Trident renewal?

[fletch70]

Toby

The problem with a limited nuclear war as you described , where you think that one or more of the powers would survive is the concept of a nuclear winter. In the 80's it was thought, or so I seem to remember, that the US felt there could be a limited nuclear war in europe leaving them home free, how wrong they were

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11287-nuclear-winter-may-kill-more-than-a-nuclear-war/

 

It is a sad fact that it is not just the accepted nuclear powers who have nuclear weapons but also other states that I would rather not trust such as North Korea , India and pakistan (such is the level of animosity between parts of these two countries) and of course Israel who rightly or wrongly are challenged by many Arab states ( The discussion on the validity of a jewish homeland is a whole other argument)

[tobyjugg2]

Toby

The problem with a limited nuclear war as you described , where you think that one or more of the powers would survive is the concept of a nuclear winter. In the 80's it was thought, or so I seem to remember, that the US felt there could be a limited nuclear war in europe leaving them home free, how wrong they were

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11287-nuclear-winter-may-kill-more-than-a-nuclear-war/

 

Broadly I agree with that although in the scenario I gave, it would be that the multiple western powers fired so many at Russia which would make a nuclear winter much more likely (but not certain)

 

There is also the issue that even a limited strike as described would probably result in India and Pakistan launching at each other as you indicate - making a nuclear winter even more likely.

 

BUT, the point I was trying to make was that even if a 'limited' nuclear war did occur and remained limited, the UK and France would both be totally destroyed even if there were chances that Russia and the US would not be.

[fletch70]

Ok so if the UK launched all 16 missiles each with 12 warheads that is 192 warheads hitting wherever , enough for a Nuclear Winter I rather think. If we do not have them and an attack is launched on France we are stuffed anyway , look how radiation from Chernobyl drifted to the UK.

 

If the Uk launched its 192 and France its 300 we are all pretty much screwed.

 

Maybe the deterrent is effective, maybe we should leave it to the US and Russia but of course there is no need to launch all your warheads against a non nuclear power, two rather weak ones caused Japan to surrender . Maybe one warhead on the odd capital city would leave europe to surrender , so three of 4 bombs to take over europe and the U.S still quietly by.

 

As I say , I am conflicted, my instinct is that we should not have them but...just one bomb on London would absolutely cripple the country

[Conniff]

As I say , I am conflicted, my instinct is that we should not have them but...just one bomb on London would absolutely cripple the country

 

But there won't be one on London, that is where the word 'Deterrent' comes in. If one is launched against the UK, the country launching it knows. (unless coward Corbyn is pm), that there will be a return and that their country / capital will also be devastated and I don't think they would want that.

[fletch70]

That's why I am conflicted.

Why do you call Corbyn a coward, any proof or just an opinion

[Conniff]

The proof is from his own mouth on the Today programme, he said he will never press the button.

[determindator]

The proof is from his own mouth on the Today programme, he said he will never press the button.

 

 

He's also said he's not a pacifist and where life is threatened he would respond to protect life.

 

Physically he won't 'press the button' there would be a war cabinet to make a decision.

[fletch70]

That does not make him a coward . It makes him a man with convictions which is rare in politics

[antone]

The proof is from his own mouth on the Today programme, he said he will never press the button.

 

There is nothing cowardly about refusing to commit acts of pointless mass murder.

[Ford]

The proof is from his own mouth on the Today programme, he said he will never press the button.

 

havent seen it. did he say re in attack, or re in response eg if one was fired against us?

[antone]

havent seen it. did he say re in attack, or re in response eg if one was fired against us?

 

It hardly even matters. Saying "no first use" is a sensible policy which I'd imagine pretty much all politicians of all parties would adhere to. "No use in retaliation" is a bit different: we're not going to be attacked with nukes, so Corbyn's views on what he would do in such a circumstance are about as relevant as his views on what he would do in the event of a zombie apocalypse.

 

Nuclear weapons are not battlefield weapons in the commonly understood sense. They're diplomatic bargaining chips. If you ever let yourself get into a position where you're seriously considering a first strike, you've already lost: the exchange will be at least as damaging to you as it would be to your adversary.

[Ford]

It hardly even matters. Saying "no first use" is a sensible policy which I'd imagine pretty much all politicians of all parties would adhere to. "No use in retaliation" is a bit different: we're not going to be attacked with nukes, so Corbyn's views on what he would do in such a circumstance are about as relevant as his views on what he would do in the event of a zombie apocalypse.

 

...

 

thats what i thought

hence the deterrent?

[antone]

No, not deterrent

 

We won't be attacked by nukes whether or not we have them ourselves. There is no-one who has anything whatsoever to gain by doing so. That, incidentally, is what stopped the USSR when they had overwhelming missile superiority over NATO in the late 60s until the early 80s. They weren't deterred by potential retaliation, but by the fact that there was no reason to actually start a war with the West. This is further reinforced by the fact that the world came perilously close to nuclear war on a few occasions despite the theory of (Mutually) Assured Destruction. Two obvious examples spring to mind:

 

The Cuban Missile Crisis. The US nearly started a war here. It was averted by the fact that one of Kennedy's advisers actually knew Kruschev - Llewelyn "Tommy" Thompson had served as US Ambassador to the USSR, spent time with Kruschev, and, when faced with contradicting telegrams from the Soviets, recognised the position K was in with respect to the hardliners in his own party. Thompson advised Kennedy to ignore the threatening telegram and respond to the concilliatory one. This turned out to be the correct response, and a world war was averted only by sheer luck. Deterrence had nothing to do with it - Thompson had no place in the chain of command and no authority to bind the President.

 

The Petrov Incident. Not long after the Soviets shot down KAL007 when it accidentally infringed their airspace, Col. Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov was on duty when he witnessed the triggering of the missile attack warning system. His job was to convey the information to his political command, who would very likely have initiated a "launch on warning" nuclear strike. Petrov, however, was aware of bugs in the computer code and (correctly) judged the alert to be in error. Good call, as it turned out, and yet again WW3 was averted not by any deterrent effect of nukes but because a low-level functionary made the right call at the right time.

 

These are reasons why it really is trite to argue, as some have done, that the mere fact we haven't been attacked is proof that the deterrent effect is real. The deterrent has manifestly failed to deter and sheer dumb luck is all that's saved us. That and the fact that the nuclear powers have not had any reason to attack each other.

 

The diplomatic benefit is real, of course, if outrageously expensive. That's why Iran wants nukes. As a vanity project for a despotic state it makes a lot of sense. For us, well, we have other sources of diplomatic leverage that don't involve spending billions of weapons that are nothing more than useless trinkets and nostalgic reminders of a dominant status we convincingly lost over 70 years ago.

[tobyjugg2]

A truly impressive and coherent overview of the situation and key issues antone.

I'll steal some of these for future discussions elsewhere and claim them for myself.

 

 

"We won't be attacked by nukes whether or not we have them ourselves. There is no-one who has anything whatsoever to gain by doing so."

Not any more, apart from the simple fact of us having nuclear capability (but others would have more reason in the past).

 

"The Petrov Incident."

Darn good reason to not be a prime target

 

"The diplomatic benefit is real, of course, if outrageously expensive. That's why Iran wants nukes. As a vanity project for a despotic state it makes a lot of sense. For us, well, we have other sources of diplomatic leverage that don't involve spending billions of weapons that are nothing more than useless trinkets and nostalgic reminders of a dominant status we convincingly lost over 70 years ago."

Absolutely - but an arguably valid justification that nuclear capability is a real tool.

 

 

 

So given our retirement from the real front stage of world politics (thanks to the USA), and lack of real 'protectorates' abroad (consider the falklands),

realistically it can be effectively argued that for Britain in the present a nuclear deterrent is an expensive, inappropriate world politic'ing tool which in the event of a real nuclear exchange, limited or not, would almost certainly guarantee our total destruction.

 

Iran could and should in my opinion be prevented from acquiring nuclear bomb capability with tradition force - as Israel has already done.

 

The other Side

The complexity occurs in that no single power (including/especially the US and not even the UN) should be the single nuclear power in the world, and disarmament is a fallacy which would leave the world at the mercy of any single power which re-armed.

So who should the guardians guarding the guardians be?

 

North Korea - what should be done about North Korea?

Another apparent example that having nukes is a real power tool and not an illusion.

 

 

What to do re Iran and Korea (and then the far more complex issue of Pakistan and India) would seem to be crucial issues defining the overall problems to me.

[Conniff]

Ok, just sit around and watch from your nice safe bunker while all the people you are supposed to be representing are killed around you.

 

It's not just cowardice, it's down right bloody selfish. Or could it be that he is too thick to know how to do it or all three.

[Conniff]

Stop changing the situation, he did not say this or that. He was asked if he would ever push the button and he said no. Nothing to do with retaliation or rubbish like that.

 

And if it's to do with not killing people, then get rid of the armed forces as well and let anarchy reign.

[tobyjugg2]

Ok, just sit around and watch from your nice safe bunker while all the people you are supposed to be representing are killed around you.

 

But that result would be as a result of the utter failure of the government to deal with the issues appropriately before it got to that.

.. and they would be the ones in the bunkers anyway. The rest of us would not be.

There should be no bunkers - no privileged few with the power to decide yet who can think they are safe from the results of their decisions.

 

 

It's not just cowardice, it's down right bloody selfish. Or could it be that he is too thick to know how to do it or all three.

 

meaningless rant it would seem.

 

And if it's to do with not killing people, then get rid of the armed forces as well and let anarchy reign.

The whole point is that conventional military has its practical uses, nuclear weopons have no real. practical purpose other than MADness.

[Conniff]

There should be no bunkers - no privileged few with the power to decide yet who can think they are safe from the results of their decisions.

 

Now that really is a stupid thing to say. So you would leave the country without any leadership. You really hate it because we don't all bow and cow to some stupid nutter who puts himself before anyone else, but then he can as he has people like you who can't see the wood for the trees to back him up.

 

This isn't ideals, this is a 'bugger all to do with me jack' attitude from some commie who wants to force his views on others instead of running a democratic society.

[tobyjugg2]

Now that really is a stupid thing to say. So you would leave the country without any leadership.

 

Left without the leadership that had brought nuclear destruction down on its citizens?

Who would they 'lead' when they eventually came out from their bunkers - if ever?

 

Good riddance. They SHOULD be the first target.

[citizenB]

As it is very unlikely that Corbyn will ever be Prime Minister, I think perhaps we shouldn't be too worried. His party will get shot of him way before the next election looms.

[fletch70]

As it is very unlikely that Corbyn will ever be Prime Minister, I think perhaps we shouldn't be too worried. His party will get shot of him way before the next election looms.

 

Much as it pains me to say I think you may be right , no doubt that will give Conniff something to shout about

[Conniff]

Russia 'refuses to rule out use of nuclear weapons in fight against ISIS'

 

Only Kevin Maguire and the Daily Mirror could come up with something like that.

[tobyjugg2]

Russia 'refuses to rule out use of nuclear weapons in fight against ISIS'

 

Only Kevin Maguire and the Daily Mirror could come up with something like that.

 

Actually Putin has been promoting that rhetoric.

I don't believe he would use nukes, but he has made a couple of comments that effectively bring it to the table.

No idea why he would do that unless there is some potential escalation regarding Turkey behind the scenes. (and I mean more than the Russian plane downing event (unless there have been threats of more) or Turkeys support for Turkmen radicals)

 

Hopefully just pressure for NATO to attempt to get Turkey under control.