No one would have a problem if Corbyn said he wouldn't authorise a First Strike, but what he has said is that he would never press the button, ever, and that negates the whole concept of deterrence through Trident, the present version of a policy that has worked for decades.
I am not in any way a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, but it does seem in this case that he is applying a valid point of principle, which simply conflicts with the nation's established dedence policy, which his party as a whole supports. It's not unreasonable for him to do this. I think he is saying that he would not under any circumstances launch a nuclear strike, First or Second: Jeremy Corbyn row after 'I'd not fire nuclear weapons' comment - BBC News Of course he betrays himself as a politician by refusing to give an entirely straight answer to the question that is actually asked. But even so, his position is clear. And with the views that he expresses here, which would imply a potential future change of policy, I cannot see any reason why senior military staff, who execute current government policy, should not express their opinions.
Why does Britain actually have a nuclear deterent? Really? It has absolutely nothing to do with the defence of the country. The reason that successive governments, of various and different persuasions, have kept it is so that they can keep their seat on the UN Defence Council and pretend that the UK is still a major force in the world. The sooner we recognise that we are a little island on the outskirts of Europe and stop pretending otherwise the better. The biggest problem with doing that, however, is that it would take a massive change of government thinking which would require us to stop interfering in other country's affairs. The reason we need to be able to "deter" other countries is that we annoy them to the point where they want to (or we are worried that they might want to) attack us. Corbyn is a beardy-weirdy hippy 1960's throwback. His personal views are at odds with the official policy of his own party as well as that of the UK government. Senior members of his own party don't like him because his ideas clearly make him unelectable. His support comes from other "idealists", none of whom have any grasp of reality. BUT - all of this has nothing to do with the point of the original post. A senior member of the armed forces was asked for an opinion and gave it. His opinion supported the policy of both the government and of the opposition. He would have been well aware of the rules governing what he is and isn't allowed to say.
While I agree, I don't think your average Joe Public would know the difference between a First Strike/Decapitation or Second-Strike/MAD policy and therefore it wouldn't have made a difference, only in semantics. The interesting philosophical point here is that we (probably) don't know if our current nuclear deterrent is working; you can argue that nobody has launched a nuclear attack against the UK because we have the strike capability, but then nobody has launched one against Spain and they don't have a nuclear strike capability. So who is right? The other interesting thing is that the UK may be in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) simply be renewing the Trident programme, and that could get us into a lot of trouble!
We got a thousand points of light For the homeless man We got a kinder, gentler, Machine-gun hand We got department stores and toilet paper Got styrofoam boxes for the ozone layer Got a man of the people, says "keep hope alive" Got fuel to burn, got roads to drive. Keep on rockin' in the free world...
You make a good point - who, exactly, are we detering? A good argument could be made for the fact that we used to deter the Russians (probably the only nuclear power who have ever been seen as an enemy) as they didn't attack us in the crazy "cold war" era of nuclear stand-off. But that said, they didn't attack lots of other countries either and not all of them were under the UN/US/NATO "nuclear umbrella". It didn't deter the Argentinians, or the Iraqis, or the Taliban, or Sierra Leonian rebels, or the various Bosnian/Croat/Yuguslav/Montenegran factions... The Americans have many times more nuclaer weapons than we do, and even that didn't deter the North Vietnamese, or (again) the Iraqis or the Afghans... Maybe it would deter the North Koreans - but only maybe, as their leadership are probably mad enough to not worry about MAD. Stop interfering in other countries, and we have much less need to deter anything...
I suspect that the UK "independent" deterrent is maintained as a show of "good faith" to the USA. A demonstration of shared responsibility from one close ally to the other. I'm sure that everyone can see how the "special relationship" would be subtly changed if the UK went from being a (minor) "nuclear deterrent partner" to a(nother) "nuclear deterrent dependent".
just as a reminder. 8 countries in nato have a nuclear deterrent five of those are borrowed from the usa who also carry out all training. an unalected military alliance already determines/decides what what percentage of gdp should be spent on defense. the little general dude stating an opinion? .meh :smileys:
As far as I know there are only three countries in NATO with nuclear deterrents: UK, USA and France. But you tell us there are eight. So what are they, according to you?
it's actually an article on GERS. it doesn't state the country's in it other than only three members of NATO are considered nuclear weapon states the other 5 are loaned and trained by the usa. true?
Not altogether, no. The fact is the only NATO member states which have nuclear weapons are UK, USA and France. No other NATO states build, or own, or operate, or control any nuclear weapons whatever - and they never have done. The other nuclear weapon states in the world are not NATO members. They comprise China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and possibly others. P.S. And Russia, of course.
So who is right? The fact is we don't know. However the NATO Alliance has provided a shield for all of it's members not just those that have a nuclear capability. If renewing Trident is in breach of the NPT who are we going to get into a lot of trouble with and who cares? No it didn't deter the countries/groups that you quote, but in non of those conflicts was our very existence being threatened. The Bosnian conflict was a disgrace and Nato and Europe should hang it's head in shame, but that is another question. I agree we should stop interfering in other countries but our interests do extend beyond our borders and the best defence is a good offensive capability.
China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea have nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong? And people fret about the Americans having nukes..
And the worrying factor is whether battlefield tactical nuclear weapons are being developed, something that NATO, and I think Russia have stepped back from, on the basis that once a tactical warhead is detonated it is then highly likely to escalate to a full scale exchange. So it is all or nothing in a MAD world with Deterrence and the lunacy of it all will hopefully result in nothing. Cheap insurance, and think of all the jobs. OMG what am I saying :Wideyed:
Trident is a proven deterrent. It keeps 1500 Scotchmen off the drink from Monday to Friday. :Hungover:
From Dan Hodges in the Telegraph There is, however, a genuine and serious constitutional issue that has been highlighted by l’affaire de General Houghton, and it’s this. The United Kingdom now effectively has three tiers of parliamentary governance. It has the Government, run by David Cameron. It has the Official Opposition, nominally run by the shadow cabinet. And it has the Unofficial Opposition, run by Jeremy Corbyn and a small circle of unelected advisers. Which will get bigger as Momentum gathers pace.
There are rules with regard to use of nuclear weapons. Only usa_naziland has a first-strike policy. Twenty-thousand ground troops must be killed before initiating thermo-nuclear holocaust. And with nations now handing retaliation over to AI systems, we might as well say GOODBYE to humanity as any use will cause a massive deployment & extiniction of our race. Fs; each nuke is 100 times more powerful than those used on Japan. They are aimed to kill populations, not used as military weapons. They are used to erraticate civilian people! I'd much prefer the money used to go too developing our country then pocketed by sycophantic megalomaniac.
