Corbyn & Trident
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hangarshuffle
We and France are bygones
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.
He is not an idiot
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,025
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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”.
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,
You've just confirmed that you have obviously never read the Guardian!
You've just confirmed that you have obviously never read the Guardian!
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corbyn wont last the distance now.
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....Tax intake isn't enough....
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.
FB
Originally Posted by KenV
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.
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_o...y_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.
Oh my. It's actually not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_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.
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...25-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).
Hangarshuffle: For me, its the cost. 100 billion we haven't got and shouldn't spend (or borrow)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
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.
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.