launching a general nuclear exchange we weren't going for the Soviet Union but France.
Because if everyone's going to die anyway why break the habit of a 1,000 years at the last minute?
I wouldn't be surprised for a second if the French didn't have the same joke but reversed...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
As we have covered elsewhere on the ship, there are a lot of red-herrings around Trident.
If you believe that they are horrific and unjustifiable in all circumstances that's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. And I suspect one held by a lot of people. To then go on about costs and 'truly independent' is all nonsense.
The Submarines are British, the warheads are British. The Missiles (IIRC) are on a lease system from the US. Given that no-one knows were a nuclear submarine is when it's on deep-sea patrol, it's not realistic to think that the US could suddenly recall them. So for all practical purposes they are fully and totally under the control of the missile sub and the command and control systems (which are understandably secret) of the British government.
There is one sense in which they are not fully independent but it's a bit technical and irrelevant. Trident missiles are very clever, they can hit a target thousands of miles away with an incredible degree of accuracy. In order to do this the launching sub must know it's location from GPS satellites. These satellites are shared with the US navy submarine force and so in theory the US could stop the UK from launching by shutting down the satellites. This seems a little far-fetched to me as I can't envisage a scenario in which they would. Aside from a mad UK leader threatening to launch an unprovoked attack.
So for an intents and purposes, the UK has an independent nuclear deterrent.
Whether that's a good thing or not is an entirely different matter.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I disagree, if another power services the weapons then they know exactly how they work. It is therefore possible to sabotage them covertly. It would certainly be technically possible to install something in the missile body that could be activated after the missile was in flight that could either divert or destroy the missile in the air.
And if it was a nuclear missile not under your nation's control, you'd be fairly insane not to.
As in, "oh look, a UK launch at a target we don't wish to destroy", abort mission.
I also disagree that it is not worth those of us in favour of unilateral nuclear disarment engaging in this part of the debate. We may be able to convince others to support the same end goal, for different reasons.
[ 01. October 2015, 18:15: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I did not know about the GPS thing, in which case, if were going to launch a nuclear strike against Britain - I'd probably take out the satellites at the same time as launching the first strike. If I have the capability to do one, I have the capability to do the other.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if another power services the weapons then they know exactly how they work. It is therefore possible to sabotage them covertly. It would certainly be technically possible to install something in the missile body that could be activated after the missile was in flight that could either divert or destroy the missile in the air.
The guidance software is all written by US engineers.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... I can't. I can envisage the USA launching without approval from its NATO allies. I can envisage the USA launching without telling its NATO allies. I cannot for the life of me believe the UK would dare do anything of the sort.
I therefore conclude, with some degree of certainty, that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent.
That's a non sequitur.
It's no more a non sequitur than believing that Estonia couldn't unilaterally mount an invasion of Russia, but the USA could.
It is a fond fancy to think of anything happening in NATO without full US agreement, and an equally fond fancy to believe that NATO members have a veto on US military action.
So, while I take on board that we can refuse to launch (one outcome of 'independent'), we cannot choose to launch, except when everything is lost anyway. You may conclude that Trident is therefore worth having, but I fail to be convinced.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if another power services the weapons then they know exactly how they work. It is therefore possible to sabotage them covertly. It would certainly be technically possible to install something in the missile body that could be activated after the missile was in flight that could either divert or destroy the missile in the air.
And if it was a nuclear missile not under your nation's control, you'd be fairly insane not to.
As in, "oh look, a UK launch at a target we don't wish to destroy", abort mission.
I also disagree that it is not worth those of us in favour of unilateral nuclear disarment engaging in this part of the debate. We may be able to convince others to support the same end goal, for different reasons.
and if it was a nuclear missile you'd let another country service for you, to quote you, "you'd be fairly insane not to" crawl all over it when you get it back, and have your own software engineers go through it with a toothcomb, to be as sure as you can be that none of those hypothetical "well they coulds" have been done...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
hypothetically...obviously...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Of course, but that doesn't mean you'd find it. It is a fairly huge, and obvious, security vulnerability.
As is software hacking.
And MAD is still a ridiculous military strategy with little apparent success.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Do you think we need a dedicated nuke thread ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Do you think we need a dedicated nuke thread ?
not really, it's the same conversation that was happening the other week on another thread - I'm not sure anyone'll change position so it would have to be in DH eventually! Happy to leave it there if others are and get back to Corbyn?
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I also disagree that it is not worth those of us in favour of unilateral nuclear disarment engaging in this part of the debate. We may be able to convince others to support the same end goal, for different reasons.
Maybe.
But:
The truth is that Trident (and replacement) is a surprisingly cost-effective way of doing what it's meant to do. (It really is cheap compared to the cost of trying to achieve the same thing any other way). Given that most of the money is spent in the UK and the total costs people talk about are over the whole 40 year lifespan of the system, the economics are irrelevant. The questions that matter are these:
1. Does it make strategic sense to have a nuclear deterrent?
2. Is it morally acceptable to have a nuclear deterrent?
The answer to 1 has a lot to do with credible threats and whether non-state action is the real danger in the next 50 years - or more precisely, if the existential threat to the nation from a foreign power (of for example, the cold war) is no longer a real concern. And, of course whether holding strategic Nukes actually helps or not. The answer to 2 lies in the don't want to but could and would if you forced us line of thinking.
If the answer to either of these is no, then everything else is moot. If the answer to both those questions is yes then Trident is the way to do it and all the rest about cost and independence etc. etc. is just nonsense.
So, that's why I think they red-herrings. Although of course a lot of politicians are pro-Trident because it's a macho thing to have Nukes and makes them feel good. That is also not a good argument.
AFZ
P.S. Taking out the US GPS satellites used by the navy is no small thing. For starters there is a lot of them.
[ 01. October 2015, 18:54: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[Crosspost]
Kk - I do find it annoying that commentators appear to expect a fully agreed and worked through policy programme in a fortnight.
If anyone tried to present that it would be a cobbled together mess with insufficient detailed implimentation and costing information - because 14 days is in no way a reasonable length of time for that.
People are acting like that is somehow bizarre.
[ 01. October 2015, 18:54: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
My problem with question 1 is no one will tell me what trident/replacement is meant to deter - therefore it is extremely difficult to reach an opinion whether it is now, has been or will be effective.
My primary objection to trident is that I believe that revenge genocide is morally abhorrent and wholly futile.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
My primary objection to trident is that I believe that revenge genocide is morally abhorrent and wholly futile.
I think that fair and compelling. It seems that the Labour leader also feels that way. As I said if that is the answer then everything else is, in my view, irrelevant.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
My problem with question 1 is no one will tell me what trident/replacement is meant to deter - therefore it is extremely difficult to reach an opinion whether it is now, has been or will be effective.
My primary objection to trident is that I believe that revenge genocide is morally abhorrent and wholly futile.
Doesn't it also invite further attacks? Of course, it depends on the scenario, but if you say that the aggressor is Russia, which has fired a missile on a British city, and a British sub retaliates and hits Moscow, are the Russians going to say, OK, fair enough, that's a draw? Well, they might, but they might also think, let's simply erase the UK from the map. Then British subs do what?
Of course, with other aggressors, you get a different scenario, e.g. Iran. But how do you calculate the outcome?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Then British subs do what?
Keep listening for Radio4, and open the prime-ministerial letter; which may contain; strike, hold, use your own judgement, or place yourself under US/Aus command.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
but if you say that the aggressor is Russia, which has fired a missile on a British city, and a British sub retaliates and hits Moscow, are the Russians going to say, OK, fair enough, that's a draw? Well, they might, but they might also think, let's simply erase the UK from the map. Then British subs do what?
In that scenario the British subs do nothing. Unless it's one of those very few times when one sub is heading out to patrol and another is still there there will only be one sub. That missile launch on Moscow will reveal it's position, the next Russian move will be to sink it. End of British deterrent. The only logical way to use a submarine based deterrent system is to launch all the missiles at once (at least all the missiles from a single boat), at which point the boat becomes irrelevant and the enemy can sink it if they feel it's worth the effort to remove what is no longer a threat.
PS. I think the GPS signals are used for missile guidance after it breaks the surface, with more traditional internal inertial system to provide backup and a redundancy against GPS loss (who care's if your nuke goes off 20m from the target?). GPS signals do not penetrate more than a few cm of sea water, so the subs might deploy a buoy occasionally to verify position from GPS but rely on other means for routine navigation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
And MAD is still a ridiculous military strategy with little apparent success.
The idea of MAD is that nobody will use a nuke, because if they do, everyone will.
So far, nobody has used a nuke in warfare since Nagasaki. So in a sense, that's "success". It's not supposed to prevent any kind of armed conflict.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm going to put this opinion piece here.
quote:
If the US pulled the plug on the UK nuclear program, Trident would be immediately unable to fire, making the submarines little more than expensive, undersea follies.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
And MAD is still a ridiculous military strategy with little apparent success.
The idea of MAD is that nobody will use a nuke, because if they do, everyone will.
So far, nobody has used a nuke in warfare since Nagasaki. So in a sense, that's "success". It's not supposed to prevent any kind of armed conflict.
Well, my anti-crocodile powder is a great success, as I sprinkle it every night in the back garden, and guess what, so far (touch wood), we have been crocodile free. In fact, the manufacturers have asked me to contribute a testimonial, which I am happy to do, as keeping crocs away is something of an obsession of mine. Recommended!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Alan Cresswell: In that scenario the British subs do nothing. Unless it's one of those very few times when one sub is heading out to patrol and another is still there there will only be one sub. That missile launch on Moscow will reveal it's position, the next Russian move will be to sink it. End of British deterrent.
But a jolly good deterrent it was, old chap.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, there is the argument that having a deterrent like Trident is in effect, painting a target on yourself. It might stop a small state from attacking, since there would be retaliation, but presumably, in an Armageddon situation, a state such as Russia would calculate that retaliation from the UK would enable Russia to erase the UK permanently with a massive attack. Presumably, the US and Russia would be busy erasing the world.
Incidentally, this discussion is an example of how Corbyn's rise has brought about discussion of various political topics, which normally exist in a deep slumber, both within Labour, and across the political spectrum.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
And MAD is still a ridiculous military strategy with little apparent success.
The idea of MAD is that nobody will use a nuke, because if they do, everyone will.
So far, nobody has used a nuke in warfare since Nagasaki. So in a sense, that's "success". It's not supposed to prevent any kind of armed conflict.
If you argue that MAD worked in the sense that a true East / West confrontation never happened, you probably can't avoid the conclusion that the major powers fought multiple conflicts through surrogates because they were terrified of fighting each other directly. Whilst this may be less horrific for the main powers, I suspect that is no comfort to those affected.
Interstingly, even if you disagree with Corbyn, it's difficult to avoid the fact that he is and has been entirely consistent on this: opposing nuclear weapons and our role in other conflicts.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, nobody knew that Corbyn was against nuclear weapons and against war. Or at least, he kept this very secret, never spoke about it in public, didn't go to anti-war meetings and demonstrations.
The sneaky bastard, why didn't he tell us before the leadership election about this?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to put this opinion piece here.
quote:
If the US pulled the plug on the UK nuclear program, Trident would be immediately unable to fire, making the submarines little more than expensive, undersea follies.
I'm tempted to go through this line by line as a fisking but I got bored of spotting errors about 3 paras in.
"the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines depend on Washington" - no it doesn't
"British subs must regularly go to Kings Bay Georgia for maintenance" - no, the missile bodies, NOT the submarines - they're maintained in, er, Devonport (see below)
"the four UK boats are copies of US Ohio class Trident submersibles" - no they aren't. The tubes are the same (odd that, what with them firing the same missile), but the submarines? That's just untrue.
"the UK nuclear site at Davenport" - Devonport
Does it get better?
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
And MAD is still a ridiculous military strategy with little apparent success.
The idea of MAD is that nobody will use a nuke, because if they do, everyone will.
So far, nobody has used a nuke in warfare since Nagasaki. So in a sense, that's "success". It's not supposed to prevent any kind of armed conflict.
Well, my anti-crocodile powder is a great success, as I sprinkle it every night in the back garden, and guess what, so far (touch wood), we have been crocodile free. In fact, the manufacturers have asked me to contribute a testimonial, which I am happy to do, as keeping crocs away is something of an obsession of mine. Recommended!
Was going to post this but quetzalcoatl beat me to it.
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
So long as nuclear weapons exist, MAD makes perfect sense to me for one perfectly valid reason - the ability to guarantee to any other nuclear-armed nation that if they wipe us out we will wipe them out in turn is the most certain way to prevent them from wiping us out in the first place.
It's not about "revenge genocide". It's about making sure there's no genocide to avenge in the first place.
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them throws his gun away then there's nothing* to stop the other from shooting him and walking away whistling a happy tune.
And frankly, telling the other person that you won't shoot even if he does is functionally the same as throwing your gun away. Either way, it means there wouldn't be any negative consequence for him if he kills you.
.
*= well, except kindness, empathy and common human decency. But anyone who relies entirely upon those things for their safety is a fucking idiot - and that goes double for a national leader who is responsible for the safety of their entire population.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So long as nuclear weapons exist, MAD makes perfect sense to me for one perfectly valid reason - the ability to guarantee to any other nuclear-armed nation that if they wipe us out we will wipe them out in turn is the most certain way to prevent them from wiping us out in the first place.
It's not about "revenge genocide". It's about making sure there's no genocide to avenge in the first place.
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them throws his gun away then there's nothing* to stop the other from shooting him and walking away whistling a happy tune.
And frankly, telling the other person that you won't shoot even if he does is functionally the same as throwing your gun away. Either way, it means there wouldn't be any negative consequence for him if he kills you.
.
*= well, except kindness, empathy and common human decency. But anyone who relies entirely upon those things for their safety is a fucking idiot - and that goes double for a national leader who is responsible for the safety of their entire population.
<my italics> This works while we don't have a 'third man' ie a 'rogue' group getting hold of a nuke or two. If said group doesn't have an obvious sovereign territory to retaliate against, you're fucked.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them sneezes, they're both dead.
Fixed that for you.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
This works while we don't have a 'third man' ie a 'rogue' group getting hold of a nuke or two. If said group doesn't have an obvious sovereign territory to retaliate against, you're fucked.
This is true. But it's just as true whether we have nukes or don't, so could be said to be irrelevant to the question.
Of course, the other way MAD doesn't work is if the other person (or state) wants you dead so badly - or is so insane - that they don't care if they die as well or not. But again, if that's the case then you're fucked whether you have nukes or don't.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them sneezes, they're both dead.
Fixed that for you.
If you can figure out a way to get every single country in the world to swear off nuclear weapons for ever and ever amen then I'll be the happiest bunny in the warren. Until then, it remains the case that MAD is the best defence against being nuked.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
