Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said he would be voting against the government because he "cannot support a weapon of mass destruction", urging Labour MPs to "respect each other's views".
I have some regards for this view, having been brought up with Quakerism, but I don't think he is actually a pacifist.
Surely the point at issue is whether the defence of the nation requires a nuclear deterrent? That is a matter of judgement, not conscience.
|
I would agree however many, particularly labour, view it more as a moral one rather than a plain old equipment purchase.
I think today's vote is little more than a rubber stamp exercise, does anyone think they'll lose this vote?
|
>> point at issue is whether the defence of the nation requires a nuclear deterrent?
My personal opinion is that we need it. I understand people have different opinions.
The only case where I think it is unnecessary when every other nations on earth possesses no such weapon. As long as even a single other nation has it, we need it too.
|
Not cheap to keep a few mass destruction submarines afloat for 30 billion pounds.
It supposed to keep the peace my willie is a big as yours.I hope they have it right.
|
"The only case where I think it is unnecessary when every other nations on earth possesses no such weapon. As long as even a single other nation has it, we need it too."
So they will always exist as no-one wants to be the last...
I'm in favour though.
|
"We are Britain.
"Mess with us, and you WILL get a shoeing. In fact, a little bucket full of sunshine.
"Now... look back and see what happened last time these things were used. Because the Sons of Nippon wanted to carry on... even though they knew they'd lost."
In those terms, it makes some form of sense. As a deterrent, carry on. It is only when it is used as an offensive weapon, or a threat - 'behave, or we'll ruin your day' - that one gets worried.
We had a few locally. It was a weapon of last resort, had the hordes mobilised and got close to taking out the Apartheid government. That would have been a response of pure spite.
|
From my understanding, totally without any real knowledge except books & newspapers, modern devices are way more sophisticated than those from 1945 and can be very selective in the damage they do.
Not that I would ever want to see them used, I would still vote to keep them, there are plenty nutter states out there
|
>> there are plenty nutter states out there
Nutter States are typically not our issue. Nutter groups are. This could be a group of only a few hundred yet they are not scared of your nuclear weapons, neither are they any more deterred by the nukes then they are of your smart bombs.
Now lets say one of those nutter groups nuke us. For the purposes JUST of this discussion, lets say it is ISIS.
So *where* would you nuke back?
Who are these nukes deterring?
Certainly no current state. Do we feel that a new country/state may arise with nuclear capability? Faster than we could re-acquire a nuclear capability?
In the end I think to have a nuclear capability just about makes sense. But I'd want to know what the minimum we could have actually is.
|
> In the end I think to have a nuclear capability just about makes sense
I was surprised to read that, your argument suggested you think they don't deter state nor non state groups.
. But
>> I'd want to know what the minimum we could have actually is.
>>
We're there now.
|
>>I was surprised to read that, your argument suggested you think they don't deter state nor non state groups.
I wasn't very clear, sorry.
I think if the threat we face and consider is today's threat, then nuclear capability makes no sense and we should remove the capability.
Thinking though about the unknown future, if a dangerous and nuclear state/country does start to arise, or an existing one becomes a threat, will we get the time to reacquire the deterrent? I suspect not.
How long does it take to get back? I truly have no idea, but its probably more time than we would have.
I truly think we would always be in the "have/don't need" position, but the thought of being in the "need/don't have" position is quite terrifying.
To an extent its like arguing about under-insurance to reduce premiums.
So for the *future* risk, rather than any risk seen today, it seems to me better to have it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 18 Jul 16 at 15:32
|
|
I like Radio 4, on Long Wave.
|
I like Radio 4, on Long Wave.
And like the days of the Medes and Persians, its days are numbered*. Arqiva, who own and operate the transmitters for the BBC can no longer get the valves. They quite literally bought up all the stocks they could and when they are gone - that is it.
Precious few broadcasters transmit anything on LW these days, and not at the power of R4 LW either. There is no suitable new transmitters made, and the days of the BBC being able to afford a bespoke one have long gone.
*Read your Bible, Daniel chapter 5 'Mene mene tekel upharsin'
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Mon 18 Jul 16 at 16:43
|
BUT no more Radio 4 signal, then the T-boats captains push the big red button...
I'm sure there's another way, but it is a good yarn.
|
>> BUT no more Radio 4 signal, then the T-boats captains push the big red button...
b***** that what about TMS?
|
Ian - it's all true. I used to work for the BBC
Sooty - DAB? LW does have a while yet, I don't think they are out of spares yet
|
Sooty - DAB? LW does have a while yet, I don't think they are out
>> of spares yet
>>
Phew, a while yet. Only thing I listen to on the radio really. Although I should get a dab radio for the car.
|
>> b***** that what about TMS?
>>
"...and here's Broad, coming in from the mushroom cloud end...
"Oh wait, the batsman is complaining there's something moving behind the bowler's arm."
Last edited by: Ian (Cape Town) on Tue 19 Jul 16 at 07:29
|
>> How long does it take to get back? I truly have no idea, but its
>> probably more time than we would have.
>>
I suspect that the related problem, not how long would it take to reacquire a nuclear device but how long would it take to have some method of delivering said device is actually even longer.
So of we gave up nuclear devices we have one time, giving up submarines would be an even bigger problem.
I agree that the need/don't have position would not be a good idea. So, until nobody has one.......
|
>> I suspect that the related problem, not how long would it take to reacquire a
>> nuclear device but how long would it take to have some method of delivering said
>> device is actually even longer.
Think Falklands, think Vulcan.
Did they not find an essential bit of the refuelling rig used as an ashtray in a Sgts Mess somewhere?
|
>> Think Falklands, think Vulcan.
>>
That was a while ago, no Vulcans left now
|
Precisely. So what other delivery is available?
land based ICBMs? Nope - the hide-with-prides of the navy.>> >> Think Falklands, think Vulcan.
|
I suspect that the related problem, not how long would it take to reacquire a
>> nuclear device but how long would it take to have some method of delivering said
>> device is actually even longer.
I think both would be equally difficult.
|
So for the *future* risk, rather than any risk seen today, it seems to me
>> better to have it.
>>
I think the best way to summerise it, it's the ultimate insurance policy.
|
Against nation states, yes.
But against terrorist organisations?
Want to push a button to take out the holy sites at Mecca?
|
But against terrorist organisations?
No, but then my car's rubbish at flying.
;)
|
|
More a burial policy surely? Anyway, The USA hold the keys. VLF (not BBC!) transmitters , with SW, keep in contact. Simple enough to knock out the transmitters if we do a Suez…..Just kidding:)
|
>> From my understanding, totally without any real knowledge except books & newspapers, modern devices are
>> way more sophisticated than those from 1945 and can be very selective in the damage
Absolutely.
They range from 'slap on the wrist' neutron efforts, which will make life rather unpleasant for anybody nearby - think everyone within a few miles dies.but buildings are left standing - to 'Oh dear, here goes the whole of Liverpool, turned into a carpark.'
There's tacticals and strategics.
None are pleasant.
|
At one stage, when 'Atomic' was all the rage (No, not 1979, Blondie fans!) there were experiments into Nuke air-to-air missiles, and nuke depthcharges - the ordnance bods were totally unaware of the principles of the gig, just thinking "this is a super explosive", and applying it in that way.
In fact, look up the death of John Wayne, or the Las Vegas 'Atomic Bomb' parties, where folk would gather on top of a hotel to watch the big bang.
Nobody understood the implications then.
|
>> At one stage, when 'Atomic' was all the rage (No, not 1979, Blondie fans!) there
>> were experiments into Nuke air-to-air missiles, and nuke depthcharges -
Pretty much every type of weapon was made nuclear capable, even a bazooka.
|
>> Pretty much every type of weapon was made nuclear capable, even a bazooka.
>>
Marvellous for the poor sod firing it!
Davy Crockett...
|
The day WILL come.......
There's more of it going on than folk realise!
uk.businessinsider.com/map-every-nuclear-bomb-explosion-history-2015-10
|
Isn't this going to end up like US gun control? Once everybody has nukes in 25/50/100 years, then the situation gets out of control.
I'm putting my money into genie-bottling devices.
|
>> Isn't this going to end up like US gun control? Once everybody has nukes in
>> 25/50/100 years, then the situation gets out of control.
Not really, cost will see to that.
|
|
In 100 yrs time there will be worse things than 'nukes', maybe Microwave based that will cook everything living but leave land and buildings usable! for the "New" Owners!
|
Neutron bombs do that already.
b***** frightening for PBI.
|
|
Nuclear weapons can't be uninvented, they are here to stay. Frightening as they are, you wouldn't want to be the only cowboy in town without a gun.
|
It worked for Jimmy Stewart!
Although he might have tied a.gun on at the end, now I think about it.
|
>> It worked for Jimmy Stewart!
>>
>> Although he might have tied a.gun on at the end, now I think about it.
What an eye watering image.
|
>> Nuclear weapons can't be uninvented, they are here to stay. Frightening as they are, you
>> wouldn't want to be the only cowboy in town without a gun.
>>
Wouldn't you?
Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, South Africa, seem not unduly worried by their lack thereof.
If a country were to launch a nuclear attack on the UK would I be comforted in my dyeing moments that we had killed millions in retribution. I think not.
|
> Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, South Africa, seem not unduly worried by their lack thereof.
Four of those countries have had them, had access to them or in a collective defence. So although they don't have them in a way we or france do neither are/were they completely lacking in them.
>>
>> If a country were to launch a nuclear attack on the UK would I be
>> comforted in my dyeing moments that we had killed millions in retribution. I think not.
it's failed in its purpose the second we actually have to use them.
|
>>>>
>> If a country were to launch a nuclear attack on the UK would I be
>> comforted in my dyeing moments that we had killed millions in retribution. I think not.
>>
>>
>>
The fact that we have them makes such an attack on us very unlikely. Would you be happy to live in a world where the only people with nuclear weapons were the North Koreans?
|
>>The fact that we have them makes such an attack on us very unlikely
Erm, could that be why it's called a nuclear deterrent - to deter 'others' from launching a pre-emptive strike on us.
|
>> The fact that we have them makes such an attack on us very unlikely. Would
>> you be happy to live in a world where the only people with nuclear weapons
>> were the North Koreans?
>>
The whole strategy depends on the aggressor nation behaving in a rational manner like cold war USSR
Would a nuclear armed ISIS state be rational?
Do you trust all future UK governments to be rational?
|
|
Vote passed easily, the majority increased from last time to 350+.
|
|
After the post Brexit fiasco could this be an outward show of strength and decisiveness? Random thoughts :S
|
|
I don't think so, in or out we'd have them and their replacements.
|
"outward show of strength and decisiveness"
I'd like to think that on such a serious matter they voted on the merits and their conscience and how they believe their constituents would vote rather than any posturing or tactical voting for any reason.
But I'm sure the referendum will have an impact on how our democracy works.
|
>> how they believe their constituents would vote rather than any posturing
>> or tactical voting for any reason.
>>
I doubt that in the case of the SNP member for the area around Faslane
|
Trident - a matter of conscience? - sooty123
