|
Missiles inbound but do not worry
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. https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv...=recirculation |
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?
|
Originally Posted by Treble one
(Post 10616091)
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?
I doubt countries make life or death decisions based on that type of statement made by political figures. |
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" |
four minutes are u ................................
|
"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" |
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.
|
Isn't Islington North a nuclear-free zone?
|
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 |
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 . .
|
Trident/Carriers
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? |
Originally Posted by 911slf
(Post 10616547)
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? |
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. |
Useful idiots
|
Train wreck, or a long term career move by Thornberry?
|
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? |
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 10616573)
Sufficient data in the public realm to accurately make that prediction?
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. |
Isn't Islington North a nuclear-free zone? .... did nobody tell them about JASON? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_reactor ... probably not! |
Originally Posted by AusCaptain
(Post 10616815)
But if your plan is to never use it, whats the point?
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 . |
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 . https://globalsecurityreview.com/nuc...ence-strategy/ Russia’s military doctrine dictates the use of nuclear weapons in response to any non-nuclear assault on Russian territory. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.