Trident Renewal Now £167Bn – apparently.

You still seem to be missing the point – check back on NW’s game theory, which as I said applies with one nuclear power up against another.

You still seem to be missing the point – check back on NW’s game theory, which as I said applies with one nuclear power up against another.

I understand the game theory. The idea is we’ll never have to use them. But That’s not the only solution to the game – the other solution is not to play.

From a moral standpoint, threatening civilians is wrong. Completely wrong. There’s no possible way it can be justified, and “they’re doing it to us” is the logic of the playground not that of adults.

bencooper – Member
And I could point to loads of countries who never had nukes and haven’t been.

You cannot guarantee that will never happen in future.

So are we saying disarmament is the dangerous thing? Are we at the stage where we can’t get rid of the nukes because of the number of people we’ve pissed off?

You can’t get rid of the nukes because you are stuck with it because others have already got them. Even if you get rid of yours others might not so how do you disarm them if you don’t have nuke?

I don’t want retaliation. In those last seconds, before the shockwave hits, I don’t want to think that my government is about to do the same to millions more innocent civilians.

You are already dead so your opinion is insignificant.

bencooper – Member
I understand the game theory. The idea is we’ll never have to use them. But That’s not the only solution to the game – the other solution is not to play.

With a “gun poiting at your head” you play game or else … 😈

From a moral standpoint, threatening civilians is wrong. Completely wrong. There’s no possible way it can be justified, and “they’re doing it to us” is the logic of the playground not that of adults.

Moral has nothing to do with nuke. If you nuke you nuke everything.

You cannot guarantee that will never happen in future.

Nothing about the future is certain – eventually the sun will explode, and then it’ll all be meaningless.

But until then, better to be nice to as many people as possible, and that means using £167bn to build schools and hospitals and help with overseas aid, rather than using it to threaten to incinerate innocents.

Thats right, a 1% bigger NHS will transform society!

Question for you Ben – why is it OK for other countries to threaten to incinerate civilians, but not us?

If you’re referring to the Wargames quote, then that’s a different sort of not playing – not playing when you have the option of playing. Not having the option of playing isn’t a winning move if somebody else does have the option. This is also game theory stuff – it’s a prisoners dilemma thing.

From a moral standpoint, threatening civilians is wrong. Completely wrong. There’s no possible way it can be justified, and “they’re doing it to us” is the logic of the playground not that of adults.

The trouble is, “they” might well not be adults, and again the game theory says that the best thing is to have some way of preventing them from using theirs even if you have no intention of using yours. Because the game theory means that if we have them, “they” know that they can’t use theirs, so we never have to use ours.

bencooper – Member
Nothing about the future is certain – eventually the sun will explode, and then it’ll all be meaningless.

Don’t know about the sun exploding but I bet the probability of people with destructive weapons killing each other is definitely higher …

But until then, better to be nice to as many people as possible, and that means using £167bn to build schools and hospitals and help with overseas aid, rather than using it to threaten to incinerate innocents.

Yes, that’s a lot of money … the alternative is perhaps having no say in international matters.

Yes, that’s a lot of money … the alternative is perhaps having no say in international matters.

Deal.

We have no say at the moment – we’ve just spent the last week prostituting ourselves to the Chinese. It’s laughably pathetic the way the UK keeps trying to pretend to still be a superpower.

IF having a say in international matters means we get to join in on the next Middle-Eastern bombing mission, I think we’re well out of that. Because our interventions in international affairs have been so successful in the past.

chewkw – Member

the alternative is perhaps having no say in international matters.

Oh go on, humour us, expand on how nuclear weapons gives us a say in international matters, and is the only thing that does so.

ninfan – Member

Well, I could happily point to one of the only countries that has ever voluntarily & unilaterally disarmed

and has just been invaded by Russia

Aye, and we’ll certainly be carefully watching our land border with russia. Ah no wait, ireland. But they must have nukes, right?

Because if they don’t listen to us we’ll bomb the bastards

bencooper – Member
IF having a say in international matters means we get to join in on the next Middle-Eastern bombing mission, I think we’re well out of that. Because our interventions in international affairs have been so successful in the past.

Ya, too late you are already in whether you like it or not.

Northwind – Member
Oh go on, humour us, expand on how nuclear weapons gives us a say in international matters, and is the only thing that does so.

You are expected to have nuclear weapons if you want to be in the club of superpower. It is the club “fees”.

I’m a little bit bemused by all this Cold War posturing. On a financial level the Russians and Chinese have been actively encouraged to invade Britain and indeed they have done so. Anyone facing London housing costs or supporting Chelsea will tel you about it. Hasn’t Cameron recently been bending over backwards for the Chinese? Aren’t they being bribed to build nuclear power stations or am I making this up? ‘Us’ and ‘them’ is a bit dated in a globalised world. Attacks on Britain and so-called British interests have gone on completely unaffected by the nuclear deterrent. Military interventions by the likes of Blair have made us a target rather than increased national security and even he seems to be coming round to owning up to it in his inimitable obfuscatory way.

I just cant see any scenario when I think pressing the button would be a good idea. Globalisation renders them pointless.

you are expected to have nuclear weapons if you want to be in the club of superpower. It is the club “fees”.

Cool. Does that mean Pakistan and North Korea are superpowers?

So are we saying disarmament is the dangerous thing? Are we at the stage where we can’t get rid of the nukes because of the number of people we’ve pissed off?

No, we can’t rid of the nukes because of the number of people who could then sway our foreign and to some extent domestic policy by leaning on us with either their own nuclear or conventional threats to which we have no counter.

I just cant see any scenario when I think pressing the button would be a good idea. Globalisation renders them pointless.

If only it were true, whilst any war (no matter how small) between major powers would immensely harm trade it does not guarantee it. Many wars in the past have broken out despite existing trade between nations – both world wars for example. My concern would be powers that think they can start and control a war to profit from it only to then find out they have no influence or control (WW1 is a good example of this).

However there are really two points to understanding nuclear weapons;

1) They are not really military weapons, they are diplomatic tools for posturing and bargaining with.
2) They will never be used but the other side (whoever that is) has to believe that you could and would use them if required.

I’m all for a nuke free world but unilateral disarmament is not the way to do it. We should be seeking to reduce our threat posture, and stockpiles whilst others do the same. This has to some extent been happening since the end of the cold war. Our posture is now greatly reduced, and the number and type of weapons is also reduced.

As a side point we likely now have our missiles and warheads configured differently to the cold war. Rather than having every missile configured with the maximum number of warheads set to maximum yield we probably have missiles with a single warhead with a variable yield. This means that we can deploy a small bang < 0.5kt or a multiple big bands > 100kt. For example we can, if needed, threaten to use a small bang to destroy a single large military installation or massed force rather than an entire city – I believe the Thatcher/Major government made thinly veiled threats to Saddam in 1990/91 that this could be the response if chemical weapons were used against British forces in S.Arabia (although back then it probably would have been a free fall WE177 dropped from a Tornado backing up the threat).

I believe the Thatcher/Major government made thinly veiled threats to Saddam in 1990/91 that this could be the response if chemical weapons were used against British forces in S.Arabia (although back then it probably would have been a free fall WE177 dropped from a Tornado backing up the threat).

No chance. That would have been a first strike against a non-nuclear aggressor.

@zokes +1 we’d not use nukes against a country because they fired chemical weapons again our troops

Renewing Trident is a done deal and has Labour support, even Corbyn knows he couldn’t carry a Labour vote against.

They will never be used but the other side (whoever that is) has to believe that you could and would use them if required.

By no rational or mathematic measure would it make sense to launch nuclear weapons after your nation has already taken a significant hit. What would be the point? World destruction for the sake of revenge?

By no rational or mathematic measure would it make sense to launch nuclear weapons after your nation has already taken a significant hit. What would be the point? World destruction for the sake of revenge?

But what if that significant hit was just 1kt on Heathrow? It will make a mess but hardly devastate the country. By having Trident it means the other side has to go all or nothing. Thankfully any rational person will stick with the nothing…

Shall we take a short cut and link to an episode of Yes, Prime Minister. Hackers Grand Design springs to mind 😆

we’d not use nukes against a country because they fired chemical weapons again our troops

I’m not sure some of you are getting this, of course we wouldn’t use them. The other side only has to think we might. 😉

Thank god for McDonald’s

BigEaredBiker – Member

I’m not sure some of you are getting this, of course we wouldn’t use them. The other side only has to think we might.

And if the answer is “of course we wouldn’t use them” then they don’t.

The most feared countries in the world are Iran and North Korea with regards nuclear weapons. They are feared because we are not sure that they have them, or have ones which are capable of reaching us or others. The logic here would be to become a rogue state and just kid on that we have nuclear weapons.

My question is this: Who is getting rich out of this trident renewal thing?

It’s a bit like asking ‘who got rich out of Concorde?’ (or the channel tunnel, crossrail, T45, any other major engineering contract)

Well, going by the astute submarine construction, about 4000 shipbuilders, the employees of 400 plus companies across the supply chain (including the high tech electrical and mechanical engineering firms making kit for some of the most complex machines on the planet)

Add in the staff at AWE servicing the warheads, at HMNB Clyde servicing the subs and about thirty years worth of sailors, and the people who feed them, clothe them, service their cars and kit them out.

Oh, and the pub owners of Barrow in Furness, Burghfield and Faslane.

The American made missiles are a very small part of the whole thing.

zokes – Still not a customer

you are expected to have nuclear weapons if you want to be in the club of superpower. It is the club “fees”.

Cool. Does that mean Pakistan and North Korea are superpowers? [/quote]

Yes, they are.
They have the power to kill.

The American made missiles are a very small part of the whole thing.

This.

The only significant part of our Nuclear deterrent we buy from the Yanks is the ICBM delivery system, the submarines + the warheads are designed/built and maintained in the UK.
As much as i’d like to see a Nuclear weapon free world, it isn’t going to happen in our lifetime, so I feel we’ve got limited choice but to renew Trident.

The programme also provides employment for tens of thousands of skilled Engineers across the country – Len McCluskey summed it up pretty well –
“Everyone would love the whole world to get rid of nuclear weapons – we understand the moral arguments and cost arguments in these days of austerity,” Mr McCkuskey told Sky News on Sunday morning.

“However, the most important thing for us is to protect jobs. In the absence of any credible alternative to protect jobs and high skills we will vote against any anti-Trident resolution.”

As the first Successor vessel (The trident replacement) won’t be operational until at least 2026, the first of the Vanguard class vessels is to undergo a life-extending refit over the next two years (known as LIFEX) – again this is employing 1000’s of people.

Employing people in waste production in that output cannot be used for consumption nor investment. Kidron wrote about this in the60s and nothing has changed in that respect. Pissing money away at the same time as people are queuing at food banks. It’s very poor economics .

Pissing money away at the same time as people are queuing at food banks.

But safety and security lead to investment and jobs, and the nuclear deterrent is part of that. Britain can keep running huge debts because we are considered a pretty safe bet on paying back.

Also the current Vanguard class of subs can fire conventional torpedoes.

“However, the most important thing for us is to protect jobs. In the absence of any credible alternative to protect jobs and high skills we will vote against any anti-Trident resolution.”

Hmm, and how many jobs are needed to pay the taxes to pay for these jobs? At £125k per job…

http://www.banthebomb.org/archives/educ/trident.shtml

Hmm, and how many jobs are needed to pay the taxes to pay for these jobs? At £125k per job…

Well that’s not the Unions concern though is it.

Groundhog Day.

Either I have completely misunderstood game theory and MAD, or Ben Cooper has. How can you even have a position on trident if you don’t understand MAD?

Just as well such breathless naivety is being displayed on a mountain bike forum, rather than in the corridors of power. Oh wait….Corbyn….where do I sign up for chaining myself to the gates of Faslane to stop anyone taking the precious nukes away?

I note that it’s possible to understand the game theory whilst not seeing any point in having nukes if you don’t believe that anybody else is going to play the game with you.