FREEDOM!!!! [4]

Yup- as true now as it was then- see Crimea.

Hahahahaha.

Bluebottle wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:but without a mandate from the party he is limited to what he can push forward. nobody in their right mind is going to propose leaving NATO, or losing Trident. obviously Corbyn has a long standing stance on this which he will never change, but he has to moderate his more extreme demands and concentrate on what people are most concerned about like helping the most vulnerable in society, which I give him my wholehearted support.

You know a country is off the rails when perfectly sensible opinions gets labeled as extreme..

That's not a slur against you, Figg. Just your country.. your politicians.. and media..

its not politicians and the medis, the majority of British people want to stay in NATO and have a deterrent. otherwise Putin could park his planes wherever he wanted. the CND  movement is not the majority view in Britain, unlike Scandawegia, where it is. 'just your country' wants Trident, we are pragmatists and we know we don't live in happy clappy La La land where nukes aren't needed.

Seems to me Putin is doing that anyway..

But the deterrent worked well in Georgia.. and the Ukraine.. not to mention Syria..

the majority of British people want to stay in NATO and have a deterrent.- Figg

The two are not linked- most NATO members do not have nukes- the Fjordians being a good example.
A majority of Scots want rid of Trident, but a majority want to remain in NATO (which is also the SNP position).
And if England wants them I think they should have them and pay for them, get them out of Scotland. We don't want them.

If Corbyn goes for anti-Trident and NATO he has a small chance of getting enough votes in the House to stop Trident renewal, but as he wont get SNP or Lib-Dem backing for leaving NATO it has no chance of winning a vote.

Bluebottle wrote:Seems to me Putin is doing that anyway..

But the deterrent worked well in Georgia.. and the Ukraine.. not to mention Syria..

Ukraine, Syria and Georgia don't have nukes, and look what happened.

Watch the youtube videos. Salami tactics..

Bluebottle wrote:Seems to me Putin is doing that anyway..

But the deterrent worked well in Georgia.. and the Ukraine.. not to mention Syria..

Not sure what any of those countries have to do with the idea of NATO membership (or nukes) being a deterrent, seeing as none of them are/were members of NATO. Not to mention that Syria is a Russian ally so it's not really comparable to the recent conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine.

I never said anything about NATO membership. Only the idea of a nuclear deterrent, in general, and Trident, in particular. The case the first video i posted humorously makes is that you will never be put in a position where it's use is actually an acceptable alternative. The opposition knowing they can't push you that far, because they know the consequences. What they can do is slowly degenerate your position with conventional power, all the while keeping beneath the threshold of you using your deterrent. It is quite descriptive of Russia's recent actions in Eastern Europe.  

And, yes, while neither the Ukraine or Georgia, nor Syria, are NATO members, they are areas where Western and Russian interest clash. And areas where Russia has been able to make their political stance legal fact by use of conventional force. Spreading it's influence, undermining Western interests.

Will be interesting to see the result in the regional elections in Catalunya today re: independence. Whether the result will be independence is of course unclear. And whether people would actually vote for independence in a referendum. (Although 80% voted for in an informal election last autumn.)

More than five million people are eligible to cast their votes.
The ruling Convergencia party of Catalan leader Artur Mas and Esquerra Republicana have created a single list of candidates - under the banner "Together for Yes".
They say that Sunday's vote is a de facto referendum on independence from Spain.
They argue that the Spanish government has consistently refused to allow a legally recognised referendum, ignoring an unofficial vote backing independence in November 2014.
The anti-independence vote in Catalonia is split between a number of groups, including Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's Popular Party.
The centre-right government in Madrid has described any breakaway plans as "a nonsense".
Mr Rajoy argues that because the loss of Catalonia would affect all of Spain, the democratic approach would be for all of the country to vote in a referendum on Catalonia's future.
At the same time, if "Together for Yes" fails to gain a majority it would be tantamount to a serious defeat for the pro-independence movement.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34372548

The Scottish independence situation looks straight forward by comparison.

Exit Poll Indicates Separatists Win Majority of Seats in Catalan Election

That's a turnip for the boots, certainly.

An exit poll suggested that separatists in the wealthy Catalonia region won a parliamentary majority in a regional election largely viewed as a referendum on independence—though it was unclear whether they would have a strong enough mandate to break away from Spain.

A high voter turnout in Sunday’s election gave the two main separatist slates a combined total of between 74 and 79 of 135 seats in the Catalan parliament, enough to win a majority, according to an exit poll by Ipsos Consulting.

The largest of the tickets, Together for Yes, won between 63 and 66 seats, according to the poll. It had pledged before the vote to take the necessary steps to make Catalonia a new European nation within 18 months if it won an absolute majority. It appeared, however, that the main separatist ticket would fall short of that goal.

To make good on its plan to split from Spain, Together for Yes would need the help of the Popular Unity Candidacy or CUP, a smaller, radical-left, pro-independence party that got between 11 and 13 seats, the exit poll indicated.

The next step in the Catalan separatist drive could depend on complex negotiations between the two factions. The CUP has held that secessionists need a majority of the popular vote, not just a majority in parliament, to advance toward independence. The exit poll indicated that secessionists were falling just short—with 49.8% of the vote.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/catalans-cast-votes-in-election-that-could-trigger-move-toward-secession-1443347101

That's err.. a complicated situation.. to put it mildly.

So, to the big question of independence Catalunya responded with a resounding.. maybe.

Ah, well. I guess that's as good a response as any.

Bluebottle wrote:I never said anything about NATO membership. Only the idea of a nuclear deterrent, in general, and Trident, in particular. The case the first video i posted humorously makes is that you will never be put in a position where it's use is actually an acceptable alternative. The opposition knowing they can't push you that far, because they know the consequences. What they can do is slowly degenerate your position with conventional power, all the while keeping beneath the threshold of you using your deterrent. It is quite descriptive of Russia's recent actions in Eastern Europe.

Dude, you just described exactly why the nuclear deterrent is a real and good thing for nuclear powers because it means that the great powers are forced to pussyfoot around each other and not push too far.  For those of who are glad that there hasn't been another total war in Europe in the last 70 years, this is very significant.  Though of course we have to remember that it doesn't do much good for the countries where the proxy conflicts that replace great power war end up happening.

And, yes, while neither the Ukraine or Georgia, nor Syria, are NATO members, they are areas where Western and Russian interest clash. And areas where Russia has been able to make their political stance legal fact by use of conventional force. Spreading it's influence, undermining Western interests.

I really struggle to see what is so impressive about Russia's actions in Georgia or Ukraine.  The 2008 war in Georgia didn't really do anything but reaffirm the status quo of the previously frozen conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  The 2013-present crises in Ukraine has been an extended exercise in damage control by Putin, though.  He was on the cusp of bringing the entirety of Ukraine into his nascent alternate-EU, but lost a friendly leader and most of his influence in the country.  Snatching up Crimea so quickly was impressive, but also only possible because so many Crimeans wanted it to happen.  When he ended up in an actual conflict (though it's more of a guerrilla conflict than a conventional one) he got bogged down grinding away for portions of two provinces that has turned into another frozen conflict.  Oh, and his heavyhanded approach has isolated the country, resulted in serious blows to his economy, and alienated previously fawning, subservient allies such as the leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan, throwing the future of the whole "Eurasian Union" project even more into question.

The Syrian Civil War is a hideously complicated conflict and while Putin does appear to be making some smart moves currently, it's hard to really assess whether he's damaging US interests in the conflict because the US can't seem to make up its mind on what it's interests actually are.  Insofar as ISIS is more feared and hated than Assad is, then Russia and the US are actually on the same side here, even if they're still rivals for influence.  But the bigger problem for the US and other Western countries is that they've been trying to have it both ways -- opposing both Assad and ISIS -- despite not having a credible third option to support (except the Kurds, who they'll only help halfheartedly for political reasons). That's a diplomatic no-win scenario of our own making regardless of Russia's actions.

As an addendum, yes I have seen Yes Minister and it's a great show and salami tactics are a real thing too. Having nukes is no excuse for neglecting your conventional forces or intelligence community (especially the latter). And there are many political and military problems where nukes are totally irrelevant because they would be such a disproportional response. But their presence acts as a fundamental game-changer and substantially reduces the risk of you fighting a conventional war with another great power, which would be far more destructive (both in terms of lives and economics/infrastructure) than proxy conflicts are.

That said, this doesn't touch on the dangers of nuclear mismanagement: "close calls" and false alarms and the like. A lot of these only became public after the end of the Cold War, but they pose(d) serious enough risks that I think they are worth bringing up.

As a second addendum, if we're just comparing Western vs. Russian interests, we need to remember how expansive "Western interests" are if we're including "the strength of Ukrainian democracy" as part of that bundle. The West can far more afford to lose these struggles than Putin (with his brand of nationalism) can.

Well, discussing whether one should have nuclear weapons at all and discussing whether the UK should make a major investment in Trident are obviously two quite different things.

My thoughts on Trident are pretty clear. It's a massive waste, and really a bad idea for a country in a financial crisis. It should be scrapped. Nay, it should not even have been considered built. A lot of it seems down to national pride, and the UK playing the superpower they were a hundred years ago.

As for nuclear weapons in general, I can obviously see that they play a role in superpower politics. But I would also hold that they only make sense in that context. Only in a reality were these powers needs to be kept "pussyfooting" around each other are they necessary, and the pussyfooting is to a large degree necessary because of the nuclear weapons themselves. Only in a world where imperialism and world domination, winning an international conflict, are even concepts do they make sense. In many ways they create the situation they supposedly alleviate.

I for one think we need a world that functions in a different way. And I don't see how nuclear weapons help in one way or the other. That is perhaps idealism, but it's my opinion.

No, nuclear weapons don't help, but they quickly become irrelevant. If even one country has them, at least one other country has to have them. And both have to firmly believe the other will retaliate. Once you've reached that impasse, you can go back to ignoring them.

Bluebottle wrote:Well, discussing whether one should have nuclear weapons at all and discussing whether the UK should make a major investment in Trident are obviously two quite different things.

My thoughts on Trident are pretty clear. It's a massive waste, and really a bad idea for a country in a financial crisis. It should be scrapped. Nay, it should not even have been considered built. A lot of it seems down to national pride, and the UK playing the superpower they were a hundred years ago.

As for nuclear weapons in general, I can obviously see that they play a role in superpower politics. But I would also hold that they only make sense in that context. Only in a reality were these powers needs to be kept "pussyfooting" around each other are they necessary, and the pussyfooting is to a large degree necessary because of the nuclear weapons themselves. Only in a world where imperialism and world domination, winning an international conflict, are even concepts do they make sense. In many ways they create the situation they supposedly alleviate.

I for one think we need a world that functions in a different way. And I don't see how nuclear weapons help in one way or the other. That is perhaps idealism, but it's my opinion.

actually Britain is not in a financial crisis, we are doing quite well at the moment. It should not be scrapped. Its got nothing to do with pride either. I suppose the Scottish may push this line in an attempt to confiscate the issue, the usual Imperialist jackboot nonsense like we have to still pay for having once had an empire like 100 years ago. But anyway its nothing to do with others thinking we are wanting Trident for purposes of throwing our weight about. its for purely practical reasons. while the world has North Korea, Isis, and assorted mad dictators we need to have a deterrent, to stop said mad dictator from taking the piss. the world is very dangerous and we need to be protected if only in theory. Hopefully it will never ever be used, but in a volatile world who knows. what do you do say for example isis has taken over much of N Africa, has infiltrated Europe with assassins, bombings every day of hospitals, schools and public transport millions dead? what if its like the IRA x 1000? what do you do? do you tell to Isis stop killing or we will blast you off the face of the earth, or do you send an angry memo. ((((I prefer the blasting into smithereens option)))), but if you have a deterrent you have room for consequences to be paid for, and room to threaten your enemies. make no mistake, they want to murder us and its no good being noble when you are in danger of destruction.

halfwise wrote:No, nuclear weapons don't help, but they quickly become irrelevant.  If even one country has them, at least one other country has to have them.  And both have to firmly believe the other will retaliate.  Once you've reached that impasse, you can go back to ignoring them.

That sounds a self fulfilling prophecy.

Mrs Figg wrote:actually Britain is not in a financial crisis, we are doing quite well at the moment.

I'd say a country that keeps cutting it's basic services because of a stated debt problem is in a financial crisis. Whether the banks the states bailed out a couple of years ago putting themselves deeper into debt are making money again I see as less important..

Mrs Figg wrote:It should not be scrapped.

I guess we disagree on that then.

Mrs Figg wrote:But anyway its nothing to do with others thinking we are wanting Trident for purposes of throwing our weight about.

Oh, who could think that surely..

Mrs Figg wrote:its for purely practical reasons. while the world has North Korea, Isis, and assorted mad dictators we need to have a deterrent, to stop said mad dictator from taking the piss. the world is very dangerous and we need to be protected if only in theory. Hopefully it will never ever be used, but in a volatile world who knows.  what do you do say for example isis has taken over much of N Africa, has infiltrated Europe with assassins, bombings every day of hospitals, schools and public transport millions dead? what if its like the IRA x 1000? what do you do? do you tell to Isis stop killing or we will blast you off the face of the earth, or do you send an angry memo. ((((I prefer the blasting into smithereens option)))), but if you have a deterrent you have room for consequences to be paid for, and room to threaten your enemies. make no mistake, they want to murder us and its no good being noble when you are in danger of destruction.

I'd say that's the sort of rhetoric I'd expect from a right wing politician. And, for all the fear mongering, I do not buy it. I.e. I do not accept your premise.

Not that I'd think nuclear weapons would be solution anyway. (To a problem that will never exist.)

I do however agree that the seeming lack of values like humanity and basic human rights in parts of modern Islam is troubling.

Nuclear weapons will never be used by a sane stable country so long as another sane stable country has them.  So if your ally has them, there's no reason for any other given country to have them.

If they get into the hands of someone who's batshit crazy (I worry about Pakistan) then the extra deterrent might be helpful, for the psychological not the logical aspects.

Unless terrorists get them there is no reason to have them as a deterrent.  Except for Pakistan this is barely even a remote threat. Nobody will ever threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons unless they happen to have their own. Until that happens stating that nukes are a deterrent to terrorists is not a supportable statement.

My problem with nukes, apart from having them right beside me I mean, is that if I look over all the political events and wars and terrorism, in my lifetime I don't see when they are supposed to be of use.

1. Russia- no good there- we cant fire them even if Russian threatens to invade as its an act of suicide which is even worse than invasion. If we fire our pitiful supply at Russia a hundred times as many come back the other way. So even if we were on the brink the result of using them is still worse than not using them.
If we didn't have them would Russia have used there on us by now? No, they would not have- the only reason they target us now is because we have nukes here. If Russia wanted to take the UK it would do so with conventional weaponry- in which they have us massively out-gunned and outnumbered in troops. There would be no point in a radioactive UK no-one can live in, Russia would just roll and take.
Does us having nukes stop them doing that? No. Because of point 1- there is no conceivable situation where the use of them would be better than not using them. Russia hasnt invaded the UK so far because they have no reason to and the political ramifications would not be good globally- not because we have nukes. Sanctions are more effective and feared by countries than nukes are.

2. ISIS ect- hopeless, totally useless against them or as a deterrent- the US is bristling with nukes and it didn't stop nutters flying two jet liners into two of the US's most iconic landmarks, landmarks full of people.
In the UK we have had everything from the IRA to the London Bombings- did nukes factor onto any of it? As either deterrent or realistic threat? No, not once. Utterly useless.


'the world is very dangerous and we need to be protected'- Figg

Yes it is, and yes we do, which is why we should scrap Trident which has no conceivable practical uses, and use a large chunk of the money to seriously up our conventional forces capabilities.

'for example isis has taken over much of N Africa, has infiltrated Europe with assassins, bombings every day of hospitals, schools and public transport millions dead?.. what if its like the IRA x 1000? what do you do?'

With nukes? You do nothing at all- they are not practicable in this situation- where are you going to target? Who are you going to bomb? By their very nature these groups survive by not being easily identifiable from ordinary innocent citizens.
The modern terrorist cell is a direct result, an adaptation of warfare, specifically because of a world in which some powerful countries have ultimate military power- in such a world the only sort of war the small man can fight is a terrorist war.

'if you have a deterrent you have room for consequences to be paid'

A deterrent doesn't work if its something you cant practically use, and the bad guys know that too.
You cant nuke assassins.

I have to disagree with the first point somewhat. Nukes are necessary to ensure other countries with nukes will not use them. But as I said above, any country which is a firm ally with the US will never need them so long as the US has so many that one launch will not wipe them out.

The major silliness is that most nukes are so big right now that as you stated countries won't use them just for fear of radioactive fallout. Bombs the size of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, I hate to say it, the perfect size. Don't know what size Trident delivers.