On Austrailia, from the Australian
"British nuclear expert Stephen Ludlam to head Australian Submarine Corporation - A LEADING British expert in nuclear engineering technology, Stephen Ludlam, has been appointed the new head of the Australian Submarine Corporation.
Mr Ludlam, 56, currently president of Rolls Royce Submarines, was selected after a global search for the new head of Australia's only government-owned prime defence contractor, ASC said today."
So does TJ think the aussies are going to remain non-nuclear?
Folk are going on about the long timescales involved in development and upkeep of a strategic nuclear weapon system. How about we use that same timescale to re-position ourselves as a nation by ducking out of all these overseas operations and mending relationships instead?
Carbis - isn't that just nuclear powered submarines?
I like the argument that because we are hated we need more nukes - how about rather than cementing our position as a hated country we try a differenct approach?
I [i]think[/i] the only "proper" war against a serious military power that the MOD frets about still is Russia. [Someone please correct me if we still have a plan for thrashing Jerry]
Russia might quite conceivably take a gamble on annexing Estonia. Estonia is a member of NATO and a Russian attack on it would require a military response from us.
Russia will not even consider attacking Estonia if it believes in the probability of a serious military response from NATO. So maintaining a proper military deterrent has some importance in guaranteeing the security of the Eastern approaches to Europe still. The Russian military regularly war-games operations in the Baltic, this is not an idle point entirely.
Of course, the principal guarantor of European military security through NATO is the US. At present, it just about suits US strategic interests to guarantee the security of a whole continent despite the fact that many European countries do not invest in their own defence and do not hae credible armed forces. This raises the question of whether however the US could necessarily always be persuaded to guarantee European security if everyone in Europe stopped bothering and simply relied on the US. My guess is that frustration in the US military, the inability to conduct joint exercises or integrate other people's forces, a couple of right-wing isolationist administrations and a budget freeze and you'd find NATO had largely collapsed as a result of US indiifference. So proper spending on defence (even at our very low level) may be seen as leveraging the much greater US capability. Looked at like that, it's rather good value.
I think that's a reasonable argument for high defence spending. I'm not convinced it gets you over the line on Trident. But I think the point of that is that it stands behind conventional force, and limits the scope of conventional warfare. We aren't deterring Iran or North Korea with this stuff, we're underwriting our ability to fight conventional wars. It remains the case that any country with this capacity is immune to conventional wars that threaten its territory (that's why ****stan has it, and why Iran wants it).
Our territory is not threatened at all in the forseeable future, because Europe has been built into a massive, economically integrated area of peace and security. But to make that work its borders have to be guaranteed. Enlargement has taken Europe's borders up against some places which aren't themselves safe from their neighbours. Making Europe work for these countries and ultimately for us involves guaranteeing their security.
Don't know. Post already too long. I think that's how the argument runs anyway. It's not fundamentally about facing down mad mullahs inTehran with maniacal plans for world annihilation.
Can't we just give nukes to everyone? According to the pro-lobby, that would guarantee world peace.
Best contribution yet BigDummy (IMHO of course)
I buy the argument entirely that we need credible military forces - just as you state does that make the case for serious nukes?
Myself I'd like to see the money spent on nukes split half to healthcare and social care and half to conventional forces
Druidh - don't you understand - johnny foreigner cannot be trusted with big bangs - especially if he is of the darker hue variety or has funny religious beliefs.
This raises the question of whether however the US could necessarily always be persuaded to guarantee European security if everyone in Europe stopped bothering and simply relied on the US. My guess is that frustration in the US military, the inability to conduct joint exercises or integrate other people's forces, a couple of right-wing isolationist administrations and a budget freeze and you'd find NATO had largely collapsed as a result of US indiifference. So proper spending on defence (even at our very low level) may be seen as leveraging the much greater US capability. Looked at like that, it's rather good value.
The only sensible argument in favour so far. I'm still not convinced it's worth it though personally.
You could just as well say that increasing foreign holidays or watching tv obviously stopped nuclear armageddon.
Can't you just picture the scene...
[i]Excuse me Mr Krushchev, are we going to bomb america or what[/i]
[i]Not now Sergie, can't you see I'm watching the Brady Bunch"[/i]
BigDummy:
I don’t see Russia annexing Estonia...not anymore. Because of the way that Estonian country is split (30% Russian minority that were forcibly sent there in WWII to quell Estonian nationalism – They speak Russian, watch Russian media, go to Russian schools i.e. haven’t integrated into ESTONIAN society) that would be the ideal place to annex. However, Estonia’s inclusion into Nato has made that too big of a gamble. My guess is that if they were to make a territorial advancement, it would be a former eastern bloc country that does not belong to NATO. Ukraine, maybe.
Also, I believe your statement of US security. It’s been noted with countries like Czech Republic that once they join NATO, the membership costs are so high that they have to make sacrifices in the infrastructure of their own military which lessens it’s capacity and capability. Also in this respect, high defence spending is an interesting point. 70% of the budget of the US military is spent on wages. Seems pretty insane, doesn’t it? Finland as a country with a conscript army spends roughly 30% on wages. I’m not sure how much of the GDP US spends on their military, but I’m guessing that it’s a lot. OK, their army is probably the best in the world in terms of technology – but the quality of training in the average military base leaves a lot to be desired. I know that Finland’s defence budget is 1.3% of the GDP. There’s a great economic argument for national service.
My main deterrence argument is again, about Finland. If you consider that 80-90% of our males are trained as reserve soldiers (meaning they can operate and maintain a rifle, operate in small units, know the basics how to be a soldier) it basically means that any country coming to invade needs to prepare for a long and bitterly fought guerrilla war (and that’s IF they manage to occupy the country). In fact, this was one of the reasons that Stalin chose not to attack Finland for the third time...he knew that he couldn’t easily take over Finland. There’s a deterrence argument for a conscript army.
Finally, we need to consider the types of people that a conscript army will bring in. Everybody. You’ll have construction workers next to engineers. Doctors next bus drivers. The US military is going through a massive problem with recruitment because the army is seen as a last resort for people with no options. Which is why you’ve got mainly minorities from poor backgrounds joining and idiots who might struggle to get a high school degree. In a conscript army, everyone serves. This means that you get people of high intelligence in positions which require high levels of intelligence and people’s civil jobs are being used to the effect that will benefit the army – as well as the individual in question. I knew a neurosurgeon in the army – he was a recruit at the same time as me. After the initial training period he was immediately promoted to Lieutenant 2nd class and started working in the military hospital along with the other doctors. And that’s his wartime post.
Tyger - I hope you're right about Estonia of course. But I'm not sure I view (for example) the purchase of Mistral assault ships by Russia with any huge degree of joy or lightness of heart.
Quite agreed that NATO is a deterrent too IF one believes in a credible NATO response. That does need to be maintained.
The conscription is an interesting side-point. Can Finland maintain expeditionary forces abroad at all? I'm not at all hostile to the UK increasing spending on a better reserve, but I suspect a modern democracy can't possibly field conscripted armies abroad in anything that looks like a discretionary war. I don't think any country with a conscripted army has any troops doing anything very useful in Afghanistan, and selling the idea that British conscripts should dfefend Ukraine would be a tough sell politically (as it would presumably be in Finland?)
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle ]precautionary principal[/url].
we [i]don't know[/i] if trident will provide any additional security. however, there is a [i]chance[/i] that it will. and therefore, one would come to the conclusion, that you would keep it.
as per the precautionary principal,
(i.e. TJ [i]et al[/i]).the burden of proof that it is not harmful [to remove trident] falls on those who advocate taking the action.
imo.
There is no point in having an empty threat - if you threaten with something you have to be prepared to use it.
The only people who have threatened to use these weapons against us were the Soviets. So our deterrent worked rather well don't you think?
As for today, a number of countries want to get in on the act and become part of the nuclear club and as such become join the five permanent members of the UN security council. Having this weapon currently is about political clout on the world stage. Rumour has it Brazil is now in the process of developing weapons grade plutonium. Who are Brazil's enemies?
Proliferation is going to continue and more and more countries will acquire the technology, and history has taught us that there are no friends in international relations, only nations with common interests, in other words todays ally, tomorrows foe.
The cold war is over, a mere blip in Human history, and the nations of the world are returning to history, which doesn't bode well. We pay money to insure ourselves against so many things that might or might not happen in the future, but I don't see anyone not getting car insurance purely on the basis that no one has crashed into them so far.
So if you feel nows the time to abandon trident...
As for Cruise missiles being used for delivery 😆
One of the many duties of a new Prime minister is to write letters to the SSBN commanders giving them permission to fire those weapons in the event that the UK is destroyed by such weapons. There are no launch codes or permission to fire from the Americans.
Trident is the delivery system, the warheads are of UK design manufactured at AWE.
The conscription is an interesting side-point. Can Finland maintain expeditionary forces abroad at all? I'm not at all hostile to the UK increasing spending on a better reserve, but I suspect a modern democracy can't possibly field conscripted armies abroad in anything that looks like a discretionary war.
A conscript army would work for Finland who are largely interested in defence of their own nation only, but you wouldn't want a conscript soldier fighting alongside you who didn't want to be there.
Hungry monkey - I am not sure the precautionary principle really applies but if it does then the burdon of proof surely falls on those that want to get this new bomb?
The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action.
Teh people taking the action are those who want the new bomb surely.
Your argument is about on a par with protecting railway lines from elephants with newspaper as in my earlier post.
so - the only conclusion I can come to is that ther is no logical reason for having nukes except for macho posturing and to get a seat on the security council?
No one has come up with anything else that hangs together with any logic that I can see.
No one has come up with anything else that hangs together with any logic that I can see.
There are logical reasons for having them as a few here have pointed out, it's just your logic is clouded by your ideals.
El-bent - if the logic holds true for the UK, surely it's the same for everyone else?
you see, TJ, i would go the other way. we have a trident system, and we want to renew it.
the opposition wants to remove it. there is a suspected risk of removing trident (as we may, or may not have less clout/protection/safety etc etc etc), however there is no scientific basis for this. we do know, though, that having trident has not resulted in us having to defend ourselves from others.
and as such, there is ciscumstantial evidence that it does work.
keeping trident maintains the status quo, whereas removing it is a change in actions.
as a fwe have said, we don't know what will happen in the future. [i]if[/i] trident is an effective deterrent, then i have no issue with us keeping it.
Where El bent - really I cannot see anything that has been offered that is logical and coherent. The only thing is that apparently it deterred the USSR in the past ( no evidence let alone proof) so it will deter unspecified threats from unspecified enemies in the future.
Can you lay out your logical case for nukes in simple terms I can understand?
Nothing to do with my ideals
Edit - hungry monkey - that is coherent on the precautionary principle.
hungry monkey - Memberas a fwe have said, we don't know what will happen in the future. if trident is an effective deterrent, then i have no issue with us keeping it.
If it's such a great deterrent, why can't we just give them to other countries too?
[i]macho posturing and to get a seat on the security council[/i]
If you think that (a) having the ability to prevent any rational actor seriously threatening you; and (b) being a member of the single most important supra-national body in world history aren't issues with any relevance for policy, then of course it's totally pointless having it. Those are pretty chunky policy decisions however.
Ultimately at root this is an argument not about the specific weaponry but about the global strategic positioning of the UK - in fact and aspirationally. The argument about what happens to our global influence and prosperity if we deliberately give up our nuclear weapons is I suspect quite a hard one - I've not read anything on the point.
El-bent - if the logic holds true for the UK, surely it's the same for everyone else?
In a word, yes.
Can you lay out your logical case for nukes in simple terms I can understand?
Have already. And you can understand fully, I won't insult you and call you stupid.
And it is about your ideals.
elbent -Sorry - I see no [i]logical[/i] case made by you or anyone else.
Lots of unproven assumptions and projections into the future from insufficient data. Unless there is something I have missed its really a circular argument you have made.
Its the same "logic" as my point about elephants and railway lines or pirates and global warming.
Thats really my point - it is not a logical argument - its a faith based one.
Trident... thats one of those toasting fork thingys isn't it?
You would burn your fingers trying to make toast without one.
too much to read in this thread but in the first page several people asked "who is to for" well maybe no one at the minute but it once did during the cold war then times changed......the point being times changed so they will again. maybe in a good way but maybe not and personally i wouldn't trust the americans to come to our rescue, have they ever done it before? the second world war wasn't exactly a favour was it.
Thats really my point - it is not a logical argument - its a faith based one.
That's ok, I understand where you are coming from. Logic doesn't exist there. 😉
Can you lay out your logical case for nukes in simple terms I can understand?
Better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them......
Ok - My understanding of the pro argument is this:
The Russians did not cross the Rhine. We had nukes so the nukes deterred them from doing so. This proves that nuclear deterrence works therefore we need nukes to deter future threats to us or our allies.
Is that about right?
So - the proposition that the Russians were deterred by our nukes is an unproven assumption with no evidence to support it. There clearly could be many other reasons why they didn't.
Even if it were true than there is no way to extrapolate that future unspecified threats would be deterred by us having nukes. We do not know the nature of these future unspecified threats but it would seem likley that they would be a very different nature to the Russians - mad mullahs anyone? Wopuld the sort of people who use suicide bombers be deterred by threats? Is our conventional threat not great enough anyway - we did rather lay waste to Iraq.
So - unless anyone can come up with a case for Nukes that is not full of logical holes in teh form of unproven assumptions and extrapolations without any justification I consider the logical case for the utility of nukes demolished.
So - unless anyone can come up with a case for Nukes that is not full of logical holes in teh form of unproven assumptions and extrapolations without any justification I consider the logical case for the utility of nukes demolished.
As someone pointed out earlier, we have hairy balls, not crystal ones.
Until you can see into the future, all planning for the future is going to involve some level of assumption and extrapolation.
By your logic, you'd never go to the shops and buy a week's food because that involves assuming that you won't get knocked down by a bus before you get a chance to eat it, and you'd never go to work because you have to assume that your employer won't go bust before payday. You wouldn't even breathe because that's making the assumption that the atmosphere is still there.
What you are postulating, is in effect, an argument against any and every possible course of action available to anyone on the planet.
Not really tron - I am using debating tactics I accept but I really can see no logical reason for the nukes and nothing that anyone has posted on this thread gives any logical reason for having them.
Of course planning for the future must involve assumption and extrapolation - but this can be reasonable logical and likely. It is likely I will live to eat the food I buy.
Do you wear your cycle helmet all the time just incase the sky falls on your head?
I think the bigger question is as yet unasked!
If we're going to get a new and updated version of the sub-based nuclear deterrent, are we going to use the old one for something worthwhile, or just go for the boring option and dismantle it?
I suppose we could do what everyone else does with their 2nd hand crap, and stick it on Ebay.
Not really tron - I am using debating tactics I accept but I really can see no logical reason for the nukes and nothing that anyone has posted on this thread gives any logical reason for having them.
You are using debating tactics. What you always want is proof. And in the real world proof is very hard to come by.
That's shown by just how narrow most academic research questions are, and how few papers actually produce proof of anything. Or a simple look through old market research reports - despite experts spending a lot of time and money on them, they don't predict the future.
But of course, you already know this. You know that proof cannot be provided for the majority of things, even things which are accepted by society at large, and even used in the creation of technology, are still only theories, not actually proven. Indeed, you seem to regularly demand proof on subjects which are still matters of debate for field experts.
You use this simple tactic to close down arguments and declare yourself proven correct.
Tron - On this one I would accept an argument that was not full of logical holes. Even evidence short of proof would do.
However no one has given anything but assumptions and extrapolations that do not hang together logically and no one has produced a shred of evidence.
Its not difficult is it? Make a logical case with at least some evidence to back it up. Instead all I see is massive logical fallacies and tautology.
Edit - loads of circular argument as well.
So why have these weapons then? If there is no logical argument for having them, why do so have them and want them?
Macho posturing el bent? Different countries have different needs. I don't think there is a credible threat against the UK that could be deterred now.
the trouble is the pro arguments are very much the 'politics of fear'
which is not a very nice way to live
So what is your proof/reasoning that a deterrent is of no value?
You've been very quiet on this and spent most of the time attempting to pick holes in people's logic/reasoned arguments. Your defence for abolishing it has been notably lacking, apart from "we can't afford it" and "money is better spent elsewhere".
Your "proof" of using previous conflicts as evidence it doesn't work is based purely on conjecture, as is me saying we've not been nuked yet so it must work.
Look, we need the damned things because we had an empire, and now we don't. We won the world cup 40 odd years ago, and we've kicked a few smaller nations around. We still like to think that we're important.
If we don't have nukes, the French will make fun of us at the UN and European parliament. It'll be just like that episode of Flight of the Conchords where Murray gets in the lift with the Aussies and they ask if he's got NZ's mineral exports for the year in his pocket.
And we can't have that, so we need an independent nuclear deterrent. OK? 😆
Macho posturing el bent?
That's the best you've got?
elbent - its the only reason I can see for wanting them ( I wasn't accusing you of macho posturing)
Mintman. Its up to those who want to have nukes to make the case for having them.
Tron well said!
Wouldn't a tactical-nuke aircraft-based system be more flexible in this post Cold War situation?
Its main strength is that no one knows where they are!
not even management know where they are, they just know they are "over there, somewhere"
I [i]think[/i] this thread became a pointless farce filled with lightweight tosh at the point that TJ got away with describing a doctrine of strategic deterrence as "macho posturing".
This is roughly the equivalent in terms of insight and analysis as calling for the abolition of the NHS because it is do-gooder bollocks that doesn't abolish human mortality. 🙂
Mintman. Its up to those who want to have nukes to make the case for having them
Well that is where you are wrong. It is up to us to argue to keep them (which we have) and for you to argue to remove them (which you haven't). Since the pro-lobby is arguing for the status quo (albeit with an update to the system), I would suggest that the against-lobby has the greater challenge in front of them.
You claimed you were using debating tactics in this thread and you clearly are not. Simply rebutting the pro-lobby argument without providing a counter-argument is not even close to debating; anyone can say "that's a rubbish argument"; it is the counter argument that adds value and that is clearly lacking.
So the pro-group are putting forward arguments but you do not; hardly an informed debate is it.
Waste of money, end of. Split the difference between public healthcare and conventional forces.
Either that, or use the Trident budget to build a ****-off massive trebuchet - just for laughs.
[i]It'll be just like that episode of Flight of the Conchords where Murray gets in the lift with the Aussies and they ask if he's got NZ's mineral exports for the year in his pocket.[/i]
thats my favourite episode
