Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK Nuclear deterrent already scrapped...

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK Nuclear deterrent already scrapped...

Old 18th Jul 2016, 19:50
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,899
UK Nuclear deterrent already scrapped...

..if Labour get in, that is! During today's Trident debate Mr Corbyn reiterated that he would not use nuclear weapons. It's one thing to hold that view, another to voice it publicly; in practice it means if Labour get in, we no longer have a deterrent irrespective of the outcome of the Trident renewal debate.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 21:15
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,117
That's it if Mr Corbyn remains leader of the labor party and then he wins the election.
Rwy in Sight is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 21:18
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,981
There is more chance of my anus healing over than of Corbyn becoming PM.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 21:22
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,867
MPs have voted for Trident renewal by 472 votes to 117 - a majority of 355. Considering that the Tories have 330 MPS then at least 130 of the Labour lot of their 230 voted for Trident.

Sorry Corbyn et al - you've lost the argument....
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 21:38
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 244
Mr Corbyn clearly has no idea what the nuclear deterrent is actually for or how it prevents weapons of mass destruction being used on the UK.
dat581 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 22:00
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 72
Posts: 3,734
His characterising of the use of nuclear weapons as "murder" is deeply offensive. He is basically saying that members of the Trident submarine force are potential murderers, as well as former members of the V Force, the tactical strike force in Germany etc. That is a view you may choose to hold when addressing a CND meeting with a silly hat on, but not when you are seeking to become prime minister.

Fortunately as today's vote showed, he has no more chance of becoming the next PM than I have.
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 22:06
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,169
It also shows that there is a great deal more common sence in the Labour Party than you might think........... But how long can it survive ?
A and C is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 22:09
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,541
For posterity:

tankertrashnav:
Fortunately as today's vote showed, he has no more chance of becoming the next PM than I have.
Leon Jabachjabicz:
MPs have voted for Trident renewal by 472 votes to 117 - a majority of 355. Considering that the Tories have 330 MPS then at least 130 of the Labour lot of their 230 voted for Trident.

Sorry Corbyn et al - you've lost the argument....

NutLoose:

There is more chance of my anus healing over than of Corbyn becoming PM.
airpolice is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 00:12
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Huge knock for the idealistic Corbyn today. His days as leader of the Labour Party have been severely cut. With the recent Tory cull (and swift return to business), the LP will be keen to do the same, in order to provide a credible opposition.

I personally think this Labour experiment has gone far enough now.

Vote him out. His belligerence deserves the most public and humiliating ousting.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 01:10
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,981
l could see Corbyn standing there, basking in the glorious instant sunshine as his plastic sandals melt to his feet, vowing to send a strongly worded letter to Comrade Putin.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 05:33
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,899
"Sorry Corbyn you've lost the argument ..." Not really; Yes he lost the vote. The point is, Issuing this statement bypasses the argument and nullifies our deterrent in the (admittedly unlikely at this point) event of his party winning power.

Don't get me wrong, there is a perfectly principled point of view against nukes. But that's quite different from making a predictive statement on how Britains leader would respond to a future emergency.

Last edited by ShotOne; 19th Jul 2016 at 06:20.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 06:39
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 447
At least Corbyn has the strength of character to say and vote for what he believes, the biggest joke is that the shadow defence secretary abstained from voting on this the biggest and most important defence policy decision in a generation! The labour party won't be getting into power for a very long time.
Jayand is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 06:53
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,844
The debate should have been about the principle of the requirement. The Government made it about cost, but then couldn't answer the SNP question about through-life costs. Hopefully DE&S won't be allowed to proceed without knowing what they are. Like them or not, the SNP are the de facto Opposition. In Ms Black, they have the youngest and one of the most eloquent MPs in the House.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 08:25
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 954
In effect, all Corbyn has done is neuter the Deterrent should the UK public take leave of their senses and elect him as PM. Assuming he doesn't then immediately scrap it, his "Letters of Last Resort" could merely say "don't fire under any circumstances"; that way the unions are happy as the boats will be designed, built and maintained and the ghosts of the CND nut jobs can be happy about us not incinerating those that have already incinerated us, with no regard to civilian casualties....He can also, legitimately, change his mind (unlikely I know...he still seems to rate Diane Abbott...). It also enables Labour to campaign on a non-unilateralist stage, albeit with strong caveats, and would permit future govts the choice to behave differently. However, "Choice" appears to be an anathema to Corbyn and Cronies who prefer to dictate behaviours/beliefs from a smug position of pseudo-intellectual superiority - as indeed do most Left Wing regimes.
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 08:32
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fife
Posts: 227
Ditto.

So much hogwash about the effect on local jobs, as if somehow that should hold any bearing on nuclear prevalance.

Or conversely how 31 Billion could otherwise be spent for that matter.

We either need it or we don't, end of.

But I'm more dismayed at the apparent absence of a debate upon it's nature.

Vague rumblings about the invincibility of a submarine launch platform. And an apparent presumption that ICBMs are the only viable weapon.

Have nuclear tipped SLCMs been considered for example? If you want to talk economics, how many of those could you get for the same money?

If you could get say ten times as many, is that a more viable/versatile option even after you factor in it's presumed greater vulnerability to air defences?

I'd just like to be reassured that this debate has in fact taken place.

Cooch
Coochycool is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 08:39
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 89
Why don't they put it out the public to vote on whether we have a nuclear deterrent ?? Give us another referendum.

I'm sick of politicians, who are supposed to representing us, the general public, making decisions that are not representative of what we want.
Tiger G is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 08:51
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,899
"Strength of character to vote for what he believes..." On the contrary, jayand, his beliefs aren't the issue. What he's done is override the vote (having decisively lost it!) and give two fingers to the parliamentary decision if (heaven forbid) he's ever elected.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 09:07
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Why don't they put it out the public to vote on whether we have a nuclear deterrent ?? Give us another referendum.
I am all for a democratic process but most of the population know so little about defense or even mutually assured destruction...

Put it this way, if you are ill and go to the doctor would you rather:
A:- Your doctor talks to other doctors and debates what is wrong with you using informed judgement.
B:- Ask every random person on the street and base your treatment on what their mate sally told them at the gym last week...
tegwin is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 09:24
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,599
That Welsh Windbag, Neil Kinnock, said that his first action as Prime Minister if he won the 1992 Election, would be to recall the British Nuclear submarines.

Labour got drubbed and he resigned as leader.
Fareastdriver is online now  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 09:38
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,533
But I'm more dismayed at the apparent absence of a debate upon it's nature.

Vague rumblings about the invincibility of a submarine launch platform. And an apparent presumption that ICBMs are the only viable weapon.

Have nuclear tipped SLCMs been considered for example? If you want to talk economics, how many of those could you get for the same money?

If you could get say ten times as many, is that a more viable/versatile option even after you factor in it's presumed greater vulnerability to air defences?

I'd just like to be reassured that this debate has in fact taken place.
Clegg and Beaker were specifically allowed to run a government study on this during the coalition years and it was widely publicised. See below.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...natives-review

It comprehensively debunked their nave wibblings, not least because all these nuclear tipped SLCM that people fondly imagine could be strapped into an A-boat, don't actually exist - nor do suitable warheads. And that's before you get into the issues about penetrability / survivability and most importantly the issue of ambiguity given people have been lobbing TLAM about with relative abandon over the last twenty-odd years.
Not_a_boffin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.