|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK Labour Party (Under Corbyn)
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes. The first nuclear submarine, the USS "Nautilus" was commissioned in 1955. It had conventional weaponry AFAIK. The first Polaris submarine, "George Washington", wasn't commissioned until 1960. The majority of the US submarine fleet today consists of "Attack" submarines armed with both torpedoes and "Tomahwak" cruise missiles - it seems that these latter no longer carry nuclear warheads but other forms of "nasty" instead.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There are plenty of people who say that Corbyn appears to say, do, be or think all sorts of things but they now, just a few months after he became leader of the Labour party, have only his support for Irish Republicanism to fall back on.
But he's the gift that keeps on giving: thanks to his recent Andrew Marr interview there's now nuclear subs without nuclear warheads
A sub without nuclear warheads is inherently better than one with.
I remain utterly amazed how many people are willing to threaten mass murder of civilian populations as a defence policy. I can't get my head around it. It's especially hypocritical when those people get their knickers in a twist over sympathies Corbyn is reported to have with the IRA.
[ 22. January 2016, 11:15: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I do think that anyone who holds certain of his opinions would find it extremely difficult to do the job expected of a Government minister in general, and a Prime Minister in particular.
That's a little bit non-specific. For a start it probably makes some assumptions about the expectations of the job of Prime Minister, and there may well be people who disagree with those assumptions. But, here's my list of what the PM (and the government they head) should be doing:
- Represent the people of the UK. I believe that fundamentally, the people of the UK want the following:
Enact policies that protect the people from exploitation by business, especially non-UK based business. Ensure the people are well educated, have access to quality health care, have an adequate income in retirement or in the event of illness or injury restricting their ability to work, have police and justice systems that keep criminal activity to a minimum, protect the environment for our children and their children. - Represent the UK in international relations. Support international aid efforts, including providing sanctuary to refugees. Promote fairness in international relationships and trade.
- In the event of war, provide political leadership with guidance from the military leadership who have the relevant expertise.
So, as I see it, the only question about the suitability of Corbyn as PM rests with number 3, and specifically if that was a war with a nuclear armed state where the possibility of a nuclear exchange becomes a real possibility. Since that scenario is incredibly unlikely his position on the use of nuclear weapons irrelevant.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
... Can you direct me to anything he has said more recently that indicates he now holds a different opinion, or has perhaps always held a more nuanced opinion on those issues than his cited words (or pointed silence) would indicate?
You mentioned his (reported) views on IRA terrorism. I can point you to this comment on terrorism from Jeremy Corbyn:
quote:
I am absolutely not in favour of terrorism of any sort – it is absolutely appalling and disgraceful that civilian life should be taken by random acts of terrorism, as happened in Paris.
He made it clear that he is "absolutely" against "terrorism of any sort". Yet people continue to talk as if he doesn't oppose some terrorism. So what is happening? Looking at the comments below the article in which that quote appeared, I was struck by this one (which, at the time of writing, has the most 'likes'):
quote:
As a Western politician, if you utter the line "I'm not in favour of terrorism, but..." you've already lost the next election.
There's a problem with that. Mr Corbyn didn't say 'I'm not in favour of terrorism, but'. He said 'I'm not in favour of terrorism of any sort - it is absolutely appalling and disgraceful that civilian life should be taken by random acts of terrorism'. Yet the most-liked comment on the article was by someone who (despite being able to check very easily) claims that he said 'but'.
For me, that's Mr Corbyn's problem in a nutshell: whatever he says, people hear what they expect to hear. I agree with you that his views have often been misrepresented and that this sometimes seems malicious. After all of this misreporting, it seems that some people 'hear' him saying the opposite of what he actually says.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There are plenty of people who say that Corbyn appears to say, do, be or think all sorts of things but they now, just a few months after he became leader of the Labour party, have only his support for Irish Republicanism to fall back on.
But he's the gift that keeps on giving: thanks to his recent Andrew Marr interview there's now nuclear subs without nuclear warheads
A sub without nuclear warheads is inherently better than one with.
I remain utterly amazed how many people are willing to threaten mass murder of civilian populations as a defence policy. I can't get my head around it. It's especially hypocritical when those people get their knickers in a twist over sympathies Corbyn is reported to have with the IRA.
Until now Corbyn has been, at best a bit of a nuisance on the government backbenches. Contrast that with his predecessors as Labour leaders who cravenly followed the U.S. into Gulf II. Afghanistan had some backing from the UN but FFS, do people learn nothing from history? The British Empire's scoreline there is two losses, one bloody draw and one retreat. We should know better by now. That North-West Frontier was well named.
As for the current governmnt and the coalition, well they have carried on the chickenhawk policy with no good reason and no idea what was to occur in Libya after Gaddafi (just like Iraq after Hussein). I'll bet they are at a loss what to do if and when Assad falls in Syria. You can add to that Austerity which through initiatives like the withdrawl of Disability Living Allowance is killing people as surely, if not as deliberately, as the PIRA ever did. If Ian Duncan-Smith and George Osborne think this is not so why do they block an enquiry into these excess deaths?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The irony is that Labour took us into Iraq, which cost who knows how many lives, and partly led to the collapse of the social fabric, thus empowering the militants. Ah but Corbyn is the irresponsible one!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've campaigned for a more representative voting system. I'll continue to do so.
Until then, however, no matter how broken it might be, the system we have is still better than setting about each other with broken bottles in the street.
But yes, those elected on threadbare mandates need to remember that hardly any bugger voted for them. Jezza will, of course, surge to victory on a wave of popular acclaim... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Fair enough. But it's the phrase "the democratic will of the people of the UK" that I'm objecting to. A Labour administration led by Jeremy Corbyn with the sort of share of the vote that I was talking about, would have no more genuine right to claim to be "the democratic will of the people of the UK" than either the present one or Gordon Brown's.
The fact that you, or anyone else, might have more sympathy with one administration that has scraped into government through the unrepresentative defects of our electoral system than with another, does not give the one you agree with any more legitimacy than one your don't.
If a Labour team led by Jeremy Corbyn were to "surge to victory on a wave of popular acclaim", that would put a different complexion on things, but how likely do you really think that is to happen? Unless one moves in a very limited social circle, it should be evident that just as there is a swathe of people who think that he and all he stands for are fantastic, there is another swathe who detest both.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
How likely it will be will probably depend on how you define "surge to victory on a wave of popular acclaim". Thatcher won her elections on not that great a share of the vote (not too dismilar to Blair or Cameron) and it was acclaimed using similar language. Somehow I expect a victory by Corbyn with similar share of the vote would not be greeted with such acclaim.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That's a little bit non-specific. For a start it probably makes some assumptions about the expectations of the job of Prime Minister, and there may well be people who disagree with those assumptions. But, here's my list of what the PM (and the government they head) should be doing:
- Represent the people of the UK. I believe that fundamentally, the people of the UK want the following:
Enact policies that protect the people from exploitation by business, especially non-UK based business. Ensure the people are well educated, have access to quality health care, have an adequate income in retirement or in the event of illness or injury restricting their ability to work, have police and justice systems that keep criminal activity to a minimum, protect the environment for our children and their children. - Represent the UK in international relations. Support international aid efforts, including providing sanctuary to refugees. Promote fairness in international relationships and trade.
- In the event of war, provide political leadership with guidance from the military leadership who have the relevant expertise.
So, as I see it, the only question about the suitability of Corbyn as PM rests with number 3, and specifically if that was a war with a nuclear armed state where the possibility of a nuclear exchange becomes a real possibility. Since that scenario is incredibly unlikely his position on the use of nuclear weapons irrelevant.
I haven't mentioned nuclear weapons. I'm undecided in my own mind what would be the best option. However one proposal I can confidently disagree with is Jeremy Corbyn's, which seems to be that we abandon the nuclear missiles themselves but press on with building the immensely expensive successors to the Vanguard ballistic missile submarines that are specifically designed as a platform for ICBMs. I'm sure he can see some political advantages in saving the jobs of the shipbuilders and the support of their union, but those would be unbelievably costly votes. I think the US have converted some of their Ohio ballistic missile boats to serve as cruise missile submarines, but that's because they had them already; they didn't set out to build ballistic missile submarines only to use them for something that a much cheaper vessel could do, and in fact would do better!
I'm sure that we could each come up with our own list of "Duties of Government", not identical because they would be shaped by our own priorities, politics and experiences, but necessarily with a fair bit of overlap. However that list is constituted though, I think that Jeremy Corbyn PM would face some really uncomfortable decisions. For instance, he is very strongly sympathetic to the point of view of some people who are implacably hostile to the interests of the UK or of some of its people (examples have been given above).
Please don't think I am blindly hostile to Jeremy Corbyn. I agree with some of his views (on Europe for instance and on education) and disagree with others. At the moment I'm relatively unlikely to vote for him because I doubt his competence and because I'm very uncomfortable with the "class war" flavour of some of the policy ideas he seems to be promoting. I'm old enough to remember how divisive and damaging secondary strikes and secondary picketing could be, for example.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
a sailor writes...
the problem with Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons on the Marr programme is that it has all the hallmarks of having drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by people with no idea what they're talking about.
Given the green lighting for replacement boats is likely to be in this parliament, we're looking at a situation where he appears to be arguing that the RN will get the submarines without the missiles. (which is most of the cost).
The submarines are not designed to fire any other sort of missile from their silo - so to be any use at all (and his stance is that they will be built and paid for) means we've either got to spend billions redesigning the entire central section of the boat for new siloes, or designing enormous (to fit in the silo) non nuclear missiles - the problem you've then got is that the sig of a fired missile of that size is broadly the same whether nuclear or not.
Essentially, therefore, you're asking any enemy to act on the basis that it isn't nuclear from launch to impact without retaliating...
as I see it, there are 2 equally valid lines to take on nuclear weapons:
1) you have them, in a posture of continuous at sea deterrence
2) you don't have them
anything else, any other "third way" like building the things without the missiles (or indeed any missiles) as suggested by Corbyn is a demonstrable waste of money by any yardstick.
The very worst is the previous LibDem preference of having the weapons, but not routinely deploying them unless it becomes necessary because we've entered a time of global tension.
Because what a time of global tension really needs like a hole in the head is one state actor ramping things up by sending nuclear weapons to sea when that's not what they're doing normally.
--------------------
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
Yes, it seems to be an ill-thought through position. Mostly a resigned acceptance that by the time he's elected PM construction of the subs would already have commenced and rather than scrap the programme he would want to explore an alternative, non-nuclear weapon, option. It's just that the option he's picked won't work.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
a sailor writes...
the problem with Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons on the Marr programme is that it has all the hallmarks of having drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by people with no idea what they're talking about.
He's far from being alone and you have a big advantage over most. Still, we all get a vote.
My #1 reservation as everyone probably knows is that the things aren't ours. AFAICT this "Independent Nuclear Deterrent" is a pretence. The boats may be ours but the missiles, ie the active part, are assigned to NATO. We are also beholden to the USA for many supplies and much of the servicing of the missiles.
Another issue is that the Royal Navy, although it has far fewer ships than not so long ago can't recruit still less retain personnel to operate them, train and take their leave entitlement and the rest. That may anecdata, but it really is! Operating some part of a ship is a skilled job that takes time to learn, and one never really stops. Still, if you are going to keep your sailors operational for longer and depress their pay and conditions in the interest of "fairness" what do you expect? TBH I'd rather have more surface ships which appear a lot more use than either the nuclear boats or the carriers, which may (or may not) have anything to carry, when they enter service.
--------------------
"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:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
a sailor writes...
the problem with Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons on the Marr programme is that it has all the hallmarks of having drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by people with no idea what they're talking about.
He's far from being alone and you have a big advantage over most. Still, we all get a vote.
I use defence (which I do know about) as the yardstick to credibility on what I don't. I do the same with newspapers - if they can get defence right then I trust them on what they report about other things. My parents, both of whom were teachers, did the same thing with education. I'm sure to an extent everyone does.
I'm afraid on defence at the moment Labour comes across as so much moonhowling. Charitably this is because the people at the top have spent decades thinking they'd got the subject weighed off by being a member of CND. However now, conventional or nuclear, they've got to start thinking it through - or at least thinking before they speak.
*If* defence on the other hand is in any way representative of the level of thinking they've given to other departments of state then I can only hope they don't get anywhere near power. You can do so much in 5 years to prepare, but I can't help thinking that they've got so much preparing to do from where they are now.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, we were so much better off with Blair, in terms of defence and the military. Look how much he has transformed the Middle East!
--------------------
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 quetzalcoatl:
Well, we were so much better off with Blair, in terms of defence and the military.
the 1997 strategic defence review which Blair ordered was the single best post war review (IMO) in terms of coherent conclusions, joined up thinking, and a willingness to ask "what are we for?" whilst not being beholden to sacred cows. It put objectives, and the ability to meet those objectives whilst looking out for the welfare of servicemen and women front and centre. It knocked 1992's dreadful "Options for Change" into a cocked hat (and Tom King should have known better).
It's just a shame that it wasn't properly funded or followed through, and its author was kicked upstairs to the Lords.
Nevertheless, as someone that doesn't usually vote for the red team, that review, and George Robertson, were deeply good things.
*Then* it went spectacularly wrong, obviously.
[ 22. January 2016, 14:14: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
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
There's an quote about how the armed forces are always prepared to fight the last war.
What Whitehall need to do is hire a bunch of sf writers and get them to wargame scenarios with the staff officers. Even if none of them involved invasion from space, I'm reasonably certain we could come up with a dozen ways to bring the country to its knees in 72 hours, given the current distribution of defence spending.
And that's the problem in a nutshell. Trident is a defence against the last enemy. Meanwhile, the stuff that makes a difference *now* is falling apart. Hopefully Thornberry can drive that point home to those who currently see nuclear weapons as totemic.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's an quote about how the armed forces are always prepared to fight the last war.
What Whitehall need to do is hire a bunch of sf writers and get them to wargame scenarios with the staff officers. Even if none of them involved invasion from space, I'm reasonably certain we could come up with a dozen ways to bring the country to its knees in 72 hours, given the current distribution of defence spending.
And that's the problem in a nutshell. Trident is a defence against the last enemy. Meanwhile, the stuff that makes a difference *now* is falling apart. Hopefully Thornberry can drive that point home to those who currently see nuclear weapons as totemic.
Interestingly, it's only relatively (ie I think Osborne made the decision) recently that the nuclear deterrent has been part of the defence budget. Before that it was centrally allocated funding for which the MOD was custodian. So the way the defence budget is allocated has usually been a conversation outwith nuclear weapons.
I wait to be pleasantly surprised, but AFAICT Thornberry has no opinions about defence beyond "trident bad" and has indicated that beyond that apparently necessary-now-to-hold-the-post conviction she is bemused as to why she has been given the portfolio.
My gut feel (and as I say I wait to be pleasantly surprised) is that the emerging Labour policy on conventional defence is unlikely to be any more coherent than Corbyn's recent stream of consciousness approach to not renewing trident.
You make a perfectly reasonable cases for not having nuclear weapons. Why didn't Corbyn? Instead of coming out with an utter dog's breakfast which doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny - beyond at least having the dubious virtue of being a make-work for the relevant unions....? It's not like he hasn't had 30-odd years to be thinking about what he would do if he could make the country dance to his tune.
I'd actually have had more respect for him (and her) if they just came out and said "the policy is unilateral disarmament, vote for us." Instead they're having yet another review about possible alternatives (the last one the Lib Dems ran *in government* and spoke to all the same people on all sides that Labour are going to before going rather quiet when oddly enough an alternative other than Continuous At Sea Deterrent or disarmament didn't emerge).
Why don't they just read that and then make their mind up? Smaller warheads/longer notice to fire/3 boats instead of 4/air launched missiles instead didn't exist as a sensible plan 2 years ago, and don't now.
The leg work has been done *in the last couple of years* - just come out and have the courage of your convictions Labour leadership!
At the moment we know what Jeremy thinks, what Thornberry thinks, what answer they want to get to, and all we get is vacillating and thrashing about wooliness attempting to square a circle to which there are only 2 credible answers - the one the Labour party and the Tories have historically had a consensus on, and unilateral disarmament. The problem, as ever, is that most Labour MPs, and certain unions don't agree with the leadership on this one. The GMB in particular has been very forthright...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But I think Blair has poisoned the well. Maybe he had a good defence review, but he helped bring about a collapse of the social fabric in Iraq. This is a terrible crime, and its consequences are still unravelling in terrible ways.
Labour have been scarred by Iraq. This wasn't because of any military miscalculation, but political insanity. Well, I suppose the paraphrase for that is 'looking after British interests'.
So people in Labour are (understandably) wary of any more right wing gits with delusions of grandeur.
[ 22. January 2016, 15:17: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
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 quetzalcoatl:
So people in Labour are (understandably) wary of any more right wing gits with delusions of grandeur.
I genuinely get that, I just wonder if the solution is left wing gits with delusions of competence... Competent gits of any wing might be step forward at the moment!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, I think Labour are in ruins after Blair. It's not pretty to watch, of course. I don't see any alternative to Corbyn - the Blairites are utterly bankrupt. Probably eventually, somebody will emerge, although looking at the blue eyed boys, such as Jarvis and Starmer, I have my doubts. We will have to let the Tories vandalize the country.
--------------------
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 betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, we were so much better off with Blair, in terms of defence and the military.
the 1997 strategic defence review which Blair ordered was the single best post war review (IMO) in terms of coherent conclusions, joined up thinking, and a willingness to ask "what are we for?" whilst not being beholden to sacred cows. It put objectives, and the ability to meet those objectives whilst looking out for the welfare of servicemen and women front and centre. It knocked 1992's dreadful "Options for Change" into a cocked hat (and Tom King should have known better).
It's just a shame that it wasn't properly funded or followed through, and its author was kicked upstairs to the Lords.
Nevertheless, as someone that doesn't usually vote for the red team, that review, and George Robertson, were deeply good things.
*Then* it went spectacularly wrong, obviously.
To be strictly accurate, the failing in Iraq are not in terms of strategic defence thinking but in terms of foregin policy. The two are, of course related but not quite the same.
The decision to put Trident into the Defence budget is a subtle but important one.
The notion of keeping the submarines but not carrying warheads does on first inspection sound ridiculous but probably warants some deeper thought.
If you don't believe in the value of a nuclear deterrent and are anti-nuclear down the line it has the value of being a policy in line with one's views. So why keep the boats? Well by doing so, you are not tying future governments to said policy and meaning that at very short notice (as we lease the missiles from the US) the UK could rearm. I think it deserves some looking at rather than being dismissed out of hand.
However it is appalling politics. It means offending everyone and as far as I can see is a lose-lose all round.
FWIW, I disagree with Sioni above, it IS an independent nuclear deterrent - for better or worse - but we've gone over that a few times on other threads.
AFZ
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, we were so much better off with Blair, in terms of defence and the military.
the 1997 strategic defence review which Blair ordered was the single best post war review (IMO) in terms of coherent conclusions, joined up thinking, and a willingness to ask "what are we for?" whilst not being beholden to sacred cows. It put objectives, and the ability to meet those objectives whilst looking out for the welfare of servicemen and women front and centre. It knocked 1992's dreadful "Options for Change" into a cocked hat (and Tom King should have known better).
It's just a shame that it wasn't properly funded or followed through, and its author was kicked upstairs to the Lords.
Nevertheless, as someone that doesn't usually vote for the red team, that review, and George Robertson, were deeply good things.
*Then* it went spectacularly wrong, obviously.
The notion of keeping the submarines but not carrying warheads does on first inspection sound ridiculous but probably warants some deeper thought.
If you don't believe in the value of a nuclear deterrent and are anti-nuclear down the line it has the value of being a policy in line with one's views. So why keep the boats? Well by doing so, you are not tying future governments to said policy and meaning that at very short notice (as we lease the missiles from the US) the UK could rearm. I think it deserves some looking at rather than being dismissed out of hand.
AFZ
sorry, no.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty specifically says if you disarm you can't re-arm. Losing it means losing it, and unless a future government went utterly rogue, it does indeed tie future governments. Genuinely, we either continue to have it, or we stop having it.
Having it but not having it on patrol just means, as I said above, that if you start patrolling again then that's an escalation.
On a slightly more technical note, while we're not doing any of these things, how do we keep the skills? Since we've not had carriers we've had RN personnel flying USN jets off USN carriers, and flight deck crew posted likewise. Are Labour going to go for a non-nuclear policy which doesn't bind future governments because they're sending our lads to sea with the US deterrent? I really don't think so.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
On a slightly more technical note, while we're not doing any of these things, how do we keep the skills? Since we've not had carriers we've had RN personnel flying USN jets off USN carriers, and flight deck crew posted likewise. Are Labour going to go for a non-nuclear policy which doesn't bind future governments because they're sending our lads to sea with the US deterrent? I really don't think so.
That's a good point but just how many aircrew and flight deck/hangar crew do we have? Isn't it going to be a drop in the ocean once we have two bomb magnets of our own?
--------------------
"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
betjemaniac - just to say I concur on virtually all your points. I'd certainly make the case for disarmament: I believe it's the moral choice, and I'd use the money to procure planes that worked, surface ships that don't have targets painted on the sides, and highly mobile ground combat forces. Also, hardening UK infrastructure against cyberwarfare. But neither of us are career politicians...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
On a slightly more technical note, while we're not doing any of these things, how do we keep the skills? Since we've not had carriers we've had RN personnel flying USN jets off USN carriers, and flight deck crew posted likewise. Are Labour going to go for a non-nuclear policy which doesn't bind future governments because they're sending our lads to sea with the US deterrent? I really don't think so.
That's a good point but just how many aircrew and flight deck/hangar crew do we have? Isn't it going to be a drop in the ocean once we have two bomb magnets of our own?
Actually no - the cadres are such that the ground schools for handlers etc are already spinning up again and by the time we need them we'll be fully self-generated again.
If you want to be really impressed (open source), do some googling around the RAF's "seed corn" project which has kept full MPA crews going since the cancellation of Nimrod. Not only have we been flying US, Canadian and NZ planes for them, but apparently our crews have been wiping the floor with the others on exercise. It's genuinely impressive what we've been doing with other people's kit...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
At the moment we know what Jeremy thinks, what Thornberry thinks, what answer they want to get to, and all we get is vacillating and thrashing about wooliness attempting to square a circle to which there are only 2 credible answers - the one the Labour party and the Tories have historically had a consensus on, and unilateral disarmament. The problem, as ever, is that most Labour MPs, and certain unions don't agree with the leadership on this one. The GMB in particular has been very forthright...
The real problem is that the leadership can't change party policy, even if they wanted to. The review is a tool to justify conference re-examining the issue and hopefully persuade enough people to support the leadership.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How likely it will be will probably depend on how you define "surge to victory on a wave of popular acclaim". Thatcher won her elections on not that great a share of the vote (not too dismilar to Blair or Cameron) and it was acclaimed using similar language. Somehow I expect a victory by Corbyn with similar share of the vote would not be greeted with such acclaim.
Nonsense, It would be greeted by at least comparable acclaim, of a very similar nature, but by a completely different set of people.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
sorry, no.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty specifically says if you disarm you can't re-arm. Losing it means losing it, and unless a future government went utterly rogue, it does indeed tie future governments. Genuinely, we either continue to have it, or we stop having it.
Having it but not having it on patrol just means, as I said above, that if you start patrolling again then that's an escalation.
[/QB]
Ok fair point. I'd forgotten the non-proliferation treaty issues. What I was reaching for is that our subs don't ever carry a full compliment of missiles. So not carrying any is a smaller step than one might imagine. But you're right about the escalation that occurs if you do carry them.
I didn't vote for Corbyn as my first choice and I am desperate for proper opposition to the current shower. I think he's trying to reconcile being a lifelong CND supporter with looking to lead a country that seems to want to stay a nuclear power. And it's a bit of a hard sell.
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Second post
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The real problem is that the leadership can't change party policy, even if they wanted to. The review is a tool to justify conference re-examining the issue and hopefully persuade enough people to support the leadership.
A question to which I haven't heard a sensible answer yet, is how a person - any person, not just Mr Corbyn, could lead a party effectively - should it turn out that the party has decided not to adopt a policy which which its own leader has closely identified him or herself. A party leader is more than just a chairman or woman.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I find it difficult to believe that submarines patrol, constantly and do *nothing* other than wait in case they need to commit genocide in a last act of vengeance from a dead island.
Surely they transport things/people, gather intelligence and carry weapons to down ships ?
[ 22. January 2016, 19:46: 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
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I find it difficult to believe that submarines patrol, constantly and do *nothing* other than wait in case they need to commit genocide in a last act of vengeance from a dead island.
Surely they transport things/people, gather intelligence and carry weapons to down ships ?
That is precisely why until recently it didn't come out of the MOD's budget. They do none of the things in your second paragraph beginning with "surely", and exactly what you say in your paragraph beginning "I."
The on-patrol bomber boat leaves the Clyde, dives, sits somewhere only the CO and navigator know for x months, then returns to the Clyde. In that time, the world continues to turn, the ship's company's relatives die, leave them, etc and they're not told until they get back to base. If someone is critically ill on board then they do their best to treat them, but if they die they die, and get put in the freezer til the end of the patrol.
Seriously, that's what the deterrent patrol is, and what it has been since it started in 1968.
--------------------
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
That is beyond 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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The on-patrol bomber boat leaves the Clyde, dives, sits somewhere only the CO and navigator know for x months, then returns to the Clyde. In that time, the world continues to turn, the ship's company's relatives die, leave them, etc and they're not told until they get back to base. If someone is critically ill on board then they do their best to treat them, but if they die they die, and get put in the freezer til the end of the patrol.
That's why the most important members of the crew are arguably the surgeon and the cook. I know an ex-boat cook and while he isn't a brilliant cook he is a very safe cook. You don't want a Trident crew getting food poisoning.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Just as long as there are two separate freezers.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
a sailor writes...
the problem with Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons on the Marr programme is that it has all the hallmarks of having drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by people with no idea what they're talking about.
He's far from being alone and you have a big advantage over most. Still, we all get a vote.
I use defence (which I do know about) as the yardstick to credibility on what I don't. I do the same with newspapers - if they can get defence right then I trust them on what they report about other things. My parents, both of whom were teachers, did the same thing with education. I'm sure to an extent everyone does.
I'm afraid on defence at the moment Labour comes across as so much moonhowling. Charitably this is because the people at the top have spent decades thinking they'd got the subject weighed off by being a member of CND. However now, conventional or nuclear, they've got to start thinking it through - or at least thinking before they speak.
*If* defence on the other hand is in any way representative of the level of thinking they've given to other departments of state then I can only hope they don't get anywhere near power. You can do so much in 5 years to prepare, but I can't help thinking that they've got so much preparing to do from where they are now.
As an aside the homily at Mass this morning mentioned people in an unnamed country in South America grumbling about money spent on defence rather than on poverty. That's right, the only thing preventing the eradication of poverty is defence spending. Right. Just like all those cows and sheep who will be transformed into picturesque pets when everyone gives up eating meat.
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
As an aside the homily at Mass this morning mentioned people in an unnamed country in South America grumbling about money spent on defence rather than on poverty. That's right, the only thing preventing the eradication of poverty is defence spending. Right. Just like all those cows and sheep who will be transformed into picturesque pets when everyone gives up eating meat.
If it was Brazil (quite possible) then the biofuel industry would make a big difference to hunger too. I don't think one poorly-aimed homily counts for much.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The word 'only' there is interesting. Who has said that defence spending is the only thing that prevents anti-poverty measures? It's possible that some party or politician has said this, but it sounds rather a blanket statement.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
If everyone gave up eating meat the existing cows and sheep might not become pets, but neither would there be so many bred and slaughtered on such a vast scale as we currently have. Given that 56 billion animals are killed each year for human consumption, we are artificially inflating their populations for our own diets.
And if we ate fewer sheep and cows there would be less CO2 equivalent going into the atmosphere (meat production puts out a lot of our CO2 emissions), and going over to plant based diets would allow us to sustain more humans. Growing crops to feed to cows which we then feed to humans is not a very efficient way of creating nutrients. Best to cut out the middle cow wherever possible, especially with the world population we currently have.
If you're concerned about climate change and world hunger, eat less meat.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That is beyond futile.
Is it futile for a poison dart frog to be so toxic that anything that eats it will be killed? The poison in its skin takes a fair amount of energy to produce and maintain, and by definition it will only ever be used against a predator once the frog itself is dead.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That's good for the species. The frog dies, but in the process removes a predator who would have eaten other frogs, and the predators that don't eat the frogs dominate the gene pool reaching a point where they instinctively don't eat those frogs.
It's not quite the same thing as a "mess with me and it'll result in the death of all predators and all frogs".
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
It's an illustration of how deterrence works. If enemies (or predators) know that killing you would mean they die as well, they are much less likely to try to kill you.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
That's assuming they are sane and have some degree of self-control. Given the people I've worked with in life, I'd say that's a very large IF.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That's assuming they are sane and have some degree of self-control.
Or indeed never make a mistake - which is very germane when we start speaking about the times at which there was *nearly* a nuclear war
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That's assuming they are sane and have some degree of self-control. Given the people I've worked with in life, I'd say that's a very large IF.
Fortunately it looks like the people at the Sharp End are actually reluctant to press the button. Here are just five of them.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's an illustration of how deterrence works. If enemies (or predators) know that killing you would mean they die as well, they are much less likely to try to kill you.
Except that the retaliatory strike would be pointless so why would we do it? So the enemy doesn't know that killing us would mean he'd die as well, because at that point killing him would be futile.
I certainly could not condone a revenge genocide which does no good to anyone, so nor can I condone the threat of such. That's why I morally and logically have to be a unilaterist.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's an illustration of how deterrence works. If enemies (or predators) know that killing you would mean they die as well, they are much less likely to try to kill you.
It's a poor illustration. There are significantly more frogs than predators, so if all the predators decided to eat frogs that would devastate the predator population, but make a relatively small impact on the frog population. There's no mutuality about the destruction. So, possibly more akin to what Reagan wanted out of Star Wars - the ability to reduce the impact of a nuclear strike on the US to "survivable" while retaining the ability to destroy the Soviets.
And, of course, the analogy also fails because we aren't comparing a predator-prey scenario. In nuclear deterrance the scenario is predator-predator. Don't kid yourself that during the Cold War we were the "good guys" who would be the innocent victims (prey) of a strike by the "evil Soviets" (predator). The Cold War was a struggle between predators to determine who would be top of the food chain.
--------------------
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
It also assumes there is no other deterent. One of the reasons nations do not attack us often - though they have continued to do so despite the fact we have nuclear weapons - is because we have a large well trained and well equipped standing army/navy/airforce.
(Of course the other reason we do not go to war often is because we engage in diplomacy.)
[ 26. January 2016, 10:23: 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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except that the retaliatory strike would be pointless so why would we do it? So the enemy doesn't know that killing us would mean he'd die as well, because at that point killing him would be futile.
We need to guarantee that we'll launch a retaliatory strike, because without that guarantee there's no deterrent, and with no deterrent there's nothing to stop anyone else launching a strike against us.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: with no deterrent there's nothing to stop anyone else launching a strike against us.
Um, that's bullshit.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Don't kid yourself that during the Cold War we were the "good guys" who would be the innocent victims (prey) of a strike by the "evil Soviets" (predator). The Cold War was a struggle between predators to determine who would be top of the food chain.
Oh, I heartily agree - we're all Bad Guys trying to get as much for ourselves as we can. Unilaterally disarming might turn us into a Good Guy, but it would also leave us defenceless against all the other Bad Guys. And personally I'd rather be a Bad Guy who's alive than a Good Guy who's a rapidly-expanding cloud of radioactive gas.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
