Corbyn & Trident

[Ken Scott]

'Trident subs without warheads an option' - as just spoken by Jeremy Corbyn on the Andrew Marr Show.

Jeremy Corbyn has suggested the UK could keep its Trident submarine fleet but without carrying nuclear warheads.
The Labour leader told the Andrew Marr show that protecting defence jobs was his "first priority" and there were "options" for doing this while taking a lead in global nuclear "de-escalation".
Labour, which is split over the issue of renewing Trident, has said the idea is similar to one adopted by Japan.

And it gets better:


■ The UK and Argentina should discuss the future of the Falklands Islands while respecting residents "right to stay"

So, vote Jezza for a £40 billion investment in an impotent submarine weapons system (without the weapons) & to sell out the Falkland Islanders who can stay in Las Malvinas.

To quote Blackadder 2: 'excellent, sensible policies for a happier Britain'.

[Cows getting bigger]

Madness, absolute madness.

[downsizer]

Vast majority of the voting public couldn't give a toss about the FIs. And most of them are probably afraid of the nuclear weapons bogey-man.

I fear all these people mocking corbyn could be in for a shock. Voter apathy and an ill informed electorate could bite us all.

[Cows getting bigger]

Yes, but voters could possible give a stuff about £40Bn being spent on a white elephant just to keep a relatively small number (15,000) of Northerners and Scots in their jobs.

Whilst we're at it, lets get all the shipyards, steelworks and coal mines going again together with British Leyland and the Morris Marina. Anyone remember the parlous state we were in during the mid-70s? :sad:

[Rotate too late]

Yeah but the telly weren't arf good tho!

[Chinny Crewman]

This is why Corbyn will never be PM, not because of his policies but his lack of communication skills. Emily Thornberry was just as bad on Sunday Politics. One of the options the Labour defence review will actually look at it is the 'Japenese' model whereby the delivery system is maintained but the warheads are removed and dismantled. Should circumstances change the warheads can be assembled and the delivery system is in place. Contrary to what Andrew Neil said the missiles will not be armed with conventional warheads both the missiles and submarines would be placed in care and maintenance.
I'm not convinced myself but it would be good to actually hear the arguments instead of incoherent ramblings by the Labour party.

[Wageslave]

If Corbyn had half a brain he'd be dangerous. As it is he's doing the country no favours at all making such a laughing stock of our future defence plans.

Imagine what our allies, eg the US Dept of Defence are thinking at the prospect of having to deal with this lunatic in the future. Not exactly enhancing our credibility in the world at large, is he?

imo he's a dangerous menace.

[salad-dodger]

Imagine what our allies, eg the US Dept of Defence are thinking at the prospect of having to deal with this lunatic in the future. Not exactly enhancing our credibility in the world at large, is he?
With a few words changed, this could have been written in the US regarding one of their leadership candidates:

Imagine what our allies, eg the UK Ministry of Defence are thinking at the prospect of having to deal with this lunatic in the future. Not exactly enhancing our credibility in the world at large, is he?

S-D

[sharpend]

I think the army should have lots of rifles but no ammunition. That man is potty.

Just when you thought he would not say anything more totally stupid, he did.

Mind you, he does work for the Tories :D

[Treble one]

Effectively, is this not a step back to the 'unilateralist' days of Michael Foot's Labour Party? And what a disaster that was.


This is surely just a sop to the unions-Lets build the boats, keep the punters in a job, but then not bother with the key element of the deterrent (the warheads).


A nuclear deterrent without the 'nuclear' bit is surely as effective a deterrent as a chocolate fireguard.

[ORAC]

Fascinating, I wonder if anyone has told the Japanese?

The shadow defence secretary, Emily Thornberry, later confirmed that the idea would be considered as part of the defence review, launched on Friday. Thornberry said it was the “Japanese option” to maintain submarines and nuclear capabilities without actually having operational nuclear weapons......

Thornberry told the BBC’s Sunday Politics: “The way that it works is that the Japanese have got a capability to build a nuclear bomb...[but] you can then put them on to, or you can use them, in various delivery forms. So that’s a possibility, that is an option.” She said she would not speculate on what the review would recommend but she added that Corbyn “said there’s a number of options, and I said the Japanese already have this as the way that they use theirs”.

Japan's non-nuclear weapons policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%27s_non-nuclear_weapons_policy)

Japan's non-nuclear weapons policy is a policy popularly articulated as the Three Non-Nuclear Principles of non-possession, non-production, and non-introduction of nuclear weapons.........

Pacifism bill: Why Japan won't build a nuclear weapon quickly (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/20/opinions/japan-military-opinion-berger/)

..........But it should be noted that under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- which Japan ratified in 1976 -- states are entitled to peaceful nuclear technology for energy purposes if they forswear nuclear weapons.

To ensure that the country's nuclear sites remain exclusively for peaceful use, they are subjected to intensive scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. The Agency consistently verifies the accuracy and completeness of Japan's declarations regarding its nuclear facilities, material, and activities and conducts monitoring and inspections at relevant facilities. Its role in Japan will continue to be particularly important in order to dispel any fears that the country may harbor nuclear weapons intentions.

China and the International Atomic Energy Agency are not the only ones following Japan's nuclear activity closely. Two other audiences are noteworthy. The first is Japan's public, who have become increasingly wary of the risks and dangers associated with nuclear technology -- whether for civilian or military applications -- following the disaster at Fukushima in 2011. The second is the country's closest ally, the United States, who is similarly attentive to the state of Japan's nuclear program.

This is ignoring the point of a SSBN force permanently at sea in the first place, to prevent decapitation and to respond to a first strike. Or is Corbyn expecting a letter? In the event that such a farcical policy was introduced, the first indication of any intent to deploy would itself be a major escalatory issue, inviting the very strike it is purported to prevent.

[dctyke]

Maybe downgrading armourers to non aircraft trade was a precursor to aircraft without guns and bombs
; - )

[JAVELINBOY]

Give the Falklands back, together with the rights to the oil and gas reserves there as well I suppose, wonder if he thought of that?

[Chinny Crewman]

My thoughts exactly Treble One; I suspect however the review will recommend decommissioning the subs, missiles and warheads with the resultant savings being spent on job creation. As previously said echos of Foot in the 80s, what odds an increased Tory majority in 2020?

[Wageslave]

A more practical solution might be to keep the Labour Party but remove Jeremy Corbyn.

It won't be long...

[NutLoose]

So supposing the ICBM's he will launch are minus nuclear warheads, surely the Russians will not in the minutes before impact be able to differentiate between none nuclear and nuclear ICBM's so would react accordingly and respond... Unless Corbyn has some devious plan to install a radio transmitter in the missile transmitting a strong "we are not amused, but are firing blanks message".. :p


Carriers without aircraft and subs without missiles.. What next

[Melchett01]

A more practical solution might be to keep the Labour Party but remove Jeremy Corbyn.

It won't be long...

I wouldn't be as sure as I once was of that if the stories are true of the hard left looking to 'cleanse' the PLP machinery and Commons of anyone who doesn't agree with Comrade Jerry and his band of brothers. He could well be in for the long haul if he's successful and the PLP fully exorcises the New Labour elements.

How that will play out in the polls is anyone's guess if the recent article in the Indie was correct, reporting a study that suggested the UK population as a whole was more left wing than previously thought. Admittedly it was the University of Sussex, so take that as you will, but I do think JC's going to be around a lot longer than CDS!

[ORAC]

Other nutty policies soon to be released by the Rt. Hon. Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition:

Hospitals without Operating Theatres;
Police Stations without Patrol Vehicles;
Fire Stations without Fire Appliances;
etc. etc. he's working on that one.......

Jeremy Corbyn says he would lift the ban on workers going on 'sympathy strike' to support colleagues (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-would-lift-the-ban-on-workers-going-on-sympathy-strike-to-support-colleagues-a6817091.html)

[LowObservable]

Amazing. This is surely the dumbest idea in the history of nuclear deterrent thinking, including Shell Game, Dense Pack and all the other 70s-80s concepts.

And as noted, Corby's "Japanese option" doesn't exist.

[denachtenmai]

Other nutty policies soon to be released by the Rt. Hon. Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition:

Hospitals without Operating Theatres;
Police Stations without Patrol Vehicles;
Fire Stations without Fire Appliances;
etc. etc.


Aircraft Carriers without aircraft---Oh, hang on:eek:

[sitigeltfel]

MPs without taxpayer funded second homes and troughing expenses claims?

[keith williams]

We may laugh at all of these foolish ideas, but we should not be too sure that they will never come to pass.

All that is required is for the voting public to be sufficiently foolish and for the tories to make themselves look sufficiently incompetent. Both of these conditions are entirely possible.

[ORAC]

His ideas don't seem to be going down too well on the Grauniad (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-trident-compromise-no-nuclear-warheads#comment-66918595), where he should get his best reviews. Just a couple of the more recent.......

raffine 13m ago

"I'd like to be under the sea in an octopus's garden in the shade," said Corbyn.

He continued:

"Andrew, we would be warm below the storm in our little hideaway beneath the waves. Resting our heads on the sea bed in an octopus's garden near a cave."

Marr paused, gazing at his guest, perplexed and yet mildly amused.

"How realistic is this?"

Corbyn's nostrils flared, the red mist flashed before his eyes. But his composure returned almost immediately.

"Andrew, the proposal is quite realistic. We would shout and swim about the coral that lies beneath the waves."

Looking at his notes, Corbyn remembered what Milne had told him to say.

"I can promise you that it would be a joy for every girl and boy, knowing they're happy and they're safe."

David Morris 15m ago

Corbyn didn't restrict himself to talking bollox about Trident, he also said we should talk to Argentina about the Falklands, and have 'backdoor' communication with ISIS.

Why doesn't he go the whole hog and really alienate the British voter. Maybe he could call Battle of Britain fighter pilots c###s.

Or be an ex chairman of an organization that said the French deserved the attack they suffered recently, and said ISIS were like the International Brigade who fought Franco... oh, sorry, he was wasn't he.

[mr fish]

we should never laugh at the policies and idea's of a "extreme" politician.
the germans did so in the 1920s and look what happened there.
if the daft hippy cares so much for the "workers", I suggest sharing out the initial 40 billion between all 18000 and letting them spend it on british goods.
no doubt the lefty's could spin this scheme as good news for the economy!!


I have voted labour all my life but will not support this daft c**t.


FISH.

[Tankertrashnav]

Thinking about it, I think there is a use for the Trident boats, minus the Tridents

How about using them to offer 6 month mystery cruises. Just think "Where did you go on your cruise?" - "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you!"

These cruises could appeal to the super rich who are queuing up to be on Branson's commercial spacecraft. Come to think of it, we could turn the boats over to Virgin to operate - they may even make a profit.

[ORAC]

Even better, let Corbyn build the new subs as the core of a new British Space Force, pending the development of a warp drive to give them an operational capability.

It does, after all, make as much sense.........

[bobward]

Looking back at page one I see that the new boats would be in C & M, without the missiles or crews aboard. 'twill be a bloody busy four minutes to get the boats crewed, loaded and out to sea if Mr Putin lobs one or more nasty things at us.......:eek::eek:

[Frostchamber]

So now we get an option that involves no deterrent coupled with few if any of the savings offered by having no deterrent. And the potential to rebuild nuclear weapons capability from scratch so that we can hopefully deploy it within no more than a couple of decades of trouble flaring. What's not to like? Maybe we could also use the boats' advanced communications to broadcast a surrender signal if things start to look iffy.

[Cows getting bigger]

The whole idea of New Old Labour coming to power actually scares me. I've never contemplated thought that there could be a risk of going back to the days of pointless job creation, general strikes etc. It would make me emigrate.

[Brian W May]

Most of us go to Remembrance Day . . .

I wonder what 'The Fallen' would have made of Jeremy's latest thoughts.

Ever since they fell, it seems as politicians have been giving away the very thing they fought for . . . free. All in the interests of Political Correctness and their version of 'Fair'.

[RetiredBA/BY]

What a complete and utter idiot this Corbyn man is. And I speak as someone who was involved in nuclear deterrence (nuclear armed Valiant, a yellow sun or two US owned laydown weapons when assigned to NATO, I did my bit) . Who knows what or who, the next enemy will be ? Is this really the best these muppets can dream up ?

What next, warships without propellors, aircraft without wings ?

[POBJOY]

Corbyn the best campaign manager Cameron never had. No doubt he will eventually be appointed to that exalted position as a E U commissioner,as per most political deadbeats.

[Out Of Trim]

Corbyn appears to be someones' village idiot!

I can't believe how niave he is!

[AR1]

Thatcher was well on the way to dumping FI, but Galterri jumped the gun and now she's revered. Look at the paper's, they're on line.
Corbyn is rightly questioning our role in the world. Do you really believe our Nuclear Deterrent is independant? It's not.

We're in a club where we can no longer afford the membership. Simple.

[Dan Gerous]

As someone who should be a Labour supporter, I can't help but think the working man has been betrayed, by the unions back in the 70's and now Labour in the present. This clown is living in the past, with rose tinted glasses. Feckwit, the £3 voters may be behind you, but the vast majority of the British voting population aren't.

[ShotOne]

That's an entirely valid line of debate, AR1. But it doesn't in any way dilute the insanity of offering to spend a squillion quid on a totally pointless (non)weapons-system.

[Herod]

I was going to post something on this thread, but honestly, words fail me.

[Courtney Mil]

AR1,

Thatcher and her advisors failed to recognise the threat that was coming and there were questions being considered about the FI. To say she was on the way to dumping them is a bit of an illogical jump.

Corbyn's position on this has nothing to do with the UK's role. It is simply about his communist, unilateralism. Nothing more, nothing less. This latest statement of his is just a cynical attempt to disguise his singular aim.

Yes, the U.K. deterrent is independent. It is also part of the NATO alliance.

[Pontius Navigator]

There is nothing wrong with Trident without missiles or missiles without warheads.

I mean, do nuclear weapons actually work? In the YS2 we knew it was largely empty with a lot of electrical gubbins and a big dustbin inside, but was there anything in it?

It mattered not a jot as a deterrent provided we believed it did and provided they believed it did.

To say if it did I wouldn't use it, if in power I would keep it but empty was complete madness.

[Jimlad1]

"Do you really believe our Nuclear Deterrent is independant? It's not."

In my experience, anyone who feels they can make assertions such as this has not actually been fully briefed in to, or been part of, the nuclear firing chain.

It is telling that in 48 years of deterrent operations, to my knowledge not one former RN submariner who has actually had the mission of deterrence and delivering the Polaris or Trident system has ever come forward to dispute the 'independent' claim.

[NutLoose]

Pontius Navigator
I mean, do nuclear weapons actually work? In the YS2 we knew it was largely empty with a lot of electrical gubbins and a big dustbin inside, but was there anything in it?



I believe they stuck Ted Rogers in it when his show was cancelled

[AR1]

I acknowledge nobody ever consulted me regarding the release of the Nuclear Deterrent. And on that score, I respect those within that chain. But I dont believe that the release of key US technology within NATO, was without conditions.
My assumption is that the submarines without the warheads would have a conventional role, thus retaining the support jobs. - Clearly, its not a deterrent, if its not equipped.

[NutLoose]

But would you not have to carry out significant modifications to adapt it from a nuclear to a conventional Arsenal?
I would imagine most of the launch tubes would be dedicated to nuclear weapons.

[TURIN]

Why has Japan not been attacked?
Does it have an 'independent' nuclear deterrent?

[PeterGee]

I hate to say it. But I agree :-( We all may be in for a shock! He says things the public want to hear

[Archimedes]

Thatcher was not 'well on the way to dumping FI'.

There was a belief that the islands could not be defended properly without the expenditure of money we didn't have and a notion that they were more bother than they were worth. This led to explorations of 'leaseback' - which were torn to shreds by Tory backbenchers when Nick Ridley raised the idea. Thatcher, at the time, had a majority of 43 and a wing of the party which was deeply uncertain about her leadership.

She also faced a Labour party led by Jim Callaghan who would have led a fairly significant number of his MPs into the lobbies against any notion of sovereignty transfer followed by the UK leasing the islands back, and a number of Liberal (as they were at the time) MPs such as Russell Johnson were against the idea.

The FIGC, ironically, was not unanimously against the idea, but the opposition in parliament to the idea meant that unless and until the islanders were in agreement, there was no chance of the islands being handed over. This is all online as well; sovereignty transfer and lease back needs to be placed in the wider context - which was that the Thatcher government was nowhere near 'dumping the FI' - not least since MT was busy minuting proposals from Carrington with lines such as ' I could not possibly agree to the course of action the Foreign Secretary is proposing' and 'NO. It would never get through the H[ouse] of C[ommons], and rightly so.'

[See National Archives, PREM19/656 folio 118, 20 Sep 79]

Then in Feb 82, Lord Carrington sent her a note -

http://fc95d419f4478b3b6e5f-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.r87.cf1.rackcdn.com/4FC05FE157F24DCEB051872C6C87933F.pdf

Which rather suggests that the problem was nowhere near a diplomatic resolution; a memo went in the opposite direction reinforcing the view of the PM that the wishes of the islanders remained paramout.

Other documents, in Kew, but not in the Thatcher archive also suggest that her administration was nowhere near 'well on the way to dumping the FI'.

Like the proliferation of comment about the independence of the deterrent, a lot of the material out there is well out of context; unlike the Falklands, the actual documents demonstrating that the scenario is rather more complex than portrayed are not in the public domain...

[Tankertrashnav]

It has always puzzled me that at the time of the Falklands invasion by a country which was ruled by a right wing military dictatorship, the left were generally in favour of us handing them over to the tender mercies of such a regime, and certainly against any military action in their defence.

If Corbyn and his ilk were not prepared to defend us (and we can reasonably describe the Falklands population as "us") against invasion by right wing extremists, just who would they defend us against? Why doesnt Corbyn come right out and admit that, other than providing jobs for workers in the armaments industry, he sees no future for any armed forces, nuclear or otherwise?

[Jet II]

Why has Japan not been attacked?
Does it have an 'independent' nuclear deterrent?


No -it has the "Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan" ;)

[John Eacott]

Someone has been watching too much 'Yes, Prime Minister' :rolleyes:

"2020? And that's sooner than you think!"

XyJh3qKjSMk


IX_d_vMKswE

[MAINJAFAD]

I mean, do nuclear weapons actually work? In the YS2 we knew it was largely empty with a lot of electrical gubbins and a big dustbin inside, but was there anything in it?

Yep, a British built "Red Snow" warhead based on US B-28 design and some ballast. You could have got 4 US B-28's in a Vulcan, but the ballistic data for the original YS bomb was already known so it was quicker to modify the YS bomb casing to hold the smaller US warhead than to modify the NBS to drop the B-28 in its US configuration (according to a discussion in the latest RAFHS journal which covers the development of British nuclear weapons for the RAF as one of its topics).

[t43562]

I remember watching the Yes Prime Minister episode about "salami slicing" long ago and I thinking what a silly argument it was - without the deterrent, your enemy wouldn't have to bother with such a time consuming and piecemeal strategy - he'd just blow you to smithereens without warning.

[Evanelpus]

I think the Labour party voting in Corbyn was an attempt to steer away from the Labour party of years previous. I don't think the gamble has paid off and hope to God this idiot never gets into number 10.

Two things if I may. To hand the FI to Argentina would be an insult to everyone who fought in the 1982 conflict. I'm also sure that I read recently that there is only a microscopic percentage of islanders who want to be ruled by the Argies.

My second point is more worrying. Let's say judgement day came and we sent up a Trident missile or three that didn't have nuclear warheads on them. Everyone else's defense systems would react to the fact that Trident had been launched and we would end up getting vapourised by the real thing. A rather over simplistic analogy I know but you get the point.

[simon brown]

Jeesus it beggars belief the mentality of some of these politicians

To have 4 Trafalgar class submarines at great cost to the taxpayer, the prime role of which is a nuclear deterrant, which would be useless in any other role, patrolling the seas, not to be used because the left wing lentil eating beardy would refuse to "push the button"

If the "button" was pushed the empty ballistic missile would amount to a glorified firework, appearing on others radars as a nuclear attack with the obvious consequences

Corbyn should resign and pursue a career in stand up comedy as he's not fit for purpose to lead the UK, problem is he's being laughed at now so there's no point

[NutLoose]

Ahh.... I get a chance to use it in a proper thread, apologies to Neville Chamberlain whose head I pasted over..

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Corbynism_zps1hd9dfqk.jpg

[dagenham]

Perhaps comrade jez would rather put up no resistance and have the red flag of the people flying over the workers palace on the mall?

[Martin the Martian]

On the subject of independent deterrence I believe much was made of RAF Thor IRBMs being under dual key control and only able to be used if the White House agreed. I also seem to remember at least one comment from a former Thor driver that if necessary the US-held key may well have been exchanged for a bullet from an RAF-issue personal weapon had the situation demanded it.

Don't expect the current arrangement vis-a-vis Trident to be quite the same, but I have no doubt that the UK can use it unilaterally if needed -warhead or no warhead:rolleyes:.

[Willard Whyte]

I was given to understand that no 'external influence' was required to launch Trident. I.e. launch authority lies entirely with the crew of the sub.

[LowObservable]

Evanelpus - Correct, and a major reason why Conventional Trident was :mad:canned in the US, despite Hoss Cartwright's enthusiasm for Conventional Prompt Global Strike (I think he liked it because it didn't involve any Air Force pilots).

And if the boats have conventional warheads, or no warheads at all, they create an incentive for an adversary to move quickly towards a desired end-state before they can be armed.

[Pontius Navigator]

Yep, a British built "Red Snow" warhead based on US B-28 design and some ballast. You could have got 4 US B-28's in a Vulcan, but the ballistic data for the original YS bomb was already known so it was quicker to modify the YS bomb casing to hold the smaller US warhead than to modify the NBS to drop the B-28 in its US configuration (according to a discussion in the latest RAFHS journal which covers the development of British nuclear weapons for the RAF as one of its topics).

Indeed. We believed it would work, we believed the aircraft would work*, we believed we would reach the target but we were only cleared to Top Secret.

The bottom line, it could have been a bluff.

After 28 days on stand-by the aircraft was disarmed, underwent a BF, and then was flown off. No rectification was undertaken if the 'post-QRA fly-off' was to prove a success.

[Top West 50]

How does the potential enemy's air defence system distinguish between an incoming conventional warhead and a nuclear warhead and what does he do if he isn't sure?

[ShotOne]

The arguments for or against nuclear deterrence aren't really the point here;it's the fact of Mr Corbyn's intention to use the UK Defence budget as a Labour Party slush-fund to pay an electoral bribe to would-be supporters in the defence industry.

The Corbyn plan would swallow a gigantic sum of our money-and contribute no more to the nations defence than if he'd paid Red Robbo and his comrades to build two million Austin Allegro's and dump them in the North Atlantic!

[TURIN]

No -it has the "Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan"

Is that more or less expensive than Trident?

[PeterGee]

So whilst I do not agree with Mr Corbyn on, well anything! I would not consider him uninitelligent. I did not see the interview, so can anyone here even attempt to outline his rationale? From what I do understand, this is the most hairbrained idea I have heard of!

[langleybaston]

My worry is that this topic ought to have been/ still be headline gnus. Not a lot of take up except amongst the terrified informed, is there?

[Whenurhappy]

Yeah but the telly weren't arf good tho!

Yep, lots of poor taste comedies (Dad's Army notwithstanding) involving stereotypical comments about 'poofs' and 'darkies'. Clearly a golden age...

[Pontius Navigator]

LB, obviously not looking in the right place. The lovies may not cover it but the broadsheets and unions do. He has brought Defence well in to the public eye.

[Whenurhappy]

So whilst I do not agree with Mr Corbyn on, well anything! I would not consider him uninitelligent. I did not see the interview, so can anyone here even attempt to outline his rationale? From what I do understand, this is the most hairbrained idea I have heard of!
I'm no fan of Dave Spart, but I watched the interview and he came across rather better than I anticipated. Though there's no question of handing over the FI, the current situation of maintaining a stupendously expensive garrison in the face of a desperately broke nation that can't accord fuel for their coast guard RIBs is a bit ridiculous.

But these aren't the polucies that will get the Labour Party elected. Consider the battle between Popularist policies presenting free university places, rent controls, more Council housing, nationalised utilities, British Rail, higher living wage...in the face of 12 years of (necessary) austerity and more 'fat cat' Tory rule. Add to this the entryism of the Hard Left (Militant veterans of the 1980s) and I'm not sure the results of the 2020 election will be that easy to call

[langleybaston]

Quote: .in the face of 12 years of (necessary) austerity

I just don't see "austerity" biting much round here. I don't see it at all.

We were in Spalding at 0830 this morning. Spalding is not, repeat not, prosperous. Agriculture and the dole are the main sources of income [commuting is not easy, and Polish workers snap up jobs the natives cannot be bothered to do].

We could not get into Greggs for a bacon sarnie ......... a very long queue of teenagers buying [and consuming] breakfast. Given that they or their parents could not be bothered with providing breakfast, at least some of them would also be buying lunch later. At a minimum, this has to be about £3 a day for 20 days a month.

They almost all had smart fones ........ bun in one hand, fone in the other. Not cheap, whether contract or purchase.

So that is, say, £50 to £100 per teenager per month.

Austerity?

I accept that matters will be a lot worse in some areas, but they are also a lot better [more prosperous] in many others.

I am tempted to quote Harold MacMillan.

[Herod]

I am tempted to quote Harold MacMillan.

I know you didn't mean this one, but it applies as well.

"The wind of change is blowing through this continent"

[RetiredBA/BY]

You"ve never had it so good !!!!!!!!!

[Ian Corrigible]

Wasn't that Kenneth Williams? :E

[harbour cotter]

Although a bit off topic for an aviation forum, there appear to be a few inaccuracies in the above posts which I would like to clarify. The Trafalgar class mentioned is a class of 7 not 4 boats. None of which have ICBM missiles, rather they have the capability of non-nuclear weapons such as TLAM. These 'T' class boats are being replaced, extremely slowly by the 'A' class boats, such as HMS Astute. These again are not ICBM capable. The 'V' class boats, such as HMS Trafalgar, are a class of 4 vessels and are equipped with ICBMs. They will require replacing over the next decade.

I Believe Corbyn was referring to a new class of ICBM capable boats, which he would build but not arm. I totally agree that this is absurd. However as a Country we have to decide if ICBMs are affordable. If so, the new vessels should be built. If not, its totally pointless building ICBM capable boats which are considerably more expensive that other types and less capable of meeting other requirements. (Unless of course this is gerrymandering, sounding great to the extreme left but at the same time having the weapons available to load at short notice, thereby he realizes that they are in fact, needed).

There is of course a third option, to fit non ICBM boats with Nuclear tipped TLAM conventional weapons. However there would be inherent problems with this, range, payload, and not the minor problem of agreement with the U.S., and redesigning them as they are their expensive toys we are playing with after all.

[harbour cotter]

I made an error in the last post, the 'V' class boats should obviously have been 'HMS Vanguard' etc

[TURIN]

We could not get into Greggs for a bacon sarnie ......... a very long queue of teenagers buying [and consuming] breakfast. Given that they or their parents could not be bothered with providing breakfast, at least some of them would also be buying lunch later. At a minimum, this has to be about £3 a day for 20 days a month.

If they are eating at Greggs everyday I shouldn't worry too much about their future...they haven't got one. :}

[Whenurhappy]

Thatcher was well on the way to dumping FI, but Galterri jumped the gun and now she's revered. Look at the paper's, they're on line.
Corbyn is rightly questioning our role in the world. Do you really believe our Nuclear Deterrent is independant? It's not.

We're in a club where we can no longer afford the membership. Simple.

Thatcher wasn't going to dump the Falklands, but Labour had discussed it some years earlier and Galtieri linked that with the planned withdrawal of HMS Endurance, and the Latin machismo that reckoned that the economic basket case of Britain led by a women wouldn't respond. Fortunately the junta made a huge miscalculation; moreover the decision to land the Argentine Task Force was only made the day before.

[glad rag]

What's the big deal? He's only copying Camermong re carriers/Nimrod etc,etc..:mad:

[Whenurhappy]

Quote: .in the face of 12 years of (necessary) austerity

I just don't see "austerity" biting much round here. I don't see it at all.

We were in Spalding at 0830 this morning. Spalding is not, repeat not, prosperous. Agriculture and the dole are the main sources of income [commuting is not easy, and Polish workers snap up jobs the natives cannot be bothered to do].

We could not get into Greggs for a bacon sarnie ......... a very long queue of teenagers buying [and consuming] breakfast. Given that they or their parents could not be bothered with providing breakfast, at least some of them would also be buying lunch later. At a minimum, this has to be about £3 a day for 20 days a month.

They almost all had smart fones ........ bun in one hand, fone in the other. Not cheap, whether contract or purchase.

So that is, say, £50 to £100 per teenager per month.

Austerity?

I accept that matters will be a lot worse in some areas, but they are also a lot better [more prosperous] in many others.

I am tempted to quote Harold MacMillan.
There is, without a doubt, a reduction in Government spending - especially what cascades down to councils and organizations like the Environment Agency. Welfare spending has changed, but the beneficiaries are already Labour or SNP supporters...but these Labour policies are attractive to swing voters...

[Exnomad]

As it used to be said, somewhere there is a village lacking an idiot, will he please go home.
Without the nuclear option, to have a viable deterent to put off any possible attackers we would nned a vast increase in the size of our converntial forces, where would that money come from.

[Fareastdriver]

Judging by the way military T&Cs are going where are the people coming from.

[KenV]

Why has Japan not been attacked?Why? Lots of different reasons. A few of them relate to the many thousands of US military personnel stationed in Japan.

Does it have an 'independent' nuclear deterrent? Nope. So far Japan is content to rely totally on the US for its nuclear deterrent. It'll be interesting to see how long that lasts as its North Korean neighbor develops the means to reliably deliver their nukes.

[Hangarshuffle]

£100,000,000,000. Is that what 100 billion looks like?
On a weapon designed to replace like for like another weapon from another time - the long gone cold war.
Far from an idiot to bring this matter to our attention.
Wish we could have a national debate about it, but we wont even have a nation soon, the way we are going.UK is rapidly splitting apart.
We actually cant use Trident without American permission....its not independent and neither would its replacement be. America is stringing us along.
Money.
We haven't even got white lines painted correctly on the roads anymore in the county I live in. The whole infrastructure looks increasingly shot.
Our local Govt. budget is shot.
Not to mention the flood damage....the future with that alone.... Our national debt. Our increasing national overdraft....
Lots and lots of better ways to spend this money (which we haven't got).
Get rid, don't replace.

[salad-dodger]

Hangar, do you really think that Comrade Corbyn's stance is in anyway related to the cost of replacing Trident? I think he would take this view if the replacement cost was 1 million, not 100 Billion. The guy is a fool, and what's more, he is a dangerous fool. This man leading the opposition worries me. The thought of him leading the country terrifies me.

S-D

[jonw66]

Nail head Salad we've had our disagreements but you're bang on there
Jon

[theonewhoknows]

Hangershuffle,

Please explain why the UK cannot '...use Trident without American permission...?

[Treble one]

There seems to be some contention on here apparently from people in the know, that The PM can't authorise the use of Trident without the nod from our American cousins.


So, would anyone like to come up with a hard answer as to why?


And can you explain how, in the event of a 'bolt from the blue' strike on London which decapitated the command and control structure authorising retaliation, how American permission would be required when operating orders would be to look at 'the letters of last resort' safely tucked away in a safe deep under the North Atlantic?


The PM would surely have had to leave instruction in these for the missiles to be put under US control? And say if the US was obliterated by a first strike also.....

[theonewhoknows]

It's not difficult?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

[pax britanica]

Are we important enough to be attacked by anyone with Nuclear missiles anyway.

[Willard Whyte]

We actually cant use Trident without American permission.

Often stated, never backed up. You are simply regurgitating bull****.

[Courtney Mil]

Far from an idiot to bring this matter to our attention.
Wish we could have a national debate about it, but we wont even have a nation soon, the way we are going.

Not an idiot? What's so smart about suggesting we keep Trident (or whatever comes later), discard the nuclear warheads and then tell the whole world that's what we're doing? Or are you as deluded as Comrade Corbinsky?

UK is rapidly splitting apart.

Yes, opinion is divided over this. You and Corbyn think it's a good idea to have nukes without warheads, the rest of the country thinks it's not.

We actually cant use Trident without American permission....its not independent and neither would its replacement be. America is stringing us along.

Once again, you are completely wrong about a fairly fundamental, yet vital, fact about UK Defence. Perhaps you need to re-examine some of your anti-military ideas and consider how many more of them might not be based on the real world.

[cornish-stormrider]

I think those who are hard of thinking are linking the long since defunct nuclear sharing via nato or the old Thor/Jupiters with the fact we share maintenance of the Trident solid rocket boosters with the septics....


Two plus two equals conspiracy.
Trident =Independant

[Evalu8ter]

There seems to be confusion here. I'd defer to Hennessy who answered this very question last week. In effect there is no US input into the firing chain - ergo we could fire when/ if we wanted to (and the Letters of Last Resort seem to back this up). However, we are beholden to the US for the supply of parts under the Nassau/Polaris/Trident agreements so if the US decided to pull the plug his best guess was 12-18 months before the lack of spares/support caused the capability to fall over.

[Heathrow Harry]

Just rubbishing Corbyn isn't good enough - there IS a genuine case for not replacing Trident - there was an interesting Op-Ed piece in yesterdays "Times" listing people from ex Maj-Gen Cordingley to Crispin Blunt (Tory Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee) to Porillo and others who have serious reservations

these are not raving leftie lunatics

personally I'm (slightly) in favour of Successor on the grounds that its a capability that once lost will enver be recreated and it will last another 40 years. It only is useful as a threat against Russia & China TBH but Russia is a bit to close and unpredictable in my view to be totally trusted

But it does come at a cost - we could double the effective size of our conventional forces without it annd still have money left over

[Fareastdriver]

But it does come at a cost

It's peanuts compared with what the nation spends on benefits.

[Not_a_boffin]

Just to put the cost of Successor into context.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/41306/50325-Chart-1.jpg

£40Bn = slightly more than we pay each year in debt interest

£40Bn = just over 2 months of "Social protection" each year

£40BN = just under 4 months spend on NHS, each year

Anyone who thinks any money diverted from Successor would go back into defence needs their bumps feeling. Those who do tend to be of a pongo persuasion who see that mythical readjustment as the magic wand to protect the 64th Foot & Mouth Regt......

[Heathrow Harry]

and pensions ...... but that's another story

ask voters if their benifits and pensions should be cut to pay for Trident and you'll have Corbyn in number 10 in no time at all

And Boffin the very Tory voters who moan on about NHS spending etc etc are the same people who are ready to die in the ditch to protect their local hospitals, moan to the Daily Mail about "post Code Lotteries" in treatment and want every new drug available to everyone, immediately & at no cost to themselves

We can't have everything - and we can't even have some of what we want if people want tax rates at 20% rather than the rates we paid in through the 1950's -70's

[skydiver69]

Maybe Corbyn is saying it to curry favour with the SNP who I'm sure would love to keep the jobs and investment which Faslane brings but don't want the the nuclear warheads which go along with it, so maybe there is some other method in his madness.

[Not_a_boffin]

the very Tory voters who moan on about NHS spending etc etc are the same people who are ready to die in the ditch to protect their local hospitals, moan to the Daily Mail about "post Code Lotteries" in treatment and want every new drug available to everyone, immediately & at no cost to themselves



I thought the Daily Hate was a UKIP paper......or is that the Express?

Merely pointing out that the "vast cost" of Successor is a mere drop in the ocean in government spending. Only the completely irrational believe that you can maintain what is in effect a public service with unconstrained demand and ever more expensive treatments on a pure taxation basis.

Not sure how you get a doubling in effectiveness of conventional forces from the £2Bn a year you'd release from the successor programme either.....even in the unlikely event the Treasury signed the cheque.

[Courtney Mil]

Just rubbishing Corbyn isn't good enough

I wasn't just rubbishing Corbyn, I was also rubbishing your opinion based on flawed knowledge concerning the independence of UK's nuclear deterrent AND Corbyn's ridiculous statement about having a nuclear deterrent without warheads.

It only is useful as a threat against Russia & China TBH

Any deterrent is only the least bit useful against anyone if your enemy KNOWS it has a Big Bang at the end of it and Government willing to use it; both things that Corbyn is happy to undermine.

Of course, if you still think they are all controlled by the US, Corbyn wouldn't have to worry about that, would he?

[Hangarshuffle]

Friends we are hanging on to being a nuclear power for exactly why? There are two traditional superpowers left and one now fully emerging. We and France are bygones-its hard, but accept it.
Our country...look around it - we need the money elsewhere now....its very obvious.
This cant last. We have to stare reality in the face.

[t43562]

"Friends, Britons, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Britain, not to praise it.... We who are all about to die should salute each other....because "to be or not to be", that is the question.. and whether to give up now and lie weeping on our beds or to hide our nuclear weapons in a sea of troubles and by opposing end them barstards....."

[DON T]

Anybody going:

Jeremy Corbyn musical to be staged in London - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35371204)

[Courtney Mil]

We and France are bygones

France? The third largest nuclear power in the world. I suggest you Google Force de Dissuassion and look at the current air and sea capabilities and the modernisation programme.

ASMP-A carried by the Armée de l'Air and Aviation Navale, Mirage 2000N and Rafale, training over my house every day in all weathers at low level. Force océanique stratégique loaded with M45 (currently upgrading to M51) with one boat always at sea and four more available.

Bygone? Another one of your facts you need to review.

[theonewhoknows]

There's only one Superpower, the US! Russia isn't even a Great Power! China is certainly on the road to being both.

[javelinfaw9]

Well said hangar shuffle.
We are a nation of "sneaky buggers" . I`m sure we can put a nuclear deterrent together with modern tech. Suitcase bomb or similar.Recruit "elite" force from Bradford or Luton as prime delivery system. Whoops perhaps not!! Develop snidey tip for cruise missiles etc. Totally British. Money saved on Trident can be used to strengthen woeful conventional/adaptable forces. Yield does not need to be massive cold war type.
The fact you`ve delivered one means another can arrive.

[NutLoose]

You are all working under the delusion that any monies saved from the military budget by cancelling Trident would be transferred to bolster the conventional forces... Wake up and smell the coffee, any savings will simply be diverted elsewhere, all parties have shown over the years National defence is not their priority, they may talk the talk, but in reality they simply keep cutting, defence does not win votes, health and benefits do.

[Finningley Boy]

You are all working under the delusion that any monies saved from the military budget by cancelling Trident would be transferred to bolster the conventional forces... Wake up and smell the coffee, any savings will simply be diverted elsewhere, all parties have shown over the years National defence is not their priority, they may talk the talk, but in reality they simply keep cutting, defence does not win votes, health and benefits do.

I was watching Nicola Sturgeon explain how the massive expense of Trident was depriving the Conventional Armed Forces of much needed resources.

NutLoose,

You're spot on, the expectation that any SNP Defence Secretary, or from any other party for that matter ploughing the money from Trident back into everything else covered by the defence budget is less likely than ISIL honouring an offer of generous surrender terms. However, as Andrew Neal pointed out to Diane Abbot not too long ago on the same subject, she was proposing to spend the money saved on the NHS etc, surprise surprise, but looked definitely stopped in her tracks when Mr Neal pointed out that the 2 % of GDP would still need to be maintained as agreed with NATO. At least Abbot was honest, Sturgeon utterly disingenuous.

FB:)

[sitigeltfel]

Anybody going:

Jeremy Corbyn musical to be staged in London - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35371204)

He already performs as ringleader in a circus of clowns.

[Genstabler]

For those who doubt the ability of the media to exploit for their own agenda the opinions posted on forums like PPRune and Arrse, this little gem from the Guardian. This is a brief extract. The whole article and the accompanying comments of its readers are thought provoking.

Unfriendly fire: would a Corbyn government lead to a military revolt?

The Army Rumour Service, which calls itself “the British Army’s busiest and best online community”, or Arrse for short, is not somewhere for civilians of a delicate disposition. On the discussion threads of this unofficial website for anonymous serving and former soldiers, anti-capitalist protesters, for example, are described as “hypocritical, unemployable, leeching and parasitic”. “This scum needs a good dose … kicked into them,” concludes a typical post from November. “There is no happiness without order.”

Politicians are written about with contempt, especially leftwing ones – and none more so than Jeremy Corbyn, the least militaristic person since the 30s to command a major British party. He is “an anti-British, not very educated, ageing communist agitating class war zealot”, “an idiot … wannabe radical”.

Since becoming Labour leader five months ago, Corbyn has made clearer and clearer his determination to get rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons. First, he said he would never launch them as prime minister. Then he reshuffled his shadow cabinet and ordered a policy review to undermine Labour’s previous support for them. Then, nine days ago, he suggested – in either a cunning or reckless bid to win the support of leftwing unions with members in the defence industry – that a Corbyn government might deploy Trident submarines without their missiles.

Corbyn has also stubbornly opposed the bombing of Syria, against the view of many of his own MPs; expressed doubts about responding to terrorist attacks with lethal force; and called for Britain to reach “a reasonable accommodation” – reportedly a “power-sharing” agreement – with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, which the British military bloodily recaptured 34 years ago. As one poster on the Army Rumour Service recently put it, Corbyn is “a minor irritant” who has grown into “an unmitigated disaster”.

[LowObservable]

“hypocritical, unemployable, leeching and parasitic”.

Sounds like the way half the Guardian's columnists describe anyone who has a willie.

[pr00ne]

LowObservable,

You've just confirmed that you have obviously never read the Guardian!

[engineer(retard)]

As pr00ne points out, the Guardian also supports the right of any reader to have a willy, regardless of whether they were born with one or not

[LowObservable]

But people who have willies and pretend not to are either the scum of the earth or a victim class, depending whether the date is even or odd.

[Hangarshuffle]

I don't think Corbyn will last the distance. Pressure (after May elections hammering) on him will be massive (to step down). Beyond that a battle looms for the soul of the Labour Party which will take all their energy to fight out. Tories have a free run at it for the next 10 years really.Purely academic for PPrune worthy's of course.
I'd like to see a worthwhile HM opposition debate and challenge the standard line that we need to replace Trident.
For me, its the cost. 100 billion we haven't got and shouldn't spend (or borrow). Its just too much. Tax intake isn't enough, our balance of payments all wrong.... we owe a fortune from previous war interventions.


15,000 nuclear warheads in circulation tonight, I sometimes don't give much hope for mankind lasting the distance, let alone Corbyn.
Love to see Europe nuclear free, like South America and Africa.
God, continue to watch over us.


ICAN | International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/)

[KenV]

.....Tax intake isn't enough....
Seems to me the problem is not insufficient tax intake. The problem seems to be much more one of prioritizing tax outlays. The percentage of taxes going to defense is miniscule by almost any standard.

[Finningley Boy]

I don't think Corbyn will last the distance. Pressure (after May elections hammering) on him will be massive (to step down). Beyond that a battle looms for the soul of the Labour Party which will take all their energy to fight out. Tories have a free run at it for the next 10 years really.

Now HS old fruit, the above statement sweeps along rather don't you think?

FB:)

[Courtney Mil]

Seems to me the problem is not insufficient tax intake. The problem seems to be much more one of prioritizing tax outlays. The percentage of taxes going to defense is miniscule by almost any standard.

I fear you may be right on all counts there. I wonder how that may be fixed.

[LowObservable]

The percentage of taxes going to defense is minuscule by almost any standard.

Oh my. It's actually not.

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

I don't usually use Wiki as my go-to, but the sources are clear here. The UK is pretty mid-pack. That said, it has a relatively high standard of living and a volunteer force, which raise costs. However, the present discussion raises the issue of how maintaining a nuclear deterrent under those circumstances crimps the conventional force.

[Not_a_boffin]

The percentage of taxes going to defense is minuscule by almost any standard.

Oh my. It's actually not.



Except that your Wiki link references GDP, rather than taxation. GDP is a good measure overall, but the 6% of taxation revenue spent on defence in the UK

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/41306/50325-Chart-1.jpg

particularly when three departments between them consume (arguably) 67% of tax revenue, demonstrates government - and electoral - priorities. Particularly when - as you say - we go for the high cost base (thankfully).

[Roland Pulfrew]

Hangarshuffle: For me, its the cost. 100 billion we haven't got and shouldn't spend (or borrow)

So, to place in context, less than one year's expenditure on the NHS and much less than one year's expenditure on welfare. It would appear that we can afford it.

[Ken Scott]

I have always been rather dubious about Trident - why would we want the most expensive deterrent that we're never going to actually use? Events in Crimea & Ukraine have convinced me otherwise, I now believe that we need it as a final guarantee of our security in the face of potential aggressors long into the future most of which we can't even guess at today. The cost is spread over so many years that in the scale of government expenditure it's a relative drop in the ocean especially when compared to that of keeping the Jeremy Kyle audience idle for their whole lives.

As has been stated previously no savings from abandoning Trident would be ploughed back into conventional defence & our giving up nuclear weapons would have no appreciable effect on world disarmament, much as our destroying our economy with green energy has had no effect on world output of CO2, to think that our actions would lead the world is a conceit.

[Herod]

At the risk of mis-quoting: Theodore Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Al Capone "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can get with just a kind word" We would probably never use the nuclear option (99.99%?), but any aggressor has to consider the other 0.01%.