Missiles inbound but do not worry

[NutLoose]

Because Corbyn will have a debate as to whether to strike back.... I would imagine that might be a tad hard to do in the time available.

A Jeremy Corbyn-led government would make collective decisions about when to use nuclear weapons, Emily Thornberry has said.The shadow foreign secretary said Labour would be deliberately “ambiguous” about the circumstances in which it would ever deploy the UK’s Trident weapons system in response to threats from other states.

In what appeared to be a major shift in the party’s stance on the issue, she suggested that Corbyn - who has vowed not to use nuclear weapons - would share the decision with senior cabinet colleagues in the event of an imminent threat.“I don’t necessarily believe that will be a decision made by one individual, I suspect that the way that Jeremy makes decisions is that he takes advice and we work collectively,” she told ITV’s Good Morning Britain programme.

“We will do everything we can in order to protect our country if it becomes necessary. We will make those decisions together and Jeremy listens to his colleagues, particularly those who he knows and respects,” she also told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.However, HuffPost UK understands that Corbyn’s stance is that while, he will listen to advice, he will take the final decisions as Labour leader and PM.






She added: “In principle, Jeremy is not a pacifist. We are not pacifists. There will be times when we need to use military force but when we use it we need to ensure that the use of the military force actually makes the situation better in the long term.

”Defence minister Johnny Mercer said: “The fact that the Shadow Foreign Secretary is openly speculating that her leader could be overruled by a committee on a matter as fundamental as using our nuclear deterrent shows just how weak Jeremy Corbyn really is.

Even his closest colleagues don’t trust him.“If Jeremy Corbyn is unable to make crucial decisions to keep our country safe, he is not fit to be Prime Minister.

”Tory sources added that prime ministers had personal responsibility to give real time orders on use of drone strikes, shoot-to-kill incidents and other emergency situations.Corbyn has said that Nato is a ‘danger’ to world peace and that it was founded to ‘promote’ the Cold War.



www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/corbyn-thornberry-nuclear-deterrent-collective-decision_uk_5dc9287be4b00927b236240d?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIgGOwfbxr7P07gicj193vKbSj9fYSAMtgOVJn fw9i79PysIxpPalvKYYU1Ve-5UJ-HA_G5TBFZe2a8Li0-M1uOYwtzAjd9oM39a7zFGmV2yTCK05aZSY6_IH1eoLnCCWIQutY2ma60XRV7 js___HCLH-MoDtM6F0jcPZJQmjoaV (https://www.pprune.org/www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/corbyn-thornberry-nuclear-deterrent-collective-decision_uk_5dc9287be4b00927b236240d?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xl LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIgGOwfbxr7P07gicj193vKbSj9fYS AMtgOVJnfw9i79PysIxpPalvKYYU1Ve-5UJ-HA_G5TBFZe2a8Li0-M1uOYwtzAjd9oM39a7zFGmV2yTCK05aZSY6_IH1eoLnCCWIQutY2ma60XRV7 js___HCLH-MoDtM6F0jcPZJQmjoaV)


https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1202769/Piers-Morgan-emily-Thornberry-ITV-GMB-latest-news-general-election-2019?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation

[Treble one]

Corbyn has gone on record to say that he'd never use the system in any circumstance. Which is a bloody stupid thing to do. Because deterrence is about making any potential aggressors think you MIGHT use it, even if you have no intention of doing so. Perhaps someone should explain this to him?

[etudiant]

Corbyn has gone on record to say that he'd never use the system in any circumstance. Which is a bloody stupid thing to do. Because deterrence is about making any potential aggressors think you MIGHT use it, even if you have no intention of doing so. Perhaps someone should explain this to him?

Would anyone believe him either way?
I doubt countries make life or death decisions based on that type of statement made by political figures.

[Herod]

With Trident we could obliterate the whole of eastern Europe! - I don't want to! - It's a deterrent.
- It's a bluff.
I probably wouldn't use it.
- They don't know you probably wouldn't.
- They probably do.
- Yes, probably, but they can't certainly know.
They probably certainly know.
Yes, but though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that although you probably wouldn't, there's no probability that you certainly would! What? It all boils down to one simple issue.

"Yes Prime Minister"

[langleybaston]

four minutes are u ................................

[NutLoose]

"Hello Dianne, Jeremy here, I hear Russia has launched, so we only have 4 minutes to retaliate, should we?"

"Well Jeremy as you know I am touring Scotland at the moment and staying in Elgin, so I should be safe here, 4 minutes, is that like 10 minutes or less? They do say if the phone goes dead there has been a detona..............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

"Hello John, Jeremy here, I hear the Russians have launched, Diane's phone has gone dead, do you think we should retaliate?

"Yes we know, hold on Jeremy, I will ask Emily, she is here with me and the rest of the Cabinet in the Secret War Bunker, it was decided not to tell you about it for fear off it getting out"

"Bunker? Secret Bunker? No one told me about a Secr.................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

[MPN11]

Meanwhile, in a highly secure filing cabinet in a secret Labour Party location, there are many thousands of stamped envelopes addressed to Party members containing a Referendum on whether the UK will retaliate.

[treadigraph]

Isn't Islington North a nuclear-free zone?

[Just a spotter]

I may be very wrong, and not to defend the Labour position, or the MAD philosophy, but I thought I’d read that the modern thinking with nukes had moved away from “use ‘em or loose ‘em”, especially with submarine based capabilities, that the strategic advantage was not with first strike, especially if you’ve shot your bolt, but rather with the response. The side responding having the now larger arsenal (assuming of course it hasn’t been depleted in the first move or lost its command and control) could exert more influence/pressure and my not need to fire in the short term, and even in the long term might have the aggressor at a disadvantage having depleted its inventory.

JAS

[Phantom Driver]

Labour policy is to maintain the Trident deterrent . Any discussion as to future hypotheticals is, in my opinion , academic . Best to move on to more valid ( and constructive ) points of criticism . .

[911slf]

If we need aircraft carriers does it matter that we will have gone a decade without them?

If we need Trident does a gap of ten years in capability matter (whether for political or other reasons)?

Does anyone seriously believe our existing Trident submarine force will remain fully available for the next decade?

[West Coast]

If we need aircraft carriers does it matter that we will have gone a decade without them?

If we need Trident does a gap of ten years in capability matter (whether for political or other reasons)?

Does anyone seriously believe our existing Trident submarine force will remain fully available for the next decade?

Sufficient data in the public realm to accurately make that prediction?

[BVRAAM]

It's irrelevant - he will lose the election so it doesn't matter what he will or won't debate.

This guy cannot even provide a credible opposition, much less govern a country. Labour will likely lose around a third of their seats to The Brexit Party.
I'm not even worried about this - it's not on my radar. He will be gone by the New Year.

[hunterboy]

Useful idiots

[ORAC]

Train wreck, or a long term career move by Thornberry?

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1193897020102238208?s=21

[Asturias56]

I understand the British PM writes letters to the Trident Commanders saying what they should do if & when the UK is turned into a crisp.

I believe the letters are shredded when a new PM arrives.

Has any PM ever said what they'd instructed the commanders to do?

[911slf]

Sufficient data in the public realm to accurately make that prediction?

The lack of an aircraft carrier when apparently they were always needed is indeed a matter of public record.

To have only four submarines over a thirty year period is running dangerously close to failure. One undergoing maintenance, one 'working up' a new crew, a third en route to a patrol area, leaves just one available for use. I don't believe we can be sure that single submarine is always going to be available as the fleet ages. Absolutely the precise condition of the fleet should not be a matter of public knowledge. And can we be quite certain that a base in Scotland will always be available through the lifetime of their replacement - to 2060?

Uncertainty is important though. It would be OK Corbyn saying he would never use these missiles if he had confined his thoughts to the confidential letters to commanders. I am by no means a fan of his. OTOH to set out in advance a promise to use these weapons under specified circumstances would be crazy, though it does not stop interviewers trying to get him to do just that.

[teeteringhead]

Isn't Islington North a nuclear-free zone? Used to enjoy seeing a similar sign at Greenwich ....

.... did nobody tell them about JASON?

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

... probably not!

[Phantom Driver]

But if your plan is to never use it, whats the point?

Methinks with hordes of missiles heading in from a certain direction. there is no doubt the buttons will be pushed . Who would you be saving the "birds" for when there would be nothing to come home to .

On the other hand , the nutcase/rogue commander scenario would have to give pause for thought . "Doctor Strangelove" and more especially "Crimson Tide" address the subject well . I have all confidence in the checks and balances built into the military command and control systems that the correct decisions will be made , no matter who's political finger is on the nuclear trigger .

Deterrent means exactly that . I don't think "first strike" features in any nuclear battle plan these days , even that of Trump and Kim , despite all the talk .

Not losing any sleep over this particular issue . But it lets the media have some fun .

[ORAC]

Deterrent means exactly that . I don't think "first strike" features in any nuclear battle plan these days , even that of Trump and Kim , despite all the talk .

The Russians refer to it as a policy of “escalate to de-escalate”.

https://globalsecurityreview.com/nuclear-de-escalation-russias-deterrence-strategy/

Russia’s military doctrine dictates the use of nuclear weapons in response to any non-nuclear assault on Russian territory.

[Phantom Driver]

Russia’s military doctrine dictates the use of nuclear weapons in response to any non-nuclear assault on Russian territory.

Thanks for the link .Even better reason for cool heads to prevail .

[NutLoose]

But wasn't that similar to what we envisaged? using localised "Tactical" Nuclear Weapons to stem the hordes rolling into West Germany in the hope it would cause a de-escalation.






..

[ORAC]

The problem with Flexible Response was that the linkage between battlefield to tactical to strategic weapons inevitably, in ever6 exercise, escalated to general response rather than de-escalated. which is why the INF Treaty was eventually signed to get rid of them, and the linkage risk.

Russia has, if you read the paper above, introduced the equivalent of Flexible Response for homeland defence, with all the risks entailed - and which has also, inevitably, as the need the range of weapons to implement the policy, their reintroduction of tactical weapons and the demise of the INF Treaty.

[A_Van]

....

Russia’s military doctrine dictates the use of nuclear weapons in response to any non-nuclear assault on Russian territory.

ORAC, it's an incorrect (intentional or unintentional) interpretation or translation. There no words "dictates" and "any" there.
It is written in the original (I just opened that web page) that Russia "reserves the right to use N-weap in response to use N-weaps or other WoMD against it or its allies, and also in the case of aggression against RF with the use of conventional weaps when the existence of the state is at threat. The decision is made by the president".

Russian original:
<<< 27. Российская Федерация оставляет за собой право применить ядерное оружие в ответ на применение против нее и (или) ее союзников ядерного и других видов оружия массового поражения, а также в случае агрессии против Российской Федерации с применением обычного оружия, когда под угрозу поставлено само существование государства. Решение о применении ядерного оружия принимается Президентом Российской Федерации >>>

So, IMHO sounds not as black-or-white.
E.g. if "hordes of tanks from baltic superstates" enter the Russian territory, no need to use nukes. They would be kicked out by a couple of battalions.
The latter phrase remains in the doctrine since the times of Mao when millions of Chinese soldiers were ready to cross the Russian border in Far East so that no conventional weaps could stop such a crowd of kamikadze fanatics.

[SARF]

I may be very wrong, and not to defend the Labour position, or the MAD philosophy, but I thought I’d read that the modern thinking with nukes had moved away from “use ‘em or loose ‘em”, especially with submarine based capabilities, that the strategic advantage was not with first strike, especially if you’ve shot your bolt, but rather with the response. The side responding having the now larger arsenal (assuming of course it hasn’t been depleted in the first move or lost its command and control) could exert more influence/pressure and my not need to fire in the short term, and even in the long term might have the aggressor at a disadvantage having depleted its inventory.

JAS

i think you might be at a slight disadvantage when half of your own real estate is on fire and 60 per cent of your population is dead .
but I’ve seen worse negotiating positions . The red indians, the aboriginals,

[MATELO]

Has any PM ever said what they'd instructed the commanders to do?

James Callaghan kind of hinted at it.

[javelinfaw9]

In the cold light of day. What satisfaction does it give anyone to know that 4 minutes after ruin of the nation, 10 million russians will cop it. We will be toast.
Remove Trident and spend saving on more conventional arms,How about a 100 ship navy, and a 20 squadron air force. Naval bases N,E,S & W . Ships to be British built.
Aviation , Airforce to operate large numbers of "Hawker Hunter Mod 2" or Similar. multi role fighters. 50s performance 12 mins to 45000 ft is well respectable. Modern engines and materials should improve on this
Penny for your thoughts?

[Tankertrashnav]

That is the perennial argument javelinfaw9 and there is no doubt that most of our Nato allies are in that position (ie no nukes) so why shouldn't we be? But the whole question of the ruin of the nation depends on the fact the the aggressor nation (ok lets call it Russia) knows that it will be toast too if that happens, and that is what it stops it toasting us (or our allies). It only needs one NATO country (ok lets call it the USA) to have nuclear weapons, and to state that it is willing to use them. It doesnt really matter if Corbyn says he is going to continue to have a guard dog, but state that it will remain chained up and muzzled, as long as the "enemy" knows that our most powerful ally has one, and it is most certainly unchained and unmuzzled. That's what they call having a nuclear deterrent

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Why would PUTIN attack one of his ‘fellow travellers’ CORBYN when it’s taken time and resources to put him in place ?
David

[Bob Viking]

Yey, it’s the ‘fleet of Hunters’ argument yet again.

12 minutes to 45000’ sounds awesome. Could any Hunter, no matter how upgraded, do that with a Radar, 8 decent missiles, a targeting pod and maybe with room to spare for a bomb or two? Oh and some fuel. And the ability to do it all supersonic.

I know people on here love the notion of ‘quantity has a quality of it’s own’ but good luck finding volunteers to fly your 1950’s wonderjets into a 5th gen war.

As I have said previously, a single Typhoon Sqn has more offensive capability than the entire Jaguar Wing had in its day. It would take an awful lot of Hunters to make a similar claim.

BV

[Fareastdriver]

Who are going to man these fleets of aircraft, ships and presumably tanks. Nobody that is going to spend a career looking over their shoulders for a lawyer hunting for 'war crimes'.

[SAMXXV]

I watched the 3 part series on the Queen Elizabeth Carrier with the F35 tests. I am sure I am not alone in thinking that we have a £3 billion ship with (eventually) several £100 million a/c but a total lack of destroyers & frigates - never mind attack/hunter submarines to protect this asset. Every US carrier fleet has a decent defensive fleet. In a past world I attended a course at HMS Dryad & learnt (by a nuclear submarine captain) about how the RN defends a carrier using the many assets available to the RN. I may be wrong but from what have recently read about the lack of serviceable naval surface assets, there are nowhere near enough ships available to defend the QE II never mind the second carrier.

The point I would wish to make is that the MOD & past Chiefs of the Air Staff/Admirals of the Fleet have gloriously cocked up for the UK in spending billions of £ on these enormously expensive machines when for less than a tenth of the cost Britain could have bought many squadrons of F16/F18 & F15s off the shelf plus a decent tanker fleet. Great Britain no longer needs aircraft carriers. Our priority is defence of the UK. There is also a distinct lack of intelligence from MOD in not replacing our medium/long range SAM systems which disappeared when Bloodhound went in 1991.

All it takes is for one anti-ship missile to hit the QE2, or a tactical air burst nuke within about 10 miles & there is one third of the RN gone.

[Asturias56]

Sam - the carrier issue is discussed interminably in thread https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/221116-future-carrier-including-costs-286.html

Half agree with you, half are True Believers

I think its a good point about the SAM's - I'd have thought a few deployed in the Falklands might not be a bad idea for example.

[SAMXXV]

Sam - the carrier issue is discussed interminably in thread https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/221116-future-carrier-including-costs-286.html

Half agree with you, half are True Believers

I think its a good point about the SAM's - I'd have thought a few deployed in the Falklands might not be a bad idea for example.

In 1981/2 I was a Bloodhound Engagement Controller at RAF Wildenrath. I was put on notice to deploy to the Falklands. MOD intended to deploy at least one missile section (8 missiles with one type 86 control radar) but decided that the cost of deployment was too great - think 10+ x C130 to transport 8 missiles (2 per a/c), one launch control post, one T86 radar, 2 diesel generators, the missile reload sideloading vehicles & specialist armourers equipment plus spare resupply missiles.Plus the enormous AAR task! They made the decision to send the smaller short range Rapier units. They then deployed them at heights on the mountains where they could not engage sea skimming aircraft as the fire control radars could not depress enough. Madness.

As a moot point to all on here, around 1986 some bright spark air officer in MOD thought it a jolly good idea for the Bloodhound Launch Control Posts to be upgraded from their perfectly good C scope/raw audio displays to full colour CRT displays for many millions of £s. They didn't take into account that all of the Bloodhound Mk2 solid propellant boost motors (across 25 & 85 Sqn) were time expired around 1991/2). I was the poor unfortunate EC to be propelled from a Flight Training Officer on 25 Sqn to the Sqn Training Officer on 85 Sqn to look after this mess In 1988. Then the decision was taken to scrap Bloodhound because of the procuement cost of a couple of hundred new boost motors.....

[Asturias56]

" 10+ x C130" ??? hadn't they heard of a boat???

[racedo]

The Russians refer to it as a policy of “escalate to de-escalate”.

https://globalsecurityreview.com/nuclear-de-escalation-russias-deterrence-strategy/

Russia’s military doctrine dictates the use of nuclear weapons in response to any non-nuclear assault on Russian territory.

WW1, Civil war with Whites supported by invasion forces from US / Europe / Japan and WW2 saw Russia lose 40 plus million people.

US lost 550,000 in US Civil war its biggest loss in any war. UK & colonies lost 1 million in WW1.

If any country had lost similar in same period I would expect a very clear statement if they were invaded again.

[racedo]

The question remains what PM would openly fire a Nuke knowing full well that UK will be obliterated in return.

Rather have someone who would do everything to avoid firing one than someone weak enough to be blase about firing one.

[hoodie]

You think that's mad? This is MAD:

The question remains what Premier would openly fire a Nuke knowing full well that the Soviet Union will be obliterated in return.

Rather have someone who would do everything to avoid firing one than someone weak enough to be blase about firing one.

[racedo]

You think that's mad? This is MAD:

The question remains what Premier would openly fire a Nuke knowing full well that the Soviet Union will be obliterated in return.

Rather have someone who would do everything to avoid firing one than someone weak enough to be blase about firing one.

10-12 nukes destroy UK as a place fit for human habitation, 10-12 nukes in Russia really leave still a massive area. UK doesn't have enough to do more than a pinprick.