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.

For the deterrent to be meaningful, you need to pretty much guarantee some of your warheads will get through, which is effectively impossible when using cruise missiles against a well-defended target.
ICBM warheads are very difficult and expensive to intercept; for a flavour of some of the measures used to ensure a target is reached, have a look at the Wikipedia page for Chevaline.

As for using submarines - any land-based system puts a premium on a first strike, because you have to use it before you lose it. Not only do you want a submarine-based system, so that you can threaten to use it in retaliation; you also want your nuclear-armed adversary to have a submarine-based system. If they feel their system is invulnerable, they won't feel pressured into a first strike.

The PLP may be keen to get rid. Unfortunately, (or hilariously depending on your PoV), the actual members of the labour party are diametrically opposed to the PLP and are engaged in a social-media fest reinforcing their own prejudices. I have a number of long-standing friends who I would usually describe as intelligent, rational etc, despite having the unfortunate tendency of being Labour inclined. They are all (without exception) supporters of the messiah - some form of collective moonhowling lunacy appears to be afoot in the country.

Pasta,
Good call - SLBMs buy time to confirm a strike is inbound and if it is, to negotiate from a position of (relative....) strength after the first exchanges by ICBMs/IRBMs have been completed...if, of course, anyone is left. The First Strike strategy, e.g. Counter-force, Counter-value or Decapitation can be analysed and an appropriate response ordered - assuming links are available. If, however, the aggressor has achieved decapitation he must reckon that, at some stage in the near future, SLBMs will start launching. This is the key role for the SLBM, that of assured penetration vice SLCMs, and is why Deterrent has worked for so long; SLBM MIRVs cannot be reliably attrited by any defence mechanism yet deployed. DEW based defence systems may well spell the end for the SSBN/SLBM combination but that's probably 30 years away yet....As already mentioned, basing your deterrent on SLCMs or air launched Storm Shadow provides as much potential for mis-ID and miscalculation as would using a Trident D-5 to deliver a hyper velocity conventional kinetic weapon......"it's not a nuke, honest guv"

And that is in itself a farce, when they polled less than the total UKIP received, for a solitary MP.

Trident is a marvelous achievement. We thank you for the opportunity to appreciate it but now it's someone else's turn. Notting Hill Gate?

Nutloose, an old argument. The SNP stood in Scotland, pop. approx 5m. UKIP stood in, mainly, England, pop. 60m. Apples and oranges.

I was rather impressed at the PM's answer to the question, particularly as the responsibility is probably only just sinking in and the ink is barely dry on the last resort letters:

May: Yes I would push nuclear button - BBC News

The idiot Corbyn should remember that it was a Labour government, under Clement Attlee, which decided in 1947 that the 'manufacture of a British bomb was essential to our defence'.

Even though it was just beginning to show promise when cancelled, the lack of flexibility inherent in the air-launched Skybolt ALBM, plus the vulnerability of Blue Streak and Thor, meant that Polaris was a far more credible strategic deterrent. Blue Steel was really only a stand-off weapon, whereas Skybolt was a 1000 mile range strategic nuclear missile.

One proposal would have seen a 'Phase 6' Vulcan, with a MAUW some 70% greater than that of the Vulcan B2, carrying up to 6 Skybolts. But at least it would have had ejector seats for the rear crew, plus an off-duty rest section.

All came to nought though, for in 1968 the national deterrent responsibility was transferred to the Polaris submarine fleet and subsequently to Trident.

I thought Mrs May spoke well yesterday, although to emphasise that one reason for Trident's successor was to support workers in the defence industry, particularly around Rossyth, was a bit disproportionate - a bit like saying that we should have retained capital punishment in order to protect the livelihoods of rope makers and hangmen.

Having a Trident replacement is a national 'insurance policy'. Just like any insurance policy, its overly expensive, you never use it.....until that one time you might do....or at least be happy its there.....


The GBP have not a lot of strategic inclination, and most I would think wouldn't have a clue about the capabilities of any potential enemy. I wonder how many of them realise that Russia has stand off nuclear capable ALCM's that could turn the UK into a smoking hole before QRA got anywhere near them (as I understand it anyway).....


The fact they won't do it (well one of the considerations I'm sure) is that big boat underneath the North Atlantic somewhere with our own deterrent on board.....MAD....


On a separate note, RE The Labour Party, the biggest mistake they ever made was electing the wrong Milliband-its all gone REALLY pear shaped since-and its still heading South with JC.

There is an old saying. If you press the button first, you're mad. If you press it second, the deterrent has failed.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...a_1217414a.jpg

Never really seen the logic behind the beatification of Millipede senior, personally. Not a good look really and that photo isn't going away any time soon......

The entire family appears congenitally incapable of proximity to food items without making d1cks of themselves.

NAB

I agree. My only justification is that some years ago a company in his constituency asked him to intercede when they discovered they were embroiled in an unfair competition. (MoD had visited a competitor to brief them on how to win, handing them the answer to the exam question). At first he was all for going into bat, but perhaps it was the fact a Director of that favoured company was a Defence Minister that made him step back. MoD paid 8 times the going rate. The company lodged a complaint, but DG Commercial told them to withdraw, or be blacklisted. They walked away from MoD business, and still we pay over the odds. .....I suppose I'm arguing that he should immediately be made Defence Minister. He has all the necessary attributes.

Wonder if they'll build the new boats on the Clyde - when the SNP don't want to home them...

He's not as bananas as the current incumbent as Leader of The Labour Party though.....

wee jimmie krankie needs to be reminded that the nuclear option is a UK decision, as is the location of the UK bases, and that her compatriots voted to remain part of the UK.

It might be worth pointing out that, at the present moment Scotland is NOT a "nation" (they even admit that in the words to their chosen anthem .. "Flower of Scotland"..

"neck..wind in" would be a reasonable answer to all her whinging, especially given the amount of UK money she gets to spend ... :)

JagRigger: Given that the only yard which can (realistically) build 'em is Barrow, the answer is a very straightforward no.

Personally, and for the added flexibility / redundancy it would confer, I'd like to see some sort of 'mini triad' option - this, however, is clearly not on the table - for many reasons, not least of which cost. Given that this is a non - starter, any argument for systems other than SLBM is wholly specious.

Regards,

Frank

Actually the only thing you hear the Dwarf talk about is Independence and referendum on the same.............

The SNP has gone very quiet on all other policy matters - this referendum thing has given them a good opportunity to keep all that stuff (like education, finance, healthcare, policing etc.) well under the radar..........

Thus not exposing them for the insubstantial '1 trick ponies' that they really are............

Arc

I heard someone on the radio putting forward the possibility of creating a sovereign base area around Faslane, should Scotland ever go independent. In that way they could rest content that no nuclear weapons were on Scottish territory. Not quite as bizarre as it seems, SBAs have existed in Cyprus, which is an independent nation for around 50 years, and the system seems to work quite well. No need for it to be too big, workers could still travel in from Helensburgh, etc, in the same way that civilian workers at Akrotiri travel in from Limassol outside the SBA. We could even pay Scotland some rent - by that time it will be so skint when it discovers the reality of going it alone that it will be glad of a few quid.

I'd love to see some authoritative sources for that, given that Ministers are not allowed to be company directors while in office (and indeed must hand their personal investment finances to trustees).

As one who is in the defence industry, and has been for the entire time that Milliband has been an MP, the whole tale sounds extremely unlikely to me even for a UOR procurement.

PDR

I can only assume that the Scots Nat's would be more than happy to see the removal of the Trident fleet and all of its servicing capacity to South of their boarder.

I believe at one time Milford Haven was considered as an alternative to Faslane. I am sure that the 2000 jobs that that would bring to West Wales would be very welcome.

Any one else like to bang that drum?

Being Devils Advocate:

The UK is perhaps the worlds leading light in Chemical and Biological warfare. Easily delivered by both short and long range manned and remote platforms.
Comrade Corbyn suggested yesterday that the Trident replacement could cost in excess of £200billion. I dont think we need the expense of Trident although I do believe that Battlefield tactical nuclear weapons and depth charges have their place.
We have seen that the globe is an unpredicable place and my 'what if' is that a need for nuclear reponse is hypothetically in the northern hemisphere whilst the 'Duty boat' is parked off Buenos Aires second guessing a perceived threat. I will say though; WTF do most of the residents of the Commons know about military matters.
In summ: The argument against Trident could have been served with something a little more substantial then it was; the caveat being that it was not UK Nuclear Response being discussed, rather one specific delivery mechanism.