Thought experiment for you. What if both the Conservatives and Labour were saying that they have no intention of "pressing the button"? How would Houghton's statement look to you then? The Nuclear Deterrent is, quite properly, a political issue. It is an overall strategy in the hands of civilian management (Government) but whose implementation is in the hands of the military. Houghton crossed a line, from being an implementer to a politician. The fact that Corbyn is horribly misguided in this matter is neither here nor there, the military should not be publicly involved in politics. Staying silent on Government policy but criticising Opposition policy doesn't seem terribly apolitical, to me.
Call me old fashioned but I quite like the idea of a leader who’s not willing to nuke and subsequently kill millions of innocent people. Seems quite refreshing.
No sane leader is looking to nuke people but by ruling out any future use of the nuclear deterrent the deterrent factor is negated, which paradoxically, might make a future conflict more likely, not less.
still cant imagine a scenario where they would be used by any other than a terrorist group. who you gonna bomb then? lets say for example north Korea bomb London or up here on the west coast, will America look to or allow it to escalate? i am pretty sure the police cant comment on political issues or be affiliated to a parliamentary party.so why an army general? would love to know if Patric Cordingly is correct or the government of the day, because quite frankly i don't trust the American people to get involved in that one.
"im prerpared to press the button but im not really going to do it" or "i have no intention of pressing that button, id rather find an alternative way to stop millions of people dying" i know which i prefer
Quite so. For a terrorist organisation to have the means to deploy inter-continental ballistic missiles, they need to assume complete control of an advanced state and its infrastructure. That scenario was laughable ten years ago. It isn't now. If a terrorist organisation has taken control of an entire country, they won't want to be vapourised any more than a legitimate government would. They may be mad but they're not stupid. On the other hand, if they believed there was absolutely no possibility of reciprocal retaliation, that would open up a whole world of possibilities for them, particularly if the terrorist group in question are messianic religious fascists bent on taking over the world, as opposed to political terrorists with a specific grievance and a narrow objective. If any species of terrorists get their hands on the nuclear button, it will be the former variety, not the latter. Corbyn's peace, love and understanding approach won't work with them.
Exactly. Or how about "In the event that this country is under attack, and it's very future is at stake, I am prepared to press the button, and any aggressor needs to fully understand this." The nuclear deterrent is based upon the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. It is not there to be used but to send out the message "if you attack us and threaten our very existence, you will be destroyed, so don't do it".
But Labour and Conservative don't say that. Houghton rightly pointed out that the effectiveness of a deterrent depends upon any potential adversary understanding that if they threaten our existence they will be destroyed. This is a comment upon the effectiveness of a weapons system under his command, it is not a political statement IMHO.
Unfortunately you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Nuclear weapons exist. That requires a response and our response is Trident. Anything else is naive at best.
I cant even bare to look at the guy and even less so when he clearly looks like he would rather be anywhere else than the Cenotaph on Sunday
nobody is struggling with it. MAD as a concept is perfectly understandable at least i thought so at 14 doing my modern studies O level. i have yet to be convinced that we have independence over it. more importantly what is it about the cost people a struggling with?. no more black gold Britain is skint/broke. 1500tril in debt. the next 2-3 years will leave us in no doubt about that.
We will never really know, but we, and our potential adversaries, don't need to know, all we have to do is believe it to be independent or even think that it might be independent.
this is what it boils down to isnt it? his obvious dislike of the monarchy, in which case good on him i say, theyre a gang of out dated parasites and his attuitude is refreshing not something to be sneered at and the subject of the biggest hypocritical point scoring operation since the death of lady Di by the tabloids
this is the grenade's take on it. as always, personally more interested in the comments rather than the outlet. Corbyn to complain to MoD about army chief's ‘political interference’ | Politics | The Guardian
If the government of the day took a decision not to use, or not to have, a particular type of weapon system, it would be wrong and inappropriate for the Chief of the General Staff (or any of the service chiefs) to disagree publicly with that government policy. That is not the situation here. The way the chief spoke was fully in accordance with the policy of the government, and there is nothing wrong with him so speaking. As it happens, the way he spoke was fully in accord with the policy of every British government for many decades past, too. It was also in accord with the policy of the principal opposition party, which has not changed (as the shadow defence spokeswoman pointed out). Let me spell it out: The chief did not criticise Opposition policy, he agreed with it. Is it being suggested that if any MP expresses a view on a political topic, even a view disagreeing with the policy of the government and of both the main parties, that service chiefs are thereby forbidden from commenting on the issue? If so, that is a novel notion never before seen in Britain.
Is Corbyn the leader of the Opposition or isn't he? If he says he would never press the button, is he or is he not stating the current position of his party on the issue? Or has he been over-ruled by his Shadow Defence spokesperson? A senior acting military figure is entering into a political debate between Government and Opposition. It really doesn't matter that we agree with the General's views and that we agree that Corbyn is misguided, the discussion is a political one and the General has damaged the standing of the non-political nature of our Armed Forces. It is for the Conservatives and any Labour Party members who happen to have their heads screwed on right to refute Corbyn, not for serving military commanders.
Much in the same way as most of us know that there are codes and sets of keys which various personnel have to hold so that not just one person in the UK can 'press the button'............ That aside: A deterrent is not a deterrent if it is publicly announced it will never be used. For Corbyn to publicly state he would never press the button is an indication he is not fit for purpose and certainly not fit to have access to state security.
