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.

That's it if Mr Corbyn remains leader of the labor party and then he wins the election.

There is more chance of my anus healing over than of Corbyn becoming PM.

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....:ok:

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.

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.

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 ?

For posterity:
 

tankertrashnav:
Leon Jabachjabicz:

NutLoose:

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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...

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.

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 naïve 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.