30 years of Nuclear disarmament about to be undone…
no one knows quite how far it is prepared to go to get there.
It’s done so already by selling everything it can to Western folks. It’s been massively, surprisingly, unaccountably successful at it. What in the world would it do in all seriousness to impact that? It’s managed to essentially take over the economies of massive parts of the world without firing a shot. In comparison to Western democracies since ’45 it’s been peaceful to the point of pacifism*
*by all means makes the Augustinian comparison of Ceaser “We’ve created a desert and called it peace” But arguably the Chinese have been hugely less aggressive in the last decades than we have. It’s high time we come to terms with that, and I don’t think sending a paltry wee carrier half way across the globe really does, do you?Posted 6 months ago
That’s not how wars are fought now
Indeed, remind me again why we’re sending a teeny little carrier out there?
EDIT: How would it be if the Chinese decided that the US was way too aggressive for their own good threatening their Southern neighbours with all that CIA action…and it needed reminding that there were Superpowers that were angry and sent a flotilla to say, Panama? How’d that go down; d’you think?Posted 6 months ago
*by all means makes the Augustinian comparison of Ceaser “We’ve created a desert and called it peace” But arguably the Chinese have been hugely less aggressive in the last decades than we have. It’s high time we come to terms with that, and I don’t think sending a paltry wee carrier half way across the globe really does, do you?
The response it gets from the Chinese undermines your idea that it’s a paltry move. And at the end of the day, to rebalance the South China Sea and get the area operating under the rule of law everyone needs to chip in again. Flat tops are still a useful option to deny sea lane access if you really need or want to.
and it needed reminding that there were Superpowers that were angry and sent a flotilla to say, Panama? How’d that go down; d’you think?
China is already doing things like that – again a lot of these trawlers are armed.
Indeed, remind me again why we’re sending a teeny little carrier out there?
I really don’t think that matters in the slightest, to a thread about nuclear disarmament, it’s just a bit of PR / distraction.Posted 6 months ago
China is already doing things like that – again a lot of these trawlers are armed.
That article says the Peruvian govt were somewhat embarrassed by the obvious inaccuracies of the claims made by the US, and I don’t think you can really compare a few deep sea fishing boats (armed or otherwise) to the Royal Navy in your actual back yard, can you?
and get the area operating under the rule of law
To anyone in South America or the Middle East those words would ring hollow, don’t you think?Posted 6 months ago
The U.K. has a seat at the special table for historic reasons and is desperate to keep it and seem relevant and will do almost anything to stay there, despite there being no place in the world for nukes and them being practically useless in real terms.
The weird thing is, we have our permanent seat in the UN Security Council as a founding member and victor of WW2, just like all the other permanent members. We gained it before we were a nuclear power. No country has ever lost their permanent seat and there is no mechanism to do so, and being a nuclear power is not a prerequisite. No country has ever gained a permanent seat either even if they become a nuclear power. Yet over and over we hear “we must have the nuclear deterrant to keep our permanent seat” without even attempts to justify it.
And then you ask “yeah but what do we gain by it”? And the answer is, **** all frankly. Oh we have a veto but it was last used in 1989 to toady up to the US over Panama. Before that, we used it a load of times to support apartheid in South Africa and to resist independence in Rhodesia among other dodgy causes…Posted 6 months ago
To anyone in South America or the Middle East those words would ring hollow, don’t you think?
And that means South East Asia and democratic Asia should acquiesce to more of it and we should abandon our regional allies? You’re arguing based on (as a leftist myself) lefty emotionalism as opposed to having any kind of coherent strategy as to how we go about reinforcing the rule of law in a world where Russia helped put Trump in charge.
We need more multilateralism and co-operation with countries that share more of our own values, not less of it.
and I don’t think you can really compare a few deep sea fishing boats (armed or otherwise) to the Royal Navy in your actual back yard, can you?
You can when they are used for armed shipping lane denial as they are in the South China Sea.Posted 6 months ago
You’re arguing based on (as a leftist myself) lefty emotionalism as opposed to having any kind of coherent strategy
Yes, I’m certainly guilty of that (lefty emotionalism) I think where we disagree is thinking that sending a fleet out to the far east constitutes a coherent strategy.Posted 6 months ago
I don’t think it does yet either.
I do think it’s a start – but we need to start co-operating and reaching out to our friends in a much more productive manner than we have been. The UK has become a very inward looking country since Brexit, we have this ridiculous notion that because we’re an island we can afford to lose our friends, whether it’s from a right or left wing point of view, we’re doing too much gazing up our own arseholes as a country and we don’t understand the interconnectedness of the world and how important our allies are to us and our own wellbeing.Posted 6 months ago
When was the last time 2 advanced economies were actually involved in a shooting war?
Expanding our nuclear capability seems completely misguided in the current environmentPosted 6 months ago
Not for a while, but this is a good read.
Don’t rule it out, the post world war 2 peace could just be a blip in the ocean.Posted 6 months ago
i mean its almost like we have a PM whos childhood dream was apparently to be king of the world. Hes going about it the right way.Posted 6 months ago
I remember a few years ago many on here were beating their chests like deranged gorillas trying to explain how wrong it was when Corbyn said he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons. Funny how things change. 😄Posted 6 months ago
I remember a few years ago many on here were beating their chests like deranged gorillas trying to explain how wrong it was when Corbyn said he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons. Funny how things change. 😄
We all know that no British PM would ever use nuclear weapons, but we also know you shouldn’t ever say you wouldn’t either.Posted 6 months ago
Not sure much has changed “on here”… it’s just that people on this forum have differing views… it’s not a hive mind. I’m with Corbyn on this one… and Labour keeping a policy against his personal judgement/views must have been tough for him. Interviewers had great fun tripping him up, even though he was clear… he’s pro nuclear disarmament, and said he would never use those weapons if he was PM, even though Labour policy was to keep the arms unless the world disarmed together (probably what most people think). What has changed is that we now have a PM and government willing to increase our nuclear stockpile… that sends a dangerous message to the smaller nuclear powers, and those trying to get their first weapons. How can we insist they can’t gain or increase their own nuclear war capabilities? It’s a dangerous and backwards step.Posted 6 months ago
It’s ok kelvin… I was taking the piss… You don’t have to do your school-master mansplainy thing… Let me sum it up, Nuclear weapons are f***** stupid, and anyone who things we should have them is f***** stupid. There, nice and succinct. 😏Posted 6 months ago
I remember a few years ago many on here were beating their chests like deranged gorillas trying to explain how wrong it was when Corbyn said he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons. Funny how things change
What you’re remembering here is pretty much peak Corbyn. After being mocked by everyone he finally reached what he no doubt believed to be an acceptable accommodation with himself.
He’d go ahead and build the nuclear subs, so as to keep the jobs in labour ‘red wall’ constituencies, but he wouldn’t equip them with any nuclear weapons.
It all made perfect sense. We’ll not spend billions on a nuclear deterrent, we’ll spend pretty much the same billions to NOT have a nuclear deterrent. Bless him. It probably made sense to him at the timePosted 6 months ago
Great… now we’ve made this yet another Corbyn focused thread, when it’s nothing to do with him, and everything to do with the dangerous idiots now running the country.Posted 6 months ago
On the plus side, expanding Trident and the UK Nuclear fleet means billions spent in UK ship yards and UK engineers building / maintaining it all, which is good for the economy and British engineering, which could really use some good news.
Mm yes but we could be spending the same money on engineering and science and end up with something useful like a fusion reactor or a quantum computer etc etc etc. Spending money on nuclear weapons is about the least useful way to spend it, I think. I’ll get more use out of HS2.Posted 6 months ago
Dunno its Boris Build a Tunnel.
Anything to divert either news(or cash).Posted 6 months ago
everything to do with the dangerous idiots now running the country.
I think its about what they set up now that gets misappropriated by the next mob.
The current rhetoric is alarming thou and the new fox type right wing channels, not looking good for the future.Posted 6 months ago
TBF, I’m sure a sub with a fusion reactor would be welcomed by the MoDPosted 6 months ago
It probably made sense to him at the time
Makes sense to the Japanese as well who use exactly this method.Posted 6 months ago
Allows them to claim the high ground whilst being able to spin up a nuclear strike capability in less than a year.
That’s useful in a slowly escalating scenario, I wonder if we’ll see Japan get the bomb then? They’ve been moving to more of an offensive capability for a few years.Posted 6 months ago
and everything to do with the dangerous idiots now running the country.
Idiots yes, but hardly danerous. Sending a carrier on a tour of some distant ocean is pretty standard stuff – not going to start any wars.Posted 6 months ago
I wonder if we’ll see Japan get the bomb then?
Probably not any time soon but they have the capability to spin it up quickly. So long as you retain the materials and some specialist knowledge the final putting together is the easy and quick part of the process. Its the delivery systems which have the massive lead times and complexity.Posted 6 months ago
So having that ready but getting rid of the actual deployed weapons both reduces security concerns and also allows you to look like a good guy in terms of disarmament.
Wouldnt work for all countries currently equipped, actually probably just the UK and France, but it is a viable and sensible option despite Binners absolute confidence it isnt.
I am somewhere between this being Brexit Empire building (an appealing proposition to many, my MIL included) and ‘oh look, an otter’…Posted 6 months ago
The current rhetoric is alarming though and the new fox type right wing channels, not looking good for the future.
Indeed. I’m quite frankly alarmed and shocked at the direction this country is going, it’s so unappealing to me I don’t want to be a part of it. If we were looking in at a country doing what we are now there would be parliamentary meetings about the possibility of trade sanctions and other political means of control with the threat of stopping them using military means if they were ignored. We are scarily heading down the route of being lead by a leader with delusions of grandeur who thinks he’s the next Great Leader, all supported by an equally delusional support base of nationalistic gammons who all live in the past and refuse to listen to anything other than what the Great Leader or their supporting media outlets say is the truth. We already have the mass-corruption and the biased media, why not go full-on Dr Evil and create a personal military? More nuclear warheads is our version of “Sharks with frikkin laser beams on their heads!”.
Sounds impressive as a soundbite but ultimately is completely useless and just makes us look like a bunch of morons.Posted 6 months ago
They’ve been moving to more of an offensive capability for a few years
happy to be corrected, but doesn’t their constitution prohibit offensive forces?Posted 6 months ago
happy to be corrected, but doesn’t their constitution prohibit offensive forces?
Strictly speaking they arent allowed an army, airforce or navy and are restricted from using force as an option.Posted 6 months ago
Thats been worked around with the “self defence force” option which claims they are just rather well armed cops and some restrictions of offensive weapons eg no nukes/bombers
There have been lots of arguing back and forth and they have certainly been increasing their military capability and for the nukes they can pretty much produce them including delivery system if needed.
So lots of spirit vs letter of the law going on.
There’s also a significant US military presence in Japan i.e. 50,000 personnel, about a quarter of the entire UK military – quite what difference Boris’ gunboat diplomacy is going to make I’m not quite sure. We can send one carrier, but can barely muster a destroyer and a couple of frigates to go with it.Posted 6 months ago
Anyone half expecting the carrier to have a mechanical in the Pacific leaving it dead in the water for a day or so?
It would deliciously sum up our actual status in the world these days.Posted 6 months ago
Wait until they work out how much to send the boats there. It’ll take years at 1/4 throttle.
Anyway when Scotland gets independence and instantly becomes a nuclear state we can bully our non nuclear neighbour to the south. Maybe sell BJ back his subs and warheads. (😃)Posted 6 months ago
To be fair (ha!) to our American PM, he’s only “levelling up” – IIRC, the UK nuclear arsenal was reduced by about 200 warheads by the pre 1997 tory government/s, with no spontaneous quid-pro-quo reduction by our (then) Soviet “foes”…
China has been extremely outwardly rapacious – it’s just done it in cyberspace. The one way information slurp has been staggering. From shonky, knock-off Soviet aircraft to self built stealth fighters in about 40 years?
“I don’t have backups, just a Chinese pen-pal”.
Liberal amounts of Western hubris and arrogance, too.
And that £3 Billion pound “weapons system”?Posted 6 months ago
In a fighting war it will be destroyed in 15 minutes by a million quid system (charges applied for currency conversion to Yuan/Ruble/Won).
From shonky, knock-off Soviet aircraft to self built stealth fighters in about 40 years?
erm…so the same time scale as everyone else then? here’s a fact that will blow your mind. The F14 now is as old as the Spitfire was when Top Gun was made…Posted 6 months ago
erm…so the same time scale as everyone else then?
You are trolling, right? What, in any way, do you think China, circa 1975, was as technically advanced as USA/UK/France etc? Come on.Posted 6 months ago
What, in any way, do you think China, circa 1975, was as technically advanced as USA/UK/France
In the 70s China was producing the Chengdu J-7, essentially a MiG21 reversed engineered, and they made 2500 of them. The only real difference is it’s fuel system. The MiG21 was more than a match in A2A (in fact probably better than) many 2nd Gen NATO aircraft.
Do you think it’s credible that they didn’t learn anything from doing that? They also evaluated the MiG23/27 and incorporated elements of that into J-9…It’s bad thinking to suppose that they didn’t develop the technology furtherPosted 6 months ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.