[Closed] Trident submarines without the missiles

he's becoming less the honest man (even if you think he is misguided) and more the slippery politician.

He could have also mentioned that part of the review would be looking at ways to secure existing jobs without the huge associated costs of Trident.

[quote=AlexSimon ]Really? Being completely clear and truthful about the reasons for doing something = slippery?Not slippery then, just foolish and incompetent. Which quality is more of a handicap for a potential Prime Minister?

Personally I'm still undecided which way I'd vote if I got a vote on Trident replacement, but if I had 2 options and one of them was this I'd vote for the alternative.

Not slippery then, just foolish and incompetent. Which quality is more of a handicap for a potential Prime Minister?

would America come to our aid in the next war?

Joined WW1 1917
Joined WW2 Dec 41

It could be argued that they were a tad late as the kick off was 1939 and WW1 ended in 1918.

And for clarity it was way after these dates that they actual took action.

Just for balance, best to look at facts rather than making it up. All those that say we don't need our deterent. Are you absolutely sure in this world of geopolitics. China expansion, North Korea, Iran, Russia invasion of Ukraine and. Crimea. To name a few.

Remember under NATO an attack on one is an attack on all. We deployed troops to the Baltic states last year, the trip wire. We could be dragged into another conflict? Turkey shoots down Russian plane, Russia retaliates. Wars have begun that way.

US did all it could to stay out of WW2 in particular. They ignored Japan until Dec 7. The whole "just rely on someone else" argument is deeply flawed. Alliances are about sides sharing responsibilites and having mutual shared interests.

Corbyn's stance is largely pointless and self harming as I don't see the upcoming Trident vote being "no" not least as it will still be official Labour Party policy, all this will happen before the Scottish elections when the SNP will beat Labour senseless over it including pointing out the leader has no respect or authority in his own party.

Yup agree, self interest would be a large factor and I wouldn't blame them for putting themselves first. I guess those that that think such an alliance would be a good idea with someone like Donal Trump consider him a sane rational politician and are forgetting such alliances are reciprocal! So should the US be involved in a conflict we'd have to support them or by being in the alliance a target. Remember Cuba? No threat to the UK but we were on full nuclear alert.

I believe the Asian Pacific rim is most likely scenario for conflict. China building islands and expanding its national sea borders. Conflict with Japan over islands. Over flights by US bombers. NZ and Australia closely linked to the UK. People have a limited view of where the threat lies. Who'd have guessed an assassination in the Balkans would ignite a world war

Time to check our alliances in that area.

Remember Cuba? No threat to the UK but we were on full nuclear alert.

Getting silly now. All this discussion of potential UK-US cooperation, who would support whom etc in the event of a nuclear ware is missing one vital point. In the event of a nuclear war, the UK and US will exist only in the imaginations of a few politicians and civil servants living out their lives in a concrete bunker. Does anyone seriously think that the US or the UK could stay out of a nuclear war involving one of the other? Bonkers!

US did all it could to stay out of WW2 in particular. They ignored Japan until Dec 7. The whole "just rely on someone else" argument is deeply flawed. Alliances are about sides sharing responsibilites and having mutual shared interests.

What you have shown is that its nonsensical to compare one set of circumstances with another completely unrelated circumstances and try to draw conclusions.

I imagine everyone, but you , knew this though.

Alliances are about sides sharing responsibilites and having mutual shared interests.

I'm sure the US could quite easily stay out of a nuclear war involving the UK, if the alternatives were to do nothing and carry on, or to strike back and have parts of the US reduced to dust in return. Which is hardly an implausible scenario if we accept the possibility of nuclear war. I see nothing inevitable about the US choosing to make things worse for the US.

What was the NATO of either war that compelled the US to act?

Funny isn't it considering the furore whipped up at the mere suggestion that the UK could leave NATO. Now it would appear the North Atlantic Treaty is not worth the paper it's written on. Corbyn seems to be winning the argument. 🙂

we all can but the point remains that the deterrent fails ONLY when someone uses nukes so, by their argument, this event can never happen because the deterrent is so powerful.

If we want to rely on a deterrent it really does not matter who provides it it only matters that the other side cannot take the risk that they will respond.

The point I was making that should there be a limited conflict in some region like the Pacific a reciprocal alliance would put us in the firing line. Made all the more dangerous by potential Presidents like Donal Trump, hardly a dove. This is destabilising and increases tension around the world. It does not follow that there would global thermo nuclear war.

Yes I would support staying out of a conflict between US and China over Tiawan as would Russia and France I suspect.
True were straying off the point.

Could you remind me of the treaties they had signed and the organisations they were a member of that compelled them to act? What was the NATO of either war that compelled the US to act?

A bit of a mute point as Countries often break treaties to suit their own means.

Look at the Appeasement of the Germans in the 1930's.

I'm sure the US could quite easily stay out of a nuclear war involving the UK,

You seem to be forgetting that deterrence game theory says that if one side launches, all the others will launch too in fear that their arsenals will be wiped out before they get a chance to wreak their genocidal revenge (or 'defend themselves' as it's euphemistically put). If the US can simply stand aside and remain neutral, then deterrence doesn't really work does it?

I'm interested though how you think this scenario could play out. Care to elaborate?

A bit of a mute point as Countries often break treaties to suit their own means

I can do this in crayon if you got lost at the hard bits ...ok last one.

It could not be more relevant to the point being made as the scenario pre WW1 or WW2 with America is very different from what we have now with NATO etc.

Look at the Appeasement of the Germans in the 1930's.

[quote=Junkyard ]we all can but the point remains that the deterrent fails ONLY when someone uses nukes so, by their argument, this event can never happen because the deterrent is so powerful.
If we want to rely on a deterrent it really does not matter who provides it it only matters that the other side cannot take the risk that they will respond.

What if there is no deterrent? Then nothing has failed if nukes get used. I've outlined a scenario where in the absence of a deterrent independent of the US, the US isn't directly attacked - in that case the nukes of the aggressor act as a deterrent against the US using theirs. As I already wrote, I don't feel terribly confident about the US acting against their own self interests - and I can believe it plausible that any potential aggressor against the UK would use the same logic. It's certainly not a totally inconceivable scenario.

JY so what is the penalty when the US don't come to our aid as per these treaties you are relying on ? We the UK will then be part of (say) Russia or wiped out ? Breach of contract is all going to be a bit redundant.

As interesting as this argument is here its not going to play out well on the doorstep and in any case by 2020 GE we will have voted to renew Trident (this year) and Corbyn will be long gone.

What if there is no deterrent? Then nothing has failed if nukes get used.

It's certainly not a totally inconceivable scenario.

Nothing is technically inconceivable apart from Jamby being wrong.

[quote=dazh ]You seem to be forgetting that deterrence game theory says that if one side launches, all the others will launch too in fear that their arsenals will be wiped out before they get a chance to wreak their genocidal revenge

Only if you don't get any indication that the missiles are coming your way after the launch - which isn't the case. Though the US policy was changed on this in any case, so they wouldn't be launching just because there are some missiles in the air
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_11-12/pdd

If the US can simply stand aside and remain neutral, then deterrence doesn't really work does it?

Congratulations, you've just worked out the issue with not having an independent deterrent.

It's certainly not a totally inconceivable scenario.

Yes, it is. You don't think a nuke-free UK having one or more of it's cities vapourised by Russia or China might raise a few eyebrows in Washington? I suppose all those generals - who of course historically have always been doves 🙂 - would be saying to the president, 'Don't worry sir, they wouldn't dare attack us, lets just sit tight and see what happens'. Like I said, bonkers!

JY so what is the penalty when the US don't come to our aid as per these treaties you are relying on ?

Your original point was so risible even you chose to not try and defend it ...as close to a win as one can get with you eh.

forgetting that deterrence game theory says that if one side launches, all the others will launch too in fear that their arsenals will be wiped out before they get a chance to wreak their genocidal revenge

That's why we moved to sticking them at the bottom of the ocean as a second strike capability. second strike is inherent to MAD doctrine as it removes any point in a decapitation strike.

no one really knows who would have launched against them with regards submarine based ICBMs. If we launch againt Russia, could be france or USA for all they know so who do they respond against ? As a result it would be pretty tough for the septics to sit it out as they are going to be targeted regardless.

you've just worked out the issue with not having an independent deterrent.

Its really obvious that if nukes are a deterrent and we have a nuclear strike then they failed as a deterrent.

Its not even worth arguing about it just is.

no one really knows who would have launched against them with regards submarine based ICBMs.

Don't be silly, the missiles would have massive flags painted on them just to make it clear who the aggressor is! What's the point in having an independent genocidal weapon (not calling it a 'deterrent' any more) if the victims don't know who their murderers are?

Its really obvious that if nukes are a deterrent and we have a nuclear strike then they failed as a deterrent.

I'll accept that if you accept that if we [u]don't[/u] have a nuclear strike then they [u]are[/u] an effective deterrent.

[quote=Junkyard ]Its really obvious that if nukes are a deterrent and we have a nuclear strike then they failed as a deterrent.

If we have a nuclear strike when we don't have a deterrent, then our deterrent hasn't failed. A US deterrent isn't our deterrent - that's the whole point - the point of it is simply to deter attacks on the US.

[quote=Klunk ]no one really knows who would have launched against them with regards submarine based ICBMs. If we launch againt Russia, could be france or USA for all they know so who do they respond against ? As a result it would be pretty tough for the septics to sit it out as they are going to be targeted regardless.

Except we're discussing us not having an independent deterrent, so there wouldn't be any nukes flying towards Russia after we were attacked, hence no reason for the US to get involved from that perspective.

[quote=dazh ]You don't think a nuke-free UK having one or more of it's cities vapourised by Russia or China might raise a few eyebrows in Washington? I suppose all those generals - who of course historically have always been doves - would be saying to the president, 'Don't worry sir, they wouldn't dare attack us, lets just sit tight and see what happens'. Like I said, bonkers!

I'm sure it would raise some eyebrows. One way to guarantee the US being attacked would be for them to launch following an attack on another country - yes I can imagine the discussions where they decide between doing nothing and hoping not to be attacked or retaliating and guaranteeing it.

A US deterrent isn't our deterrent - that's the whole point - the point of it is simply to deter attacks on the US.

As I asked before, could you explain in what circumstances Russia or China could strike against the UK without provoking the US to respond? And if what we crave is 'our' deterrent, then how come we basically buy it off the US? I bet we don't even make the plutonium ourselves these days.

Edit:

One way to guarantee the US being attacked would be for them to launch following an attack on another country - yes I can imagine the discussions where they decide between doing nothing and hoping not to be attacked or retaliating and guaranteeing it.

Well I guess that's a start at explaining it. Do you even understand deterrence and the MAD principle that underpins it? The whole point of deterrence is that everyone would launch, otherwise it doesn't work. What you describe is the redundancy of deterrence, which removes the accepted justification for having nuclear weapons. Unless you're suggesting we have them just so that when the time comes we can commit tit-for-tat genocide?

As I asked before, could you explain in what circumstances Russia or China could strike against the UK without provoking the US to respond?

because my crystal ball only goes a few years into the future it's dificult to see who is going to strike, it may not even be one of the established nut-job nations. It may have naff-all to do with the States, who could also change their stance in the future.

The big problem really is that the dark side clouds everything.

the whole point of deterrence is that everyone would launch, otherwise it doesn't work. What you describe is the redundancy of deterrence, which removes the accepted justification for having nuclear weapons.

So if India and ****stan go toe to toe and nuke each other, then either we have to join in or it proves that the UK & NATO deterrent didn't work?

A US deterrent isn't our deterrent - that's the whole point - the point of it is simply to deter attacks on the US

Please read up on NATO then talk about the scenario based on the reality if the world we live in yes

Obviously an american only deterrent does not apply to use.

This is not what currently exists for them or us so why base decisions on the scenario that is false/does not exist?

Sell Trident to China? Yes? 😛

[quote=dazh ]Do you even understand deterrence and the MAD principle that underpins it? The whole point of deterrence is that everyone would launch, otherwise it doesn't work.

Well yes, I've been busy trying to explain it to you - I even gave a helpful link up there which explains that the US policy isn't to launch because somebody else has launched (and ninfan helpfully - well it had to happen some time - pointed out that the world has moved on from the days when the counterstrike had to be launched before it was destroyed).

What you describe is the redundancy of deterrence, which removes the accepted justification for having nuclear weapons. Unless you're suggesting we have them just so that when the time comes we can commit tit-for-tat genocide?

Redundancy implies that the US deterrent is exactly equivalent to ours - I'm suggesting that's not the case. The whole point is that we have the threat of doing tit for tat genocide - remember this MAD thing you mentioned!

And if what we crave is 'our' deterrent, then how come we basically buy it off the US?

🙄

[quote=Junkyard ]Please read up on NATO then talk about the scenario based on the reality if the world we live in

Of course, the theory is we all defend each other, I understand that's how it's supposed to work, and TBH that's probably the way it would work - I was simply exploring situations where the US might wonder what the point was of retaliating as part of NATO, when doing so wouldn't recreate an ally from the dust, but would result in parts of the US being turned to dust. Game theory again - or maybe just logic which you should be familiar with, the sunk cost fallacy.

The thing is, if we had no independent deterrent, somebody mad enough* might follow the train of logic I've given there. Though just in case you've missed it, there are other arguments I agree with as to why we don't need nukes - it's just that I'm not comfortable with the one about relying on the US.

* still not mentioning him

Why should the Americans be the only people providing nuclear deterrent for Europe?

Klunk - Member
Soviet threat was a myth

Klunk, complete bollocks on the part of the Grauniad as usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

The Chiefs of Staff were concerned that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war, and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there existed a Soviet threat to Western Europe. The Soviet numerical superiority was roughly [b]4:1 in men and 2:1 in tanks[/b] at the end of hostilities in Europe.[1] The Soviet Union had yet to launch its attack on Japanese forces, and so one assumption in the report was that the Soviet Union would instead ally with Japan if the Western Allies commenced hostilities.

The plan was taken by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible due to a three-to-one superiority of Soviet land forces in Europe and the Middle East, where the conflict was projected to take place. The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers. Any quick success would be due to surprise alone. If a quick success could not be obtained before the onset of winter, the assessment was that the Allies would be committed to a protracted total war. In the report of 22 May 1945, an offensive operation was deemed "hazardous".

Defensive operations[edit]
In response to an instruction by Churchill of 10 June 1945, a follow-up report was written concerning "what measures would be required to ensure the security of the British Isles in the event of war with Russia in the near future".[5] United States forces were relocating to the Pacific for a planned invasion of Japan, and Churchill was concerned that this reduction in supporting forces would leave the Soviets in a strong position to take offensive action in Western Europe. The report concluded that if the United States focused on the Pacific Theatre, Great Britain's odds "would become fanciful."[6]

The Joint Planning Staff rejected Churchill's notion of retaining bridgeheads on the continent as having no operational advantage. It was envisaged that Britain would use its air force and navy to resist, although a threat from mass rocket attack was anticipated, with no means of resistance except for strategic bombing.

I'm not comfortable with the one about relying on the US.

I also dont think there is much need for a permanent ready capability as i dont think its likely anyone will sneak up on us and do it unexpectedly on a Sunday when no one is looking. TBH even if they would one has to ask , at that point, what really is the point in us taking the rest of the world with us?

Why should the American tax payers be paying for 100 percent of the deterrent Junkyard?

Why should the American tax payers be paying for 100 percent of the deterrent Junkyard?

Tom - With Junkyard and the other hand wringers on here, it's not as much about the money but the terrible nature of nuclear weapons.

They also can't see past the "who wants to bother the UK now anyway" argument, they must have some top quality crystal balls as they know there is no viable threat to our security as a Western Democracy..

I prefer the Roosevelt option of "speak softly and carry a big stick".

[quote=Junkyard ]I also dont think there is much need for a permanent ready capability as i dont think its likely anyone will sneak up on us and do it unexpectedly on a Sunday when no one is looking.

You're suggesting handing them over to the RAF and only to be used Monday to Friday 9-5 (early finish on Friday)? 😯

TBH even if they would one has to ask , at that point, what really is the point in us taking the rest of the world with us?

Slightly more than the point in the US doing that and guaranteeing getting turned to dust as well rather than staying out of it and intact - thanks for making my point for me 😉

You're suggesting handing them over to the RAF and only to be used Monday to Friday 9-5 (early finish on Friday)?

Second one is true but remember the deterrence argument is we only have to pretend we will for them to work. Its not MAD anymore.

Junkyard » I also dont think there is much need for a permanent ready capability as i dont think its likely anyone will sneak up on us and do it unexpectedly on a Sunday when no one is looking.

Junkyard - You constantly berate me for being feeble minded for not understanding your rambling posts calling "straw man" every 5 minutes.

You really don't know anything or understand anything about what a Strategic Defence is and what it means. So why do you continue with this nonsense?

[quote=Tom_W1987 ]Why should the American tax payers be paying for 100 percent of the deterrent Junkyard?Have the American tax payers saved anything by the UK having a few nuclear weapons? Do you think they'd increase their nuclear forces to match any mount we'd reduced by? If not, it's cost them nothing.