So you’re arguing that the US would be content to allow the Russians to take over Western Europe?

If they felt that it was the best way to avoid a strike on the US mainland, absolutely they would.

TBH – I think we would too, if say Poland was invaded we’d protest strongly but not go nuclear over it – I’m sure of that.

Rachel

, I’m saying it has worked as well as it has precisely because French and UK independent control of nuclear weapons have tied the US in to the outcome.

Please explain as that does not make sense !

If they felt that it was the best way to avoid a strike on the US mainland, absolutely they would.

The period between 1945-1990 would suggest otherwise.

– I think we would too, if say Poland was invaded we’d protest strongly but not go nuclear over it – I’m sure of that.

So having a nuclear deterrent IS pointless

Russia has no qualms about taking the Crimea or Eastern Ukraine

Maybe they are going to replace the missile tubes with wheelie bins full of shit.

If that is the case it would probably be best to hire these guys and spend the money saved on the NHS.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu-UuWrHCqc[/video]

double trouble

Soviet threat was a myth

It is worth remembering also that there’s been a huge botch-job involving our carrier force; you know, the one that’s intended to protect the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

The lessons learned from the Cold War and Falklands conflict resulted in the recommendation that the Royal Navy should have two carriers in the 65,000 ton class capable of carrying 36-40 aircraft each.

Costs ballooned, capabilities were trimmed and we went with the cheapest option – equipping both carriers with ski-jumps and STOVL jets at the expense of range, payload and most importantly long range AWACS capability as Hawkeye type aircraft require a catapult to launch. Then the Tories/Liberals binned the entire Harrier fleet in 2010.

One of the very few sensible decisions from the 2010 Defence Review was to equip one or both the new carriers with EMALS catapults and opt for F-35C jets and a carrier-borne AWACS platform. Had the F-35 become a giant white elephant (coughs) for example, we could have bought Super Hornets or Rafales and inter-operated US Navy / Marine Nationale jets.

But quibbling over a few million pounds more for fitting EMALS saw the reversal of this decision, so the only two options available are either to rebuy the Harriers we sold the US at a huge discount and retrain pilots to fly them, or to hope that the wildly expensive F-35B somehow delivers on it’s design promises.

It doesn’t really matter what anybody here thinks – the question is whether those who might be put off by the deterrent think the US would sit on the sidelines. The interesting thing is that it’s the very arguments put forwards by those against nuclear weapons which might lead them to think the US would stay out of it – would the US think “hang on, what’s the point in turning that lot into a desert when it won’t stop them doing what they’ve already done, and would just result in them turning us into a desert”. It’s not at all simple.

Almost – the other side has to have some realistic expectation that they would be used, rather than simply not knowing. Otherwise you’ll get somebody mad enough* to take the chance.

* I did not mention Putin

the question is whether those who might be put off by the deterrent think the US would sit on the sidelines.

As I said before, I understand the game theory stuff about deterrence, you don’t need to repeat it all here. The question rather is how to maintain a minimum level of deterrence. Some of us are suggesting that if it’s required at all, a nuclear deterrant could still be maintained without the UK renewing Trident.

Here’s an idea, why not place a single nuclear warhead in each major city of the US, Western Europe, China and Russia. Then give all countries involved a failsafe mechanism of detonating every bomb. Deterrence would be achieved with only a couple of hundred bombs and a bit of fancy telecommunications technology. Same result, and much cheaper and simpler 🙂

Maybe we could still have the missiles and just put no nuclear in them?
More jobs saved!

Sure, but some people on here don’t – and I’m assuming you don’t mean an alternative independent deterrent, as nobody seems to be suggesting that, in which case one argument against that serving the same purpose as an independent deterrent is the game theory one. You can’t negate the game theory arguments by pointing out that you understand them, and if (as also previously) you make an argument against having an independent nuclear deterrent which game theory can be used to refute, then expect the game theory to be mentioned even if you disagree with it.

As I mentioned before, I’m unconvinced of the need for our independent nuclear deterrent on the basis that there isn’t a credible threat which it can be used to deter, but many people seem to be using different arguments against it (ie that it’s useless even if there is a credible threat), which I don’t believe are credible.

The biggest problem with conventional ICBMs and SLBMs is that you cannot tell what sort of warhead is fitted without waiting for the boom. You fire one of those at somebody and they will have to assume they are being nuked. Cruise missiles are more cost effective and generally less prone to “misinterpretation”

Most of the cost associated with the programme is down to the subs and missiles, not the warheads so it still costs lots, just not quite as much.

This is just Corbyn realising that one of his policies will cost lots of jobs (not what Labour should be doing) and he’s trying to cover that up rather than grow a spine and stick to his beliefs. As time goes on, he’s becoming less the honest man (even if you think he is misguided) and more the slippery politician.

Cruise missiles also carry nuclear warheads

Good point – we seem to have drifted from discussing him being a useless numpty onto the far less interesting topic of whether we should have an independent nuclear deterrent. I’m still amazed at the complete lack of thought in this announcement – and more to the point that he’s presumably taken no advice (or ignored any he’s been given). 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.

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

Really? Being completely clear and truthful about the reasons for doing something = slippery?
He’s just trying to appease people who are shouting at him. Unfortunately this was a really poor response – reactionary and ill-thought-through.
As mentioned above, he should just say that the defence review was looking at a wide range of options and we should let it run.

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.

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.

Agreed

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

Maybe he is slippery and doing an Osborne – i.e. Deliberately coming up with a ridiculous plan, so that when he ends up with a slightly-less-ridiculous plan it seems sensible 😉

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.

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?

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 do like it when you immediately contradict your own point though but I do wonder why you do it.

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

Its not really a mute point to point out that there were no treaties then and there are now- it does change what countries are expected to do.
No wonder you struggle with what I say your thinking is poor 😉

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.

Did we technically have a treaty here ? Genuine question but on a point of technicality i dont think it was a treaty.

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.

So a deterrent that does not deter is not a failure….are you sure?

It’s certainly not a totally inconceivable scenario.

Nor is it inconceivable that if we have no nukes nothing at all will happen

Nothing is technically inconceivable apart from Jamby being wrong.

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 ?

I am going to answer your question by not addressing any of the points you raise and then moving the goalposts to another issue rather than defend what I said.
Facepalm etc

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.

Is this defend the indefensible day?

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.