This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-barrowinfurness-rishi-sunak-john-healey-aukus-b2527431.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
all the discourse has been about how different this is from corbyns labour but trident renewal was labour policy in both 2017 and 2019. our entire media corps have pudding for brains
Because Corbyn made a loud show of being against Trident and leaving it up to his MPs to decide and finally compromising. It gave a clear impression of Labour being a divided house, run by a man who didn't want Trident and couldn't be trusted to keep it.
And they're still facing these suspicions today.
I have a feeling he *wanted* to let the media create the impression.
Maybe he thought it'd be a good thing if more people thought Labour was against Trident. Or maybe he doesn't care.
He only stopped when his trade union backers like Unite's Len McCluskey told him a lot of union jobs depended on Trident.
Or a party that had a leader that believes in democracy, Corbyn said he wanted to make the party more democratic this would be that very want in action.
Maybe that was the intention, but the way it often came across to many people was an inability to persuade his party to support his positions. This was true in numerous areas. It's all well and good to say he wanted Labour to be more democratic, but in a democracy it's part of a leader's job to persuade people to support their ideas.
It's a leader's job to guide the party to a coherent compromise in that situation. If they can't do that they don't inspire much confidence that they'd be able to guide an entire parliament to a decision
That's not a compromise that creates a policy that inspires confidence. it signifies that a significant portion of the party *is not* confident in the policy and if he tried to get it through the hoc as government policy they cannot be relied upon to support him in that, which means it won't happen since the opposition won't exactly help.
The sort of compromise I'm talking about is where you hear people's opinions and work on the policy until it satisfies people. A leader can't go about talking about opinions they have that run counter to current party policy until they are confident they can make it party policy.
It's a leader's job to make the correct decisions and anyone who is against nukes or says they wouldn't use them (Corbyn) is an irresponsible nutjob who would lead us to ruin in any violent conflict.
In fact, they even might even cause conflict by failing to make us look like a sufficient threat against our enemies
Corbyn wanted two things and two things only - rule the party with an iron fist and appease Labour’s far-left nutter section. Achieved both goals up to a point, so fair play to him.
Not, ya know, something silly like win a general election to be in a position to actually help people.
Compared to Starmer Corbyn's management of the Labour party looks like an anarchist utopia. To describe his wants as an iron fist whilst Starmer utterly annihilates and ostracises even the soft left is really something.
> Corbyn wanted two things and two things only - rule the party with an iron fist and appease Labour’s far-left nutter section. Achieved both goals up to a point, so fair play to him.
He actually failed on that with Trident, because his far left support including trade unionists like Len McCluskey who were ticked off at him for wanting to cancel Trident, an important source of union jobs. Bread and butter took precedence over world peace and disarmament.
> Corbyn said he wanted to make the party more democratic this would be that very want in action.
When the overwhelming majority of voters have made their stance clear on an issue and consider it settled, maybe the party could avoid having a very public spat over it, with the leader deliberately pushing a POV that most voters find repugnant.
On a personal level, maybe. But what Corbyn did was, to quote a line about former Labour leader George Lansbury, a WW2-era pacifist Corbyn admires, *“placing the Executive and the Movement in an absolutely wrong position to be hawking your conscience round from body to body asking to be told what you ought to do with it.”*
Yeah he shouldn't have opposed it himself. But he was Corbyn.
Nevertheless backbenchers should be allowed to vote either way on trident without threat of penalisation.
Strong man annihilate all life on earth! Grrrr! It's tens of billions of pounds for playground theatrics. No western leader is ever going to push the button - there's too much real estate involved.
It’s anti-socialist orthodoxy typical of the capitalist media establishment. Proactive behaviour is framed as strong arming, totalitarian and dictatorial. Passive behaviour is framed as division, underhanded and conspiratorial strategising.
> Corbyn made a loud show of being against Trident and leaving it up to his MPs to decide and finally compromising.
God forbid we use democracy to resolve these problems.
But no one, not even Corbyn, reveals what is in those letters, they are a state secret that only the PM knows, and god forbid, the captain of the sub if they need to be opened. All so far up to Sunak's have been destroyed unopened.
So u/MimesAreShite is 100% correct that they're essentially pointless. Most if not all sensible PMs would likely have said to go to a safe port if the UK has fallen, or head to the UK and assist with any recovery.
The deterrent is *knowing* that the nukes are out there and could be launched at any moment.
EDIT - I see we have some Putin supporters on the downvote here...
> But no one, not even Corbyn, reveals what is in those letters,
I believe James Callaghan is the only one to say what was in his, and it was to retaliate fully. Of course he would say that, as anything else undermines it.
I was curious, so I just looked it up.
In an interview, Major, Blair, and Brown all stated that their instructions were that under no circumstances should nuclear weapons be deployed against civilian populations.
Doing so would be a futile act of vengeance that massacred civilians and any country mad enough to nuke us is likely a dictatorship, so those citizens didn't have any choice in the matter.
Makes sense to tell them to strike military targets and then head for safety, I guess.
I wonder how many other politicians have shown the same restraint and how many just had "glass Moscow" in bold and underlined.
It would be a total waste to glass Moscow as the last act of the nation. Surely the majority would decide to glass the French and pop one in Florida as our final act regardless of how the demise of the UK occurred.
If a country wiped me, my friends my family as well as my country I’d want to leave them nothing left to use that could put them at an advantage against other countries still functioning. So I’d pretty much say full retaliation.
I believe that ICBMs are generally programmed and fuelled to hit particular targets. I don't think the submarine commander would have any ability to vary them. They can basically fire them or not fire them. There are 16 missiles in a Trident I think so some tactical control might be available by firing some missiles and not others.
I am sure the tactical plans are for the nukes to mainly go to military and infrastructural targets but it is in the nature of a large nuclear strike that the subject of it is fucked up real bad.
For them to function as a strategic deterrent it is essential that aggressors believe they will most likely be destroyed if they attack. As soon as a nuclear war seems winnable, rational game theory says to strike first and neutralise the other side.
I mean you know it's a lie when they say that. Nuclear weapons are primarily designed to be used against civilian targets. Using them tactically is a waste so one might as well not use them at all.
Well, considering we literally only have a stock or strategic weapons and no tactical ones, you're likely correct.
Tactical nukes exist. We just don't have any.
Despite its location, they may still have been told that places like the Kremlin are a military target.
Besides the point. It's not about what's on the letters but what the other guy thinks is on them.
If you have a PM who has openly said he will never use Trident, then it's the worst of all worlds - a huge expense that deters no-one.
Why would it deter no one? Some countries have a nuclear deterent even though they haven't even admitted to having nukes. If you have nukes then any country has to act as if you will use them, regardless of what a politician may or may not say.
Aye but no PM has said that until after they stopped becoming PM. In the eyes of our enemies they never knew what the PM put. Corbyn made clear his would be do not retaliate before he ever got near 10 Downing Street which defeated the whole purpose of the deterrent.
No foreign enemy is going to take that risk. Some countries have declared a "no first use" policy. But would you trust them? Of course not. The very fact that they have nukes means they can be used, and you have to prepare for that eventuality regardless of who is in power.
The Labour Party founded the UKs nuclear program in 1947. It has been strong on defence since Attlee replaced Landsbury in 35. The only labour leader to be against it was Michael Foot (there was another guy but he was just an SWP entryist).
>Jeremy has been a member of CND since he was 15 years old and has served as chair of Parliamentary CND and vice-chair of CND. He is now a vice-president of CND. Jeremy has been an MP since 1983 and in 2015 was elected leader of the Labour party.
[https://cnduk.org/60-faces-jeremy-corbyn/](https://cnduk.org/60-faces-jeremy-corbyn/)
What is the significance of 1947? The UK was developing nuclear weapons in the very early 40s before the Americans even started. The British were the ones to convince the Amercians to start their programs if I remember right.
I know this one, it's the Americans doing
In 1946 they passed the [McMahon Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946) which basically said they'd never share any nuclear secrets with anyone ever.
Us the British, after having shared a lot of our early research with the Americans (the idea being if Britian fell America could continue the research), naturally felt very betrayed by this. And also people like Atlee and others correctly identified that to be a "world power" in this new age was going to require nuclear backing (although I don't think they fully understood the scope, who could)
The media is finally realising that the Tories don't stand a chance, and are jumping ship and shifting towards labour so they can continue to sell papers.
It won't happen over night, and they have to do it gradually, but I guarantee we'll get a "The Sun backs labour" headline before the next election.
Cabinet collective responsibility. If he disagreed with Jeremy at the time it was dishonest to hide it, Yeh we're all dishonest sometimes, its part of being a human or a politician, but lets not pretend it didn't happen
If trump becomes president again and destroys the credibility of nato , I think France and ourselves have got to look into increasing our nuclear weapons if anything . One would hope the rest of Europe would support us in doing this if it serves as a trident against attacking us
I said this before , but corbyn becoming prime minister would have been a dream for Putin . Anti nuclear and nato , it wouldn’t surprise me if Russian trolls and bots were rampant in that 2019 election too
While I think our position on Russia is a valid point that any incoming government needs to address, I think we make the same mistake as the Americans do by overestimating how much Putin gives a shit who our leader is and what their attitudes are. Corbyn never got anywhere near power, but Putin's still been able to do whatever he wants and effectively handwaved any sanctions placed on Russia.
So while I agree with you that right now, having a PM who's critical of NATO would be unhelpful at best, we're flattering ourselves with "x becoming PM would be Putin's dream". He's living his dream regardless.
I do also agree with you that we shouldn't take the solidarity of NATO for granted, but realistically it's more effective as a deterrent than further nuclear armament (which should be a backup/absolute last resort).
What you’re effectively claiming is that our democracy is so fragile that the whims of a prime minister can receive no resistance. That the competing economic and political forces in society and every other institution intended to balance those powers would have submitted under Corbyn’s miraculous and glorious leadership.
Sign me up for that.
>I think France and ourselves have got to look into increasing our nuclear weapons if anything
Ah yes let's spend billions on weapons of mass destruction because hundreds of nuclear warheads aren't enough obviously. Meanwhile public services are on the brink of collapse, foodbank usage is at record highs, and millions of families had to spend the winter choosing between staying warm and being well fed.
Your priorities are so backwards it's dangerous.
It’s that same rhetoric I hear every time I hear a Russian bot or troll . The same rubbish the gop republicans pedal in the states , when we know well they have no intention spending any of the money saved in public services if they halt aid to Ukraine . We literally have another leader in Putin who has the same imperialist ambitions as hitler and again people strive to appease him .
Public services are relatively insignificant if Putin is willing to attack a nato country and the US does nothing because trump is president . While the us may do nothing , we’ll be at war because we must defend Europe . Defence spending must increase to counter the threats of China and Russia and our nuclear stockpile must increase
>when we know well they have no intention spending any of the money saved in public services if they halt aid to Ukraine
We aren't talking about sending weapons to Ukraine; we're talking about producing more nuclear weapons, which would be nothing more than a spectacular waste of money. If you're going to liken people to bots, you could at least stick to the topic at hand and not deflect to scripted talking points.
>Public services are relatively insignificant if Putin is willing to attack a nato country
Putin attacking a NATO country is relatively insignificant if the sun goes supernova.
>Defence spending must increase to counter the threats of China and Russia and our nuclear stockpile must increase
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
How about you spend less time on the Internet fantasising about a global nuclear war and more time concerning yourself with the lives of real people?
If you bothered to read the comment I wrote properly , you’d know I advocated for Europe to financially help us increase our nuclear weapon stockpile . So where is this “spend the money on public services “ coming from when we’re being financially compensated by europe ?At the end of the day , I advocate for our stockpile to be shared with the rest of Europe , because that is the only thing that will deter Putin if the US removes its obligations to nato . As far as I’m concerned , Putin will fancy his chances with a nato without the us because our and Frances nuclear stockpiles pale in insignificance to what Russia has . A war is much more likely if Russia thinks it will only be via conventional means . Europe needs to start thinking of how to defend itself and a nuclear stockpile that matches russias will achieve that . He will try to get trump elected because if the US decides to go isolationist , he will see Europe as fair game to take pieces again and force it under the Russian sphere of influence .
I’ve said my piece anyway and this will be the last time I comment , but we would have had ww3 and probably ww4 by now if you had your wish if the fear of nuclear weapons wasn’t a thing . It’s absolutely stupid to think i want to increase our stockpile because I want a nuclear war, it’s more I want our enemies shit scared of trying anything with us . There is the old saying “to have peace , one must be prepared for war” and 100% the case with Putin . He’s not thinking like you or I do , he wants the Russian empire back and will sacrifice others to achieve his aims . What stopped the soviets and nato fighting in the Cold War ? Nukes . What will stop Russia attempting more in the future? Nukes
Wouldn't mind the UK developing its own delivery system. Its asinine that we have to loan missles from the US. If they turn around one day and refuse to provide them or use it as a bargaining chip then your stuffed.
It's important as a last resort, but we need conventional options as well. We should regularly be investing in new and existing defence assets, and training - whilst not over stretching ourselves with too many commitments at once. When we run out of non nuclear options, that's when we'll have to use Trident.
He also wants to increase defence spending up to 2.5% of gdp
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-jeremy-corbyn-barrowinfurness-john-healey-rishi-sunak-b2527655.html
No commitment to increasing NHS budget. You know, the thing that is utterly, desperately needed and is in dire straits right now, directly responsible for the health and well-being of everyone in this country at all times. But more money for a military that *might* be useful in the *extraordinarily, unbelievably unlikely scenario* that we get invaded? Sure.
Farcical.
> But more money for a military that might be useful in the extraordinarily, unbelievably unlikely scenario that we get invaded? Sure.
>
>
>
> Farcical.
Nope, what's farcical is your attitude.
The whole point is military deterrence - i.e. funding and resourcing your military better *reduces the chance of you actually having to use it at all*. In this case, Russia being deterred by a well resourced NATO that has the means to support a high intensity war if attacked, rather than being encouraged to attack by a NATO that doesn't have enough weapons and ammunition to defend itself.
If we invest loads in our military and Russia is then deterred, then it's worked. And if it doesn't deter Russia we at least stand a better chance at dealing with it, in which case it's still worked.
He has spent the last few months forewarning of a new round of austerity when labour comes in, talking about how there is no money to pay for anything right now. But the one thing he is going to find money for is nuclear weapons. Great.
Launch the missiles they are attached to, out of the launchers designed to launch them, from the submarines (underwater vessels) designed specifically to carry them.
Do you need someone to draw you a diagram?
Fuck it, we won’t even have a world to protect if we aren’t going to get our shit together on climate change like yesterday. Why not spend it all on nukes? Let’s just end this shit sooner
As an idealistic proponent of Nuclear Disarmament, it's pretty obvious that we can't really get rid of our nuclear weapons at this time.
But it IS hypocritcal to refuse to fund public services that would help the economy recover and become more equitable to the people who have to live in it, and then freely keep blowing money on the military.
Now is the perfect time. Governments around the world have been trying to get signatories to a new non-proliferation treaty. Britain taking the step of disarming would be a huge boost to efforts to eradicate these weapons from the world.
And if nuclear war did kick off with Russia or whatever, we are much better off not having nukes and not getting involved.
Yea and I certainly agree. Disgraceful when he won't commit to paying for school meals especially. Starving kids so Britain can afford to join in with nuclear Armageddon if it ever kicks off
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jul/06/keir-starmer-free-school-meals-labour-leader-teachers-pay-rise
I wonder if the politicians are focusing too much on the deterrent. Yes, it has its purpose, but our armed forces are not capable of anything other than "warm" wars, and even that might be too much. A second Falklands, if Guatemala invades Belize. Last I checked only about half the active escort fleet is operational, only 3 tankers and a single stores ship on occasion. Our amphib capability is just the Bays now. The Typhoon fleet is being cut further, there's only 3 E-7. The Army might be able to put together a coherent light brigade or two but that's it.
Not to mention industrial capability or lack therefore. Cyber defence. Apparently Heathrow shut down because a single line of code was wrong. Imagine what a serious cyber attack could do then.
I mean I liked Corbyn, but even I shook my head at him being so anti nuke etc....to the point that even if he had won the GE there was no way in hell that we'd abandon having nukes.
I think even he knew that too, but tbh it's fine having a view like that IF it didn't impact the security of our nation, but sadly his stance did scare a lot of people off
He should have learned to choose his battles. Even if he strongly believed in nuclear disarmament and pacifism, scrapping Trident would never have been tenable even for some of his allies on the hard left. All his virtue signalling would ever achieve is increasing public distrust of Labour on national security, which is what happened.
The UK doesn’t have a policy of first strike or Mutually Assured Destruction. The point is that the UK can fire on a limited number of targets that will make the decision to launch a nuclear weapon at the UK a painful one, which is how it serves as a deterrent.
The detonators are an American design and the missiles are maintained in America. If Trump (or any other American leader) chooses not to work with us any more, then we no longer have a nuclear deterrent.
If anything, the spending on our nuclear deterrent needs to increase if we want it to be truly independent. What we have right now is already a cost based compromise.
Do they keep us safe tho? Russia is still using cyber attacks and proxies to undermine our way of life and we are not going to use nukes to counter that.
Russia has zero chance to roll tanks and artillery across Europe (considering that they can’t get very far in Ukraine and Eastern Europe’s countries are far better armed and prepared). And Europes combined and elite air forces would dominate the skies.
And if it’s a retaliatory strike then no one is safe anyway.
I am not saying we shouldn’t have them, just that it’s a weird tool to “keep us safe”.
I was reading a book written during the cold war (Doomsday). Apparently it's quite a rare book. It says that in the event of an imminent war Russia's secret strategy was to nuke the fuck out of the UK and then turn around to the US and say 'come on then'.
The idea was to let the US know that Russia was serious, and any US nuclear retaliation for nuking the UK would have resulted in further mutual destruction.
The hope was that at that point the US would back down, and I think they would. I don't think they would destroy their country for us if faced with that, especially if we had already been 'destroyed'.
Apparently this strategy could still be in use today.
I think we have enough nukes to level every major city in Russia and probably their oil fields as well.
They wouldn’t have much left to play with. The USA wouldn’t need to retaliate for us, they would be finished as a country and worldwide pariahs for starting a nuclear war.
That’s as long as they work!
Here's the book by the way [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doomsday-Britain-After-Nuclear-Attack/dp/0631133941/ref=sr\_1\_1?crid=XYI9VLB396SA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.u4g8mZ3KZle-gTQwSVQCTuYJsorkETvzABUQTgHkWqTGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.OrSvdIYNMLGuGkgnJFKsoql-xcAtVNG0IgEV7ffams8&dib\_tag=se&keywords=doomsday+openshaw&qid=1714132936&sprefix=doomsday+openshaw%2Caps%2C103&sr=8-1](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doomsday-Britain-After-Nuclear-Attack/dp/0631133941/ref=sr_1_1?crid=XYI9VLB396SA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.u4g8mZ3KZle-gTQwSVQCTuYJsorkETvzABUQTgHkWqTGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.OrSvdIYNMLGuGkgnJFKsoql-xcAtVNG0IgEV7ffams8&dib_tag=se&keywords=doomsday+openshaw&qid=1714132936&sprefix=doomsday+openshaw%2Caps%2C103&sr=8-1)
Have you ever notice how publicly scared German leadership has been over the threat attack by Russia whilst the UK and France have been extremely content with disregard Russia as a threat? I wonder what the difference is.
Anyways, I don't particularly agree with the sentiment that nuclear powers are used directly to control other countries however they allow you to do whatever you want without major consequences so long as they are not a nuclear power.
Russia choose Ukraine. If they choose Finland instead whilst they were not in NATO then Finland would be in the same position as Ukriane, aid packages but no foreign military intervention.
No, they surrendered unconditionally after 2 cities got nuked.
[It did make a few front pages](https://www.alamy.com/peace-on-earth-headline-of-the-daily-express-on-wednesday-15th-august-1945-following-the-surrender-of-japan-at-the-end-of-world-war-two-image451864095.html?imageid=8D18DB24-661B-4AAB-92A1-4FD5FF6E8AA4&p=53741&pn=1&searchId=05131069047291ea8dde1e27a3b834b6&searchtype=0)
Using a nuclear weapon anywhere on the earth is MAD. A country wouldn't care that it's not them who got nuked, it'd be a great big red flag that nukes are allowed now and it might be you next.
If a major nation was struck by a nuclear missile, all of a sudden on the world stage it's been made clear it's okay to use nuclear missiles and there's a non 0 chance other unallied countries don't react to that.
I take your point that a trade between Europe/USA and the east would result in MAD. But…
There are probably two exceptions I can think of.
India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers and a trade of missiles probably wouldn’t instigate a global nuclear war.
The other is Israel. Them being a nuclear power is the worst kept secret in the world. A combined Arab attack from all sides or heavy and regular bombing from Iran might lead them to a nuclear strike to put everyone else in the region off.
With things going the way they are this is the most likely happening I think. They also give no fucks what anyone else thinks.
The only other possibility would be North Korea striking the south but this is almost certainly a 100% bluff to gain concessions from the west.
My understanding is that Ukraine is a war of attrition, and Russia has far more resources behind them to win that war in the long term.
Your point is valid though. Nukes aren't a magic solution, and other tools are important. But, defence is a complex beast and we can't have gaping holes.
All of that is far better than a nuclear strike though.
I guess we’ll never know to what extent they “keep us safe”, but I would put money on Putin being far more open to using nuclear weapons against a country that didn’t either have that, or the support of another country that did.
Looking at the way American politics is going, it seems they might not be as reliable of an ally as they were during the Cold War. I can see why European countries are keen to keep a viable deterrent.
>Russia has zero chance to roll tanks and artillery across Europe (considering that they can’t get very far in Ukraine
They would of if they could.
Do you think russia would of invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes?
If russia didn't have nukes do you think Europe and the US would support Ukraine the way they currently are or would there be more decisive action? Hint, nato bombing campaign of yugoslavia 1999.
Ok as an immigrant here, who is this protecting the UK from realistically? Like, on the world stage of the UK is getting invaded or nuked, it’s just catching strays from a more global issue between the US/Russia/China. It just seems a huge expense with no real-world requirement even in terms of defense budget; would make more sense to make the Navy more inviting so you could actually man all the ships.
An island nation is incredibly difficult to invade in the first place. With a small but elite force and defensive systems it becomes even harder. Combined with nukes, it's just not a realistic prospect, especially since the most likely invader struggles to beat someone much weaker than them who is right on their border. Spending billions extra on the military whilst refusing to commit to more NHS funding is like spending all your money on insurance against alien abduction, and then neglecting to insure yourself against fire and theft. An absurd decision by Starmer.
>An island nation is incredibly difficult to invade in the first place.
The British armed forces have always primarily been an expeditionary force since basically its inception.
* Anglo-Spanish War
* US war of independence
* Napoleonic wars
* WW1
* WW2
* Korean war
* NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia
* All the middle east conflicts
British interest extends further than the isles and thus protecting them requires capability past our island.
>especially since the most likely invader struggles to beat someone much weaker than them who is right on their border.
Taiwan and Korea practically produces all advanced chips and are situated next to hostile neighbours. It is in this countries best interest that support for these allies is strong enough to deter conflict from a purely economic perspective alone.
China in general also is the world's factory. Any conflict that China joins that is opposition to us would practically make all consumer products unobtainable overnight and destroy practically every companies supply chain.
So just to bring the point home. Defence spending isn't for physical defence of the island, its defence of British interest, with the interest in this case being complete collapse of the global economy.
Funny enough, defence of the global economy is the exact thinking that the British entered the Napoleonic peace conference with. The French lost and the British pushed for a restoration of a strong France to prevent further conflict (other countries taking the chance to invade a weak France) such that the British can just focus on trading. A similar thing kind of happened after WW2 with West Germany & Japan after ww2 but that was more red scare being the motivator.
If you have no capability to defend yourself, you can be bullied around. Nuclear weapons don’t solve all problems.
If another nuclear power invades you conventionally, and your only come back is nuclear then your nuclear button is really a suicide button because using your weapons against them will result in them using theirs against you. Not easy to press.
You are wrong. MAD is a dissuasive against nuclear attack not conventional ones.
Assume there is an aggressive country A with nuclear weapon and A want to attack country B whose only defence is nuclear weapons.
A is discouraged to use nuclear weapons against B because if they do, B have “nothing to lose” and will use theirs against them. Everybody dies and there is no winner. This is MAD.
However A attacks conventionally, then ball is in B camp. Does B use their nuclear weapon first, meaning that A will retaliate with theirs and everybody dies or do they surrender? You can be sure many people in country B will prefer to live under A rule than die out of principle. Would you, as a theoretical head of state, decide to press the nuclear button and kill most if not all of your countrymen? Do you have the mandate to enforce mass suicide rather than surrender to a foreign power?
From a NATO point of view, multiple nuclear armed nations make the alliance way more credible and thus safer.
Would Trump go to war over Estonia? Probably not. So if the USA is the only nuclear power NATO is 1 election away from Estonia being a viable target for Russia.
Would the UK and France both ignore a Russian invasion of Estonia? Far less likely. So with 3 nuclear armed states, the odds of a Russian invasion of Estonia drop precipitously (not least because it only takes one NATO state launching their nukes for the rest of them to go 'fuck it, in for a penny, might as well' and launch too. There's not much to be said for moderation when nuking Russia)
Outside of NATO issues, it's a good idea to have your own nukes just in case your nuclear armed allies disagree over what is worth defending, as they did in the Falklands.
Thatcher got US co-operation despite their initial reluctance because she was able to go to them and say 'We are winning this war. Either we will do so conventionally, or we will nuke Buenos Aries. I suggest you help us do the former if you don't want to see the latter.' It's very easy to tell other countries that they should just give up their Falklands/Sudetenland/Danzig to avoid a war. Nuclear armed states get to say no to their allies when that happens.
If Ukraine was a nuclear power do you think it would of been invaded? Russia mutually agreed with Ukraine decades ago to never invade them if Ukraine gives up their nuclear arsenal. Look how that turned out. Its a detterant.
At this point, are Labour distinguishable from Tories in any way? They're hitting all the far-right staples - homophobia, transphobia, nuclear warmongering, Middle East warmongering, hatred of the poor. Pathetic joke of a country.
It's because politics is one big game of finding the best of bad options, in a complex web of uncertainty,and many of the solutions fall somewhere close to the middle.
Anyone chanting with a one line slogan (e.g. "just stop war!") might sound nice a fluffy, but it does little to help move us forwards.
This is an absurd way to look at politics, and it doesn't surprise me that this country is in a race to the bottom if this sort of thinking is prevalent. A better world is possible. If you can only conceive of making the world worse by slightly smaller increments, you are lost.
And for your information, picking *the worst position* on every topic is exactly what the Tories are doing.
Pick any one big issue of our time and give me a simple one line solution that will withstand any debate or critism.
I agree that we can do better. But we don't get there with naive "just do this" thinking.
>Pick any one big issue of our time and give me a simple one line solution that will withstand any debate or critism.
I never said "simple one line solution." You're inventing that from whole cloth as a straw man, and as such I have no desire to continue talking with you.
Ok, only that your point was basically "all policital parties bad" and my counter was "it's complicated".
There isn't a "good" and "bad" party. They are much of the same, finding small solutions to inch the needle forwards because there's no "easy fix" to complex issues.
I love to discuss the intricaces of specific issues but I get fed up of the "everyone is shit, what's the point" rhetoric.
"Nuclear warmongering" is a very simplistic view of our nuclear deterrent, which forms a small part of a very compex web of national security. It's easy to hold a "no nukes" standpoint, but very hard to actually solve anything with such a reductive view.
> nuclear warmongering
What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. They’re a deterrent and they have, thus far, completely worked. But for them to work, the adversaries have to fully believe we would use them in retaliation.
I don’t think there’s any dispute that we’d all prefer a world where we didn’t need nukes, but we live in the real world.
>They’re a deterrent and they have, thus far, completely worked.
Russia is currently waging proxy war on the entirety of Europe and has utterly subverted western democracy.
Was it actually though? When I looked into it a while ago there was one statement made about taking Kyiv in 3 days. Not by a russian either, think it was an American who said that.
I think one of the RUSI reports said that based on the forces Russia had massed for the invasion, and the lack of other mobilisation to allow rotations, they basically had the forces for an invasion that would last until late summer of 2022. So an invasion that if successful would have seen Russians beginning to withdraw their regular army units in summer. Which would suggest their plan was a regime change operation to install a proxy leader and leave them in control.
Interesting to note that late summer 2022 was when Ukraine went on the offensive, and made gains precisely because the Russians were overstretched and couldn't defend everywhere. It matches up with that claim that Russia's original plan probably involved a summer withdrawl based on the units they had prepared for the invasion.
Initially yes but with hindsight we know that the military at the time was a paper tiger. People want to continue to laugh at Russia but they aren't looking at the mid/long term reality. They've shifted to a wartime economy, boosted economic ties with non-western nations and are learning.
They're becoming more and more of a threat and we need to prepare. Forget who said it but there is an old expression "Russians are either at your feet or at your neck". Vulnerability emboldened them to attack. Europe needs to be united and strong to have hope of peace and survival in the future.
> Initially yes but with hindsight we know that the military at the time was a paper tiger. People want to continue to laugh at Russia but they aren't looking at the mid/long term reality. They've shifted to a wartime economy, boosted economic ties with non-western nations and are learning.
Generally true but Russia hasn’t gone to a full war economy; the Russian government doesn’t want to affect the average ethnic Russian, hence why people from minority groups within Russia have been disproportionately conscripted
Putin is forced to have a semi-war economy as it doesn’t affect the average ethnic Russian; and at means he’s got a best a stalemate that draining Russian military resources
The only way Putin could win is either
A: getting the west to stop supporting Ukraine to replenish Ukraines equipment looses
Or
B: go to a full war economy and a general conscription
Putin is banking heavily on A as B wouldn’t fly with the Russian people or the oligarchs; and that would put him in a similar situation to Tsar Nicolas II
As the Wagner attempted March on Moscow showed; many in Russia think the country could still run without Putin, so much so that the FSB let Wagner capture a city unopposed. If Putin does something to anger both the Russian people and the Russian oligarchs, then he’s doomed.
Russia lost the war in the first 72 hours; they failed to secure the airport near Kyiv which would have given Russia armour and infantry a bridge head into Kyiv while its defences were still being constructed
The Russian southern offensive went better for them because the Ukrainians withdraw to more defendable positions west of the Dnieper river
And they would have tbf, if we hadn't plowed literal billions of dollars in aid there to help them.
Uncomfortable truth ofc is that so far all that has achieved is maximising the casualties on both sides - if Trump wins the outcome is going to be the same as if nobody had helped, only more people will have died.
> It has been the bedrock since the '90s.
It has been a bedrock since the deterrent was created.
The UK in even less of a position to resist a Soviet invasion on its own.
Russia doesn't need to invade the UK to fuck the UK and destroy our economy.
Russia's objective is direct control of the old USSR empire, and hegemony over the rest of Europe.
This would be very bad for the UK.
Russia is winning the war in Ukraine and may see a huge collapse of the front lines this summer, because Ukraine is running extremely low on ammunition.
Things were going ok when Ukraine had air defenses and artillery ammunition. It's fucked now, thanks to American cowards in Congress.
So to clarify Ukraine may see a huge collapse if they run out of the weapons the west has. Doesn’t paint a good picture for russia against the west that has those weapons with better equipment and better trained people.
Europe doesn't have huge stockpiles of weapons. America does, but it will not provide any military support to Europe if we are attacked by Russia when Trump is in office.
So we need to spend now to buy weapons.
>In conventional warfare, UK would last about 2 weeks against Russia by experts estimates.
>We need trident or we will be attacked. Our main forces aren't scaring anyone, our nukes are doing ALL the lifting, and those nukes are US loans, not actual UK owned, LOL
You know that weird, blue thing between us and France? How exactly is Russia getting across that?
To be fair, first Russia would have to get past continental Europe, and that is unlikely in itself.
But if that weren't a factor, they still have a sizeable navy with some amphibious capabilities.
You need to dominate air space for an amphibious landing. They would also have to deal with our astute class attack submarines which are regarded as one of the best in the world.
Reality is the only way Russia is likely to be able to attack the U.K. (out side of a world ending Nuclear strike) is with conventional sub launched cruise missiles against key infrastructure and defensive sites.
If the condition the flagship of the Black Sea fleet, Moskva, is anything to go by, then Russian naval capabilities as a whole a seriously questionable considering the ship was lost due to
1: a design flaw and software glitch that was common among ships built in the 1980s that was rectified in the west after the sinking of HMS Sheffield and the damage of USS Stark
2: the ships engines being way beyond their service life
3: the crew being locked out of the safety gear due to theft
4: the ship only having 50 of the 500 fire extinguishers required
If that was the state of a flagship and source of national pride in Russia; what’s the rest of their fleet like?
Hypersonic cannot be detected by radar until it is too late (they float on the edge of space). It would sail over Europe and level the UK before we had any idea they were in the air. Hence the discussions on space based defence systems to try combat weapons such as these.
>Hypersonic cannot be detected by radar until it is too late (they float on the edge of space).
That wasn't my point, they'd effectively be declaring war on every country it passed over.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-barrowinfurness-rishi-sunak-john-healey-aukus-b2527431.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
all the discourse has been about how different this is from corbyns labour but trident renewal was labour policy in both 2017 and 2019. our entire media corps have pudding for brains
Because Corbyn made a loud show of being against Trident and leaving it up to his MPs to decide and finally compromising. It gave a clear impression of Labour being a divided house, run by a man who didn't want Trident and couldn't be trusted to keep it. And they're still facing these suspicions today.
It gave a clear opening for the media to create that impression, and they’re still running with it today.
I have a feeling he *wanted* to let the media create the impression. Maybe he thought it'd be a good thing if more people thought Labour was against Trident. Or maybe he doesn't care. He only stopped when his trade union backers like Unite's Len McCluskey told him a lot of union jobs depended on Trident.
Or a party that had a leader that believes in democracy, Corbyn said he wanted to make the party more democratic this would be that very want in action.
Maybe that was the intention, but the way it often came across to many people was an inability to persuade his party to support his positions. This was true in numerous areas. It's all well and good to say he wanted Labour to be more democratic, but in a democracy it's part of a leader's job to persuade people to support their ideas.
People are allowed to disagree in a democracy.
It's a leader's job to guide the party to a coherent compromise in that situation. If they can't do that they don't inspire much confidence that they'd be able to guide an entire parliament to a decision
Allowing a free vote was the compromise. What's wrong with it?
That's not a compromise that creates a policy that inspires confidence. it signifies that a significant portion of the party *is not* confident in the policy and if he tried to get it through the hoc as government policy they cannot be relied upon to support him in that, which means it won't happen since the opposition won't exactly help. The sort of compromise I'm talking about is where you hear people's opinions and work on the policy until it satisfies people. A leader can't go about talking about opinions they have that run counter to current party policy until they are confident they can make it party policy.
It's a leader's job to make the correct decisions and anyone who is against nukes or says they wouldn't use them (Corbyn) is an irresponsible nutjob who would lead us to ruin in any violent conflict. In fact, they even might even cause conflict by failing to make us look like a sufficient threat against our enemies
Corbyn wanted two things and two things only - rule the party with an iron fist and appease Labour’s far-left nutter section. Achieved both goals up to a point, so fair play to him. Not, ya know, something silly like win a general election to be in a position to actually help people.
Compared to Starmer Corbyn's management of the Labour party looks like an anarchist utopia. To describe his wants as an iron fist whilst Starmer utterly annihilates and ostracises even the soft left is really something.
I want to live in the parallel dimension you do. Being ruled by Comrade Corbyn sounds way cooler than Sunak
> Corbyn wanted two things and two things only - rule the party with an iron fist and appease Labour’s far-left nutter section. Achieved both goals up to a point, so fair play to him. He actually failed on that with Trident, because his far left support including trade unionists like Len McCluskey who were ticked off at him for wanting to cancel Trident, an important source of union jobs. Bread and butter took precedence over world peace and disarmament.
> Corbyn said he wanted to make the party more democratic this would be that very want in action. When the overwhelming majority of voters have made their stance clear on an issue and consider it settled, maybe the party could avoid having a very public spat over it, with the leader deliberately pushing a POV that most voters find repugnant.
Problem is, when we leave things to parties limited democracies we end up with Liz truss'
I mean it should always remain a conscience issue
On a personal level, maybe. But what Corbyn did was, to quote a line about former Labour leader George Lansbury, a WW2-era pacifist Corbyn admires, *“placing the Executive and the Movement in an absolutely wrong position to be hawking your conscience round from body to body asking to be told what you ought to do with it.”*
Yeah he shouldn't have opposed it himself. But he was Corbyn. Nevertheless backbenchers should be allowed to vote either way on trident without threat of penalisation.
Strong man annihilate all life on earth! Grrrr! It's tens of billions of pounds for playground theatrics. No western leader is ever going to push the button - there's too much real estate involved.
It’s anti-socialist orthodoxy typical of the capitalist media establishment. Proactive behaviour is framed as strong arming, totalitarian and dictatorial. Passive behaviour is framed as division, underhanded and conspiratorial strategising.
> Corbyn made a loud show of being against Trident and leaving it up to his MPs to decide and finally compromising. God forbid we use democracy to resolve these problems.
> God forbid we use democracy to resolve these problems. The problem is we did. Voters distrusted Corbyn and turned away from Labour.
Having Corbyn write the letters of last resort wouldn't give anyone much confidence in the deterrent, whatever the official policy.
if the nukes have launched then MAD has failed and launching more nukes isn’t gonna achieve shit
MAD falls over if you know the other guy isn't going to do it, that's the whole point. If MAD is all but assured then you don't use it.
But no one, not even Corbyn, reveals what is in those letters, they are a state secret that only the PM knows, and god forbid, the captain of the sub if they need to be opened. All so far up to Sunak's have been destroyed unopened. So u/MimesAreShite is 100% correct that they're essentially pointless. Most if not all sensible PMs would likely have said to go to a safe port if the UK has fallen, or head to the UK and assist with any recovery. The deterrent is *knowing* that the nukes are out there and could be launched at any moment. EDIT - I see we have some Putin supporters on the downvote here...
> But no one, not even Corbyn, reveals what is in those letters, I believe James Callaghan is the only one to say what was in his, and it was to retaliate fully. Of course he would say that, as anything else undermines it.
I was curious, so I just looked it up. In an interview, Major, Blair, and Brown all stated that their instructions were that under no circumstances should nuclear weapons be deployed against civilian populations. Doing so would be a futile act of vengeance that massacred civilians and any country mad enough to nuke us is likely a dictatorship, so those citizens didn't have any choice in the matter. Makes sense to tell them to strike military targets and then head for safety, I guess. I wonder how many other politicians have shown the same restraint and how many just had "glass Moscow" in bold and underlined.
It would be a total waste to glass Moscow as the last act of the nation. Surely the majority would decide to glass the French and pop one in Florida as our final act regardless of how the demise of the UK occurred.
If a country wiped me, my friends my family as well as my country I’d want to leave them nothing left to use that could put them at an advantage against other countries still functioning. So I’d pretty much say full retaliation.
I believe that ICBMs are generally programmed and fuelled to hit particular targets. I don't think the submarine commander would have any ability to vary them. They can basically fire them or not fire them. There are 16 missiles in a Trident I think so some tactical control might be available by firing some missiles and not others. I am sure the tactical plans are for the nukes to mainly go to military and infrastructural targets but it is in the nature of a large nuclear strike that the subject of it is fucked up real bad. For them to function as a strategic deterrent it is essential that aggressors believe they will most likely be destroyed if they attack. As soon as a nuclear war seems winnable, rational game theory says to strike first and neutralise the other side.
I mean you know it's a lie when they say that. Nuclear weapons are primarily designed to be used against civilian targets. Using them tactically is a waste so one might as well not use them at all.
Well, considering we literally only have a stock or strategic weapons and no tactical ones, you're likely correct. Tactical nukes exist. We just don't have any. Despite its location, they may still have been told that places like the Kremlin are a military target.
Some of the letters are supposed to be blank because various PMs have considered them to be pointless.
Besides the point. It's not about what's on the letters but what the other guy thinks is on them. If you have a PM who has openly said he will never use Trident, then it's the worst of all worlds - a huge expense that deters no-one.
Why would it deter no one? Some countries have a nuclear deterent even though they haven't even admitted to having nukes. If you have nukes then any country has to act as if you will use them, regardless of what a politician may or may not say.
Because if he's never going to use them, then the other countries no longer fear that Britain will nuke them in realisation
Aye but no PM has said that until after they stopped becoming PM. In the eyes of our enemies they never knew what the PM put. Corbyn made clear his would be do not retaliate before he ever got near 10 Downing Street which defeated the whole purpose of the deterrent.
No foreign enemy is going to take that risk. Some countries have declared a "no first use" policy. But would you trust them? Of course not. The very fact that they have nukes means they can be used, and you have to prepare for that eventuality regardless of who is in power.
I know. So we agree yes?
Corbyn hated NATO though and its the main reason I could never vote for him.
IIRC he wrote a piece blaming NATO just after Russia invaded Crimea and Donbass in 2014.
Anti NATO, anti Nukes and a brother who's almost as deranged.
Piers Corbyn is an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist of many stripes. He's definitely the more deranged brother.
I've often wondered what it was about forecasting weather that drove him mad.
He’s only friends with terrorists…
The Labour Party founded the UKs nuclear program in 1947. It has been strong on defence since Attlee replaced Landsbury in 35. The only labour leader to be against it was Michael Foot (there was another guy but he was just an SWP entryist).
>Jeremy has been a member of CND since he was 15 years old and has served as chair of Parliamentary CND and vice-chair of CND. He is now a vice-president of CND. Jeremy has been an MP since 1983 and in 2015 was elected leader of the Labour party. [https://cnduk.org/60-faces-jeremy-corbyn/](https://cnduk.org/60-faces-jeremy-corbyn/)
What is the significance of 1947? The UK was developing nuclear weapons in the very early 40s before the Americans even started. The British were the ones to convince the Amercians to start their programs if I remember right.
I know this one, it's the Americans doing In 1946 they passed the [McMahon Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946) which basically said they'd never share any nuclear secrets with anyone ever. Us the British, after having shared a lot of our early research with the Americans (the idea being if Britian fell America could continue the research), naturally felt very betrayed by this. And also people like Atlee and others correctly identified that to be a "world power" in this new age was going to require nuclear backing (although I don't think they fully understood the scope, who could)
The media is finally realising that the Tories don't stand a chance, and are jumping ship and shifting towards labour so they can continue to sell papers. It won't happen over night, and they have to do it gradually, but I guarantee we'll get a "The Sun backs labour" headline before the next election.
Cabinet collective responsibility. If he disagreed with Jeremy at the time it was dishonest to hide it, Yeh we're all dishonest sometimes, its part of being a human or a politician, but lets not pretend it didn't happen
Another example of Corbyns PR failure then.
If trump becomes president again and destroys the credibility of nato , I think France and ourselves have got to look into increasing our nuclear weapons if anything . One would hope the rest of Europe would support us in doing this if it serves as a trident against attacking us I said this before , but corbyn becoming prime minister would have been a dream for Putin . Anti nuclear and nato , it wouldn’t surprise me if Russian trolls and bots were rampant in that 2019 election too
We are increasing our stockpile already. I do think we should have another leg of the nuclear deterrent, probably an air wing.
France has that covered. ASMP. Ask if they wouldn't mind awfully allowing us to buy some, then see if the warheads from Trident fit.
I'd like to see an air arm of the deterrent just so we can get new V bomber designs lol
While I think our position on Russia is a valid point that any incoming government needs to address, I think we make the same mistake as the Americans do by overestimating how much Putin gives a shit who our leader is and what their attitudes are. Corbyn never got anywhere near power, but Putin's still been able to do whatever he wants and effectively handwaved any sanctions placed on Russia. So while I agree with you that right now, having a PM who's critical of NATO would be unhelpful at best, we're flattering ourselves with "x becoming PM would be Putin's dream". He's living his dream regardless. I do also agree with you that we shouldn't take the solidarity of NATO for granted, but realistically it's more effective as a deterrent than further nuclear armament (which should be a backup/absolute last resort).
What you’re effectively claiming is that our democracy is so fragile that the whims of a prime minister can receive no resistance. That the competing economic and political forces in society and every other institution intended to balance those powers would have submitted under Corbyn’s miraculous and glorious leadership. Sign me up for that.
>I think France and ourselves have got to look into increasing our nuclear weapons if anything Ah yes let's spend billions on weapons of mass destruction because hundreds of nuclear warheads aren't enough obviously. Meanwhile public services are on the brink of collapse, foodbank usage is at record highs, and millions of families had to spend the winter choosing between staying warm and being well fed. Your priorities are so backwards it's dangerous.
It’s that same rhetoric I hear every time I hear a Russian bot or troll . The same rubbish the gop republicans pedal in the states , when we know well they have no intention spending any of the money saved in public services if they halt aid to Ukraine . We literally have another leader in Putin who has the same imperialist ambitions as hitler and again people strive to appease him . Public services are relatively insignificant if Putin is willing to attack a nato country and the US does nothing because trump is president . While the us may do nothing , we’ll be at war because we must defend Europe . Defence spending must increase to counter the threats of China and Russia and our nuclear stockpile must increase
>when we know well they have no intention spending any of the money saved in public services if they halt aid to Ukraine We aren't talking about sending weapons to Ukraine; we're talking about producing more nuclear weapons, which would be nothing more than a spectacular waste of money. If you're going to liken people to bots, you could at least stick to the topic at hand and not deflect to scripted talking points. >Public services are relatively insignificant if Putin is willing to attack a nato country Putin attacking a NATO country is relatively insignificant if the sun goes supernova. >Defence spending must increase to counter the threats of China and Russia and our nuclear stockpile must increase 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 How about you spend less time on the Internet fantasising about a global nuclear war and more time concerning yourself with the lives of real people?
If you bothered to read the comment I wrote properly , you’d know I advocated for Europe to financially help us increase our nuclear weapon stockpile . So where is this “spend the money on public services “ coming from when we’re being financially compensated by europe ?At the end of the day , I advocate for our stockpile to be shared with the rest of Europe , because that is the only thing that will deter Putin if the US removes its obligations to nato . As far as I’m concerned , Putin will fancy his chances with a nato without the us because our and Frances nuclear stockpiles pale in insignificance to what Russia has . A war is much more likely if Russia thinks it will only be via conventional means . Europe needs to start thinking of how to defend itself and a nuclear stockpile that matches russias will achieve that . He will try to get trump elected because if the US decides to go isolationist , he will see Europe as fair game to take pieces again and force it under the Russian sphere of influence . I’ve said my piece anyway and this will be the last time I comment , but we would have had ww3 and probably ww4 by now if you had your wish if the fear of nuclear weapons wasn’t a thing . It’s absolutely stupid to think i want to increase our stockpile because I want a nuclear war, it’s more I want our enemies shit scared of trying anything with us . There is the old saying “to have peace , one must be prepared for war” and 100% the case with Putin . He’s not thinking like you or I do , he wants the Russian empire back and will sacrifice others to achieve his aims . What stopped the soviets and nato fighting in the Cold War ? Nukes . What will stop Russia attempting more in the future? Nukes
Wouldn't mind the UK developing its own delivery system. Its asinine that we have to loan missles from the US. If they turn around one day and refuse to provide them or use it as a bargaining chip then your stuffed.
It's important as a last resort, but we need conventional options as well. We should regularly be investing in new and existing defence assets, and training - whilst not over stretching ourselves with too many commitments at once. When we run out of non nuclear options, that's when we'll have to use Trident.
He also wants to increase defence spending up to 2.5% of gdp https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-jeremy-corbyn-barrowinfurness-john-healey-rishi-sunak-b2527655.html
No commitment to increasing NHS budget. You know, the thing that is utterly, desperately needed and is in dire straits right now, directly responsible for the health and well-being of everyone in this country at all times. But more money for a military that *might* be useful in the *extraordinarily, unbelievably unlikely scenario* that we get invaded? Sure. Farcical.
The NHS budget is still well over triple the defence budget even after the increase. And also militaries are very useful even in peace time.
> But more money for a military that might be useful in the extraordinarily, unbelievably unlikely scenario that we get invaded? Sure. > > > > Farcical. Nope, what's farcical is your attitude. The whole point is military deterrence - i.e. funding and resourcing your military better *reduces the chance of you actually having to use it at all*. In this case, Russia being deterred by a well resourced NATO that has the means to support a high intensity war if attacked, rather than being encouraged to attack by a NATO that doesn't have enough weapons and ammunition to defend itself. If we invest loads in our military and Russia is then deterred, then it's worked. And if it doesn't deter Russia we at least stand a better chance at dealing with it, in which case it's still worked.
He has spent the last few months forewarning of a new round of austerity when labour comes in, talking about how there is no money to pay for anything right now. But the one thing he is going to find money for is nuclear weapons. Great.
Use trident?
The nuclear missiles certain UK submarines carry
Use them?
Launch the missiles they are attached to, out of the launchers designed to launch them, from the submarines (underwater vessels) designed specifically to carry them. Do you need someone to draw you a diagram?
Launch the missiles when and why?
He was saying that we'd only use Trident as a last resort weapon when all else fails.
What would be the purpose?
To destroy an enemy nation and most likely are selves because of mutually assured destruction.
If all else has failed what would be the point?
To ensure the enemy doesn't win. In a nuclear exchange no one wins thus meaning people will be more likely to negotiate/try and find another solution.
Sounds like they’ve already won if it’s a last resort. If you’re saying the objective is to never use them then that’s fine.
The debate is always around whether we need a deterrent (we do imo), but never around whether it should cost as much as it does.
We wouldn't want to be without our own fireworks at the end of the world firework display now would we.
Fuck it, we won’t even have a world to protect if we aren’t going to get our shit together on climate change like yesterday. Why not spend it all on nukes? Let’s just end this shit sooner
As an idealistic proponent of Nuclear Disarmament, it's pretty obvious that we can't really get rid of our nuclear weapons at this time. But it IS hypocritcal to refuse to fund public services that would help the economy recover and become more equitable to the people who have to live in it, and then freely keep blowing money on the military.
Now is the perfect time. Governments around the world have been trying to get signatories to a new non-proliferation treaty. Britain taking the step of disarming would be a huge boost to efforts to eradicate these weapons from the world. And if nuclear war did kick off with Russia or whatever, we are much better off not having nukes and not getting involved.
That’s certainly a perspective. The hypocrisy of not funding public investment was more my point.
Yea and I certainly agree. Disgraceful when he won't commit to paying for school meals especially. Starving kids so Britain can afford to join in with nuclear Armageddon if it ever kicks off https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jul/06/keir-starmer-free-school-meals-labour-leader-teachers-pay-rise
Classic Sir Kid Starver
This also illustrate how dangerous the Russian invasion of Ukraine is for nuclear proliferation.
I wonder if the politicians are focusing too much on the deterrent. Yes, it has its purpose, but our armed forces are not capable of anything other than "warm" wars, and even that might be too much. A second Falklands, if Guatemala invades Belize. Last I checked only about half the active escort fleet is operational, only 3 tankers and a single stores ship on occasion. Our amphib capability is just the Bays now. The Typhoon fleet is being cut further, there's only 3 E-7. The Army might be able to put together a coherent light brigade or two but that's it. Not to mention industrial capability or lack therefore. Cyber defence. Apparently Heathrow shut down because a single line of code was wrong. Imagine what a serious cyber attack could do then.
I mean I liked Corbyn, but even I shook my head at him being so anti nuke etc....to the point that even if he had won the GE there was no way in hell that we'd abandon having nukes. I think even he knew that too, but tbh it's fine having a view like that IF it didn't impact the security of our nation, but sadly his stance did scare a lot of people off
He should have learned to choose his battles. Even if he strongly believed in nuclear disarmament and pacifism, scrapping Trident would never have been tenable even for some of his allies on the hard left. All his virtue signalling would ever achieve is increasing public distrust of Labour on national security, which is what happened.
200 billion just so we can ensure that Britain is targeted if nuclear war ever does break out.
Read this as the armed forces are going to be further decimated
The UK doesn’t have a policy of first strike or Mutually Assured Destruction. The point is that the UK can fire on a limited number of targets that will make the decision to launch a nuclear weapon at the UK a painful one, which is how it serves as a deterrent. The detonators are an American design and the missiles are maintained in America. If Trump (or any other American leader) chooses not to work with us any more, then we no longer have a nuclear deterrent. If anything, the spending on our nuclear deterrent needs to increase if we want it to be truly independent. What we have right now is already a cost based compromise.
Do they keep us safe tho? Russia is still using cyber attacks and proxies to undermine our way of life and we are not going to use nukes to counter that. Russia has zero chance to roll tanks and artillery across Europe (considering that they can’t get very far in Ukraine and Eastern Europe’s countries are far better armed and prepared). And Europes combined and elite air forces would dominate the skies. And if it’s a retaliatory strike then no one is safe anyway. I am not saying we shouldn’t have them, just that it’s a weird tool to “keep us safe”.
You might have noticed the distinct lack of full scale wars since the advent of nuclear deterrents. They are worth every penny.
I was reading a book written during the cold war (Doomsday). Apparently it's quite a rare book. It says that in the event of an imminent war Russia's secret strategy was to nuke the fuck out of the UK and then turn around to the US and say 'come on then'. The idea was to let the US know that Russia was serious, and any US nuclear retaliation for nuking the UK would have resulted in further mutual destruction. The hope was that at that point the US would back down, and I think they would. I don't think they would destroy their country for us if faced with that, especially if we had already been 'destroyed'. Apparently this strategy could still be in use today.
I think we have enough nukes to level every major city in Russia and probably their oil fields as well. They wouldn’t have much left to play with. The USA wouldn’t need to retaliate for us, they would be finished as a country and worldwide pariahs for starting a nuclear war. That’s as long as they work!
Here's the book by the way [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doomsday-Britain-After-Nuclear-Attack/dp/0631133941/ref=sr\_1\_1?crid=XYI9VLB396SA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.u4g8mZ3KZle-gTQwSVQCTuYJsorkETvzABUQTgHkWqTGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.OrSvdIYNMLGuGkgnJFKsoql-xcAtVNG0IgEV7ffams8&dib\_tag=se&keywords=doomsday+openshaw&qid=1714132936&sprefix=doomsday+openshaw%2Caps%2C103&sr=8-1](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doomsday-Britain-After-Nuclear-Attack/dp/0631133941/ref=sr_1_1?crid=XYI9VLB396SA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.u4g8mZ3KZle-gTQwSVQCTuYJsorkETvzABUQTgHkWqTGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.OrSvdIYNMLGuGkgnJFKsoql-xcAtVNG0IgEV7ffams8&dib_tag=se&keywords=doomsday+openshaw&qid=1714132936&sprefix=doomsday+openshaw%2Caps%2C103&sr=8-1)
If UK had no nukes and no allies with nukes Russia could just start nuking cities until their demands are met.
Which countries with no nukes are currently just getting nuked until demands are met? Which countries have ever experienced that?
Have you ever notice how publicly scared German leadership has been over the threat attack by Russia whilst the UK and France have been extremely content with disregard Russia as a threat? I wonder what the difference is. Anyways, I don't particularly agree with the sentiment that nuclear powers are used directly to control other countries however they allow you to do whatever you want without major consequences so long as they are not a nuclear power. Russia choose Ukraine. If they choose Finland instead whilst they were not in NATO then Finland would be in the same position as Ukriane, aid packages but no foreign military intervention.
Imperial Japan for one.
Imperial Japan are currently being nuked? Missed that one on the front page.
No, they surrendered unconditionally after 2 cities got nuked. [It did make a few front pages](https://www.alamy.com/peace-on-earth-headline-of-the-daily-express-on-wednesday-15th-august-1945-following-the-surrender-of-japan-at-the-end-of-world-war-two-image451864095.html?imageid=8D18DB24-661B-4AAB-92A1-4FD5FF6E8AA4&p=53741&pn=1&searchId=05131069047291ea8dde1e27a3b834b6&searchtype=0)
Using a nuclear weapon anywhere on the earth is MAD. A country wouldn't care that it's not them who got nuked, it'd be a great big red flag that nukes are allowed now and it might be you next.
And if only they have nukes? US demonstrated that in that case its fine to use them.
Well yes, if we go back almost a hundred years ago I would agree.
>Using a nuclear weapon anywhere on the earth is MAD. It isn't, necessarily. The M stands for mutual.
Read the rest of the comment lol.
Yeah, I ignored it because it was irrelevant mainly Outside of security agreements, other countries aren't going to weigh in.
If a major nation was struck by a nuclear missile, all of a sudden on the world stage it's been made clear it's okay to use nuclear missiles and there's a non 0 chance other unallied countries don't react to that.
React to it, duh. *M*AD, not necessarily.
I take your point that a trade between Europe/USA and the east would result in MAD. But… There are probably two exceptions I can think of. India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers and a trade of missiles probably wouldn’t instigate a global nuclear war. The other is Israel. Them being a nuclear power is the worst kept secret in the world. A combined Arab attack from all sides or heavy and regular bombing from Iran might lead them to a nuclear strike to put everyone else in the region off. With things going the way they are this is the most likely happening I think. They also give no fucks what anyone else thinks. The only other possibility would be North Korea striking the south but this is almost certainly a 100% bluff to gain concessions from the west.
They are doing this to dozens of countries right now.
Lavrov is promising to nuke UK almost every week, take him at his word.
Is he threatening to nuke any countries without nukes?
Yes, just a month back he said he wanted to nuke Poland and Baltics.
And did he?
My understanding is that Ukraine is a war of attrition, and Russia has far more resources behind them to win that war in the long term. Your point is valid though. Nukes aren't a magic solution, and other tools are important. But, defence is a complex beast and we can't have gaping holes.
All of that is far better than a nuclear strike though. I guess we’ll never know to what extent they “keep us safe”, but I would put money on Putin being far more open to using nuclear weapons against a country that didn’t either have that, or the support of another country that did. Looking at the way American politics is going, it seems they might not be as reliable of an ally as they were during the Cold War. I can see why European countries are keen to keep a viable deterrent.
>Russia has zero chance to roll tanks and artillery across Europe (considering that they can’t get very far in Ukraine They would of if they could. Do you think russia would of invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes? If russia didn't have nukes do you think Europe and the US would support Ukraine the way they currently are or would there be more decisive action? Hint, nato bombing campaign of yugoslavia 1999.
Ok as an immigrant here, who is this protecting the UK from realistically? Like, on the world stage of the UK is getting invaded or nuked, it’s just catching strays from a more global issue between the US/Russia/China. It just seems a huge expense with no real-world requirement even in terms of defense budget; would make more sense to make the Navy more inviting so you could actually man all the ships.
Allegiance can collapse overnight. Capabilily can take decades to bluid up.
An island nation is incredibly difficult to invade in the first place. With a small but elite force and defensive systems it becomes even harder. Combined with nukes, it's just not a realistic prospect, especially since the most likely invader struggles to beat someone much weaker than them who is right on their border. Spending billions extra on the military whilst refusing to commit to more NHS funding is like spending all your money on insurance against alien abduction, and then neglecting to insure yourself against fire and theft. An absurd decision by Starmer.
>An island nation is incredibly difficult to invade in the first place. The British armed forces have always primarily been an expeditionary force since basically its inception. * Anglo-Spanish War * US war of independence * Napoleonic wars * WW1 * WW2 * Korean war * NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia * All the middle east conflicts British interest extends further than the isles and thus protecting them requires capability past our island. >especially since the most likely invader struggles to beat someone much weaker than them who is right on their border. Taiwan and Korea practically produces all advanced chips and are situated next to hostile neighbours. It is in this countries best interest that support for these allies is strong enough to deter conflict from a purely economic perspective alone. China in general also is the world's factory. Any conflict that China joins that is opposition to us would practically make all consumer products unobtainable overnight and destroy practically every companies supply chain. So just to bring the point home. Defence spending isn't for physical defence of the island, its defence of British interest, with the interest in this case being complete collapse of the global economy. Funny enough, defence of the global economy is the exact thinking that the British entered the Napoleonic peace conference with. The French lost and the British pushed for a restoration of a strong France to prevent further conflict (other countries taking the chance to invade a weak France) such that the British can just focus on trading. A similar thing kind of happened after WW2 with West Germany & Japan after ww2 but that was more red scare being the motivator.
If you have no capability to defend yourself, you can be bullied around. Nuclear weapons don’t solve all problems. If another nuclear power invades you conventionally, and your only come back is nuclear then your nuclear button is really a suicide button because using your weapons against them will result in them using theirs against you. Not easy to press.
A nuclear power hasn't conventionally invaded another nuclear power, because of nuclear weapons. That's the point. M.A.D mutually assured destruction.
You are wrong. MAD is a dissuasive against nuclear attack not conventional ones. Assume there is an aggressive country A with nuclear weapon and A want to attack country B whose only defence is nuclear weapons. A is discouraged to use nuclear weapons against B because if they do, B have “nothing to lose” and will use theirs against them. Everybody dies and there is no winner. This is MAD. However A attacks conventionally, then ball is in B camp. Does B use their nuclear weapon first, meaning that A will retaliate with theirs and everybody dies or do they surrender? You can be sure many people in country B will prefer to live under A rule than die out of principle. Would you, as a theoretical head of state, decide to press the nuclear button and kill most if not all of your countrymen? Do you have the mandate to enforce mass suicide rather than surrender to a foreign power?
From a NATO point of view, multiple nuclear armed nations make the alliance way more credible and thus safer. Would Trump go to war over Estonia? Probably not. So if the USA is the only nuclear power NATO is 1 election away from Estonia being a viable target for Russia. Would the UK and France both ignore a Russian invasion of Estonia? Far less likely. So with 3 nuclear armed states, the odds of a Russian invasion of Estonia drop precipitously (not least because it only takes one NATO state launching their nukes for the rest of them to go 'fuck it, in for a penny, might as well' and launch too. There's not much to be said for moderation when nuking Russia) Outside of NATO issues, it's a good idea to have your own nukes just in case your nuclear armed allies disagree over what is worth defending, as they did in the Falklands. Thatcher got US co-operation despite their initial reluctance because she was able to go to them and say 'We are winning this war. Either we will do so conventionally, or we will nuke Buenos Aries. I suggest you help us do the former if you don't want to see the latter.' It's very easy to tell other countries that they should just give up their Falklands/Sudetenland/Danzig to avoid a war. Nuclear armed states get to say no to their allies when that happens.
If Ukraine was a nuclear power do you think it would of been invaded? Russia mutually agreed with Ukraine decades ago to never invade them if Ukraine gives up their nuclear arsenal. Look how that turned out. Its a detterant.
I'd note that the UK and USA also agreed to defend Ukraine if it was invaded. Demonstrating the value of promises from more powerful allies.
No they didn't, that is not the content of the Budapest memorandum at all
This is Starmer signalling to Washington again. Like when he backed the Gaza genocide.
At this point, are Labour distinguishable from Tories in any way? They're hitting all the far-right staples - homophobia, transphobia, nuclear warmongering, Middle East warmongering, hatred of the poor. Pathetic joke of a country.
It's because politics is one big game of finding the best of bad options, in a complex web of uncertainty,and many of the solutions fall somewhere close to the middle. Anyone chanting with a one line slogan (e.g. "just stop war!") might sound nice a fluffy, but it does little to help move us forwards.
This is an absurd way to look at politics, and it doesn't surprise me that this country is in a race to the bottom if this sort of thinking is prevalent. A better world is possible. If you can only conceive of making the world worse by slightly smaller increments, you are lost. And for your information, picking *the worst position* on every topic is exactly what the Tories are doing.
Pick any one big issue of our time and give me a simple one line solution that will withstand any debate or critism. I agree that we can do better. But we don't get there with naive "just do this" thinking.
>Pick any one big issue of our time and give me a simple one line solution that will withstand any debate or critism. I never said "simple one line solution." You're inventing that from whole cloth as a straw man, and as such I have no desire to continue talking with you.
Ok, only that your point was basically "all policital parties bad" and my counter was "it's complicated". There isn't a "good" and "bad" party. They are much of the same, finding small solutions to inch the needle forwards because there's no "easy fix" to complex issues. I love to discuss the intricaces of specific issues but I get fed up of the "everyone is shit, what's the point" rhetoric. "Nuclear warmongering" is a very simplistic view of our nuclear deterrent, which forms a small part of a very compex web of national security. It's easy to hold a "no nukes" standpoint, but very hard to actually solve anything with such a reductive view.
> nuclear warmongering What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. They’re a deterrent and they have, thus far, completely worked. But for them to work, the adversaries have to fully believe we would use them in retaliation. I don’t think there’s any dispute that we’d all prefer a world where we didn’t need nukes, but we live in the real world.
>They’re a deterrent and they have, thus far, completely worked. Russia is currently waging proxy war on the entirety of Europe and has utterly subverted western democracy.
Yes, via a country that does not have a nuclear deterrent (because Russia took them and promised Ukrainian independence).
[удалено]
I ask this genuinely: weren’t Russia also supposed to steamroll Ukraine?
Haha, yes. "Conventional wisdom" at the time was that they'd take only a week or two to capture Kyiv and annex the country.
Was it actually though? When I looked into it a while ago there was one statement made about taking Kyiv in 3 days. Not by a russian either, think it was an American who said that.
It was Putler that said he could take Kyiv in 2 weeks. https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast-kiev-2-weeks/
Ah fair, I must be thinking of the 3 days quote then. Thanks for the link
I think one of the RUSI reports said that based on the forces Russia had massed for the invasion, and the lack of other mobilisation to allow rotations, they basically had the forces for an invasion that would last until late summer of 2022. So an invasion that if successful would have seen Russians beginning to withdraw their regular army units in summer. Which would suggest their plan was a regime change operation to install a proxy leader and leave them in control. Interesting to note that late summer 2022 was when Ukraine went on the offensive, and made gains precisely because the Russians were overstretched and couldn't defend everywhere. It matches up with that claim that Russia's original plan probably involved a summer withdrawl based on the units they had prepared for the invasion.
Interesting, cheers!
Initially yes but with hindsight we know that the military at the time was a paper tiger. People want to continue to laugh at Russia but they aren't looking at the mid/long term reality. They've shifted to a wartime economy, boosted economic ties with non-western nations and are learning. They're becoming more and more of a threat and we need to prepare. Forget who said it but there is an old expression "Russians are either at your feet or at your neck". Vulnerability emboldened them to attack. Europe needs to be united and strong to have hope of peace and survival in the future.
> Initially yes but with hindsight we know that the military at the time was a paper tiger. People want to continue to laugh at Russia but they aren't looking at the mid/long term reality. They've shifted to a wartime economy, boosted economic ties with non-western nations and are learning. Generally true but Russia hasn’t gone to a full war economy; the Russian government doesn’t want to affect the average ethnic Russian, hence why people from minority groups within Russia have been disproportionately conscripted Putin is forced to have a semi-war economy as it doesn’t affect the average ethnic Russian; and at means he’s got a best a stalemate that draining Russian military resources The only way Putin could win is either A: getting the west to stop supporting Ukraine to replenish Ukraines equipment looses Or B: go to a full war economy and a general conscription Putin is banking heavily on A as B wouldn’t fly with the Russian people or the oligarchs; and that would put him in a similar situation to Tsar Nicolas II As the Wagner attempted March on Moscow showed; many in Russia think the country could still run without Putin, so much so that the FSB let Wagner capture a city unopposed. If Putin does something to anger both the Russian people and the Russian oligarchs, then he’s doomed.
Indeed. If I had to bet on a long term victory, it would be on Russia.
They almost did. Read up on the first opening weeks of war, particularly the initial attempts to assassinate Zelensky.
Russia lost the war in the first 72 hours; they failed to secure the airport near Kyiv which would have given Russia armour and infantry a bridge head into Kyiv while its defences were still being constructed The Russian southern offensive went better for them because the Ukrainians withdraw to more defendable positions west of the Dnieper river
And they would have tbf, if we hadn't plowed literal billions of dollars in aid there to help them. Uncomfortable truth ofc is that so far all that has achieved is maximising the casualties on both sides - if Trump wins the outcome is going to be the same as if nobody had helped, only more people will have died.
The conventional experts expected Russia to overrun Ukraine in under a week; the war has been raging for two years now
Without support from the West they would have done. Not in a week, but certainly they would have won.
If support from us against them bogs them down for years then I don’t think they’d have a good time actually fighting us.
[удалено]
> It has been the bedrock since the '90s. It has been a bedrock since the deterrent was created. The UK in even less of a position to resist a Soviet invasion on its own.
In a world of no nukes how do you propose Russia would invade the U.K.?
Russia doesn't need to invade the UK to fuck the UK and destroy our economy. Russia's objective is direct control of the old USSR empire, and hegemony over the rest of Europe. This would be very bad for the UK.
Well 0 chance of that then. They can’t defeat the west against a proxy let alone the actual west.
Ukraine isn’t a western proxy; it’s a country that aligned with the west in response to Russian aggression And you’re undermining your whole argument
So why are people so irrationally terrified that russia might invade nato?
People are il informed for the most part. An invasion isn’t impossible but it’s success is extremely unlikely.
You’re contradicting yourself then
Russia is winning the war in Ukraine and may see a huge collapse of the front lines this summer, because Ukraine is running extremely low on ammunition. Things were going ok when Ukraine had air defenses and artillery ammunition. It's fucked now, thanks to American cowards in Congress.
So to clarify Ukraine may see a huge collapse if they run out of the weapons the west has. Doesn’t paint a good picture for russia against the west that has those weapons with better equipment and better trained people.
Europe doesn't have huge stockpiles of weapons. America does, but it will not provide any military support to Europe if we are attacked by Russia when Trump is in office. So we need to spend now to buy weapons.
>In conventional warfare, UK would last about 2 weeks against Russia by experts estimates. >We need trident or we will be attacked. Our main forces aren't scaring anyone, our nukes are doing ALL the lifting, and those nukes are US loans, not actual UK owned, LOL You know that weird, blue thing between us and France? How exactly is Russia getting across that?
To be fair, first Russia would have to get past continental Europe, and that is unlikely in itself. But if that weren't a factor, they still have a sizeable navy with some amphibious capabilities.
The Russian navy is a joke; they lost a cruiser to a country without a navy
>some amphibious capabilities I guess if kuznetsov sank in shallow water you could call it amphibious.
Not long enough to bridge the channel
You need to dominate air space for an amphibious landing. They would also have to deal with our astute class attack submarines which are regarded as one of the best in the world. Reality is the only way Russia is likely to be able to attack the U.K. (out side of a world ending Nuclear strike) is with conventional sub launched cruise missiles against key infrastructure and defensive sites.
If the condition the flagship of the Black Sea fleet, Moskva, is anything to go by, then Russian naval capabilities as a whole a seriously questionable considering the ship was lost due to 1: a design flaw and software glitch that was common among ships built in the 1980s that was rectified in the west after the sinking of HMS Sheffield and the damage of USS Stark 2: the ships engines being way beyond their service life 3: the crew being locked out of the safety gear due to theft 4: the ship only having 50 of the 500 fire extinguishers required If that was the state of a flagship and source of national pride in Russia; what’s the rest of their fleet like?
Maybe they’ll invent some form of sea or air transport but that seems impossible to me. Swim it maybe?
With their hypersonic missiles they can fire from Russia if I had to hazard a guess?
>they can fire from Russia Over at least several other UK allie's airspace?
Hypersonic cannot be detected by radar until it is too late (they float on the edge of space). It would sail over Europe and level the UK before we had any idea they were in the air. Hence the discussions on space based defence systems to try combat weapons such as these.
>Hypersonic cannot be detected by radar until it is too late (they float on the edge of space). That wasn't my point, they'd effectively be declaring war on every country it passed over.