UK - Election 2015

[Craig B]

A lot of Britain's overseas prestige would go down the toilet if it has to rely on the US nuclear umbrella instead of using its own nuclear deterrent. When it comes to things like Ukraine or the South China Seas, that would reduce Britain's clout, because it would no longer be seen as an independent actor, and reliant on either America or France to back up its claims.

Britain is seen as an independent actor with "claims" in the South China Seas?!? In your dreams.

My dear chap, the Opium Wars are over.

 

[The Don]

Well, whatever replaces Trident is going to be paid for out of the defence budget. This undermines all the "x nurse/hospitals" arguments being put forward by the anti-nuclear lobby. Money not spent on ballistic submarines will be spent on convential submarines, other warships, aircraft, AFVs, etc.

There are pressures on the defence budget (so that spending on the NHS, education and so on can be maintained in real terms). If Trident is renewed then conventional forces will have to bear (more than) their share of the pain. If it isn't then there may be scope to further reduce the defence budget without reducing our conventional capability.

 

[The Don]

I just got a leaflet from "The English Democrats". Their policy, as it applies here is to have a referendum about whether Monmouthshire should return to being English.

They don't even name their candidate. I doubt that David Davies has much to fear from them.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

to those who think "economic muscle" will carry the day: The IMF/World Bank's days of monopoly are numbered as China (along with Russia) is establishing the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank as an alternative to the ****ups that came with the IMF in South East Asia and Africa. Meanwhile, Germany has little, if any overseas clout, thanks to how WW2 left them with "NO NUKES OR INTERNATIONAL PRESTIGE FOR YOU!" clauses, coupled with Demographic and economic shifts meaning that well, white people who used to get rich from plundering the third world will now have to share with it. The EU/USA share of world GDP has been shrinking with the rise of India and China, and within 20 years, that gulf will close significantly as Africa moves into industrialisation.

 

[ddt]

A lot of Britain's overseas prestige would go down the toilet if it has to rely on the US nuclear umbrella instead of using its own nuclear deterrent. When it comes to things like Ukraine or the South China Seas, that would reduce Britain's clout, because it would no longer be seen as an independent actor, and reliant on either America or France to back up its claims.

This remark of "own nuclear deterrent" is more than a bit ironic considering that the UK relies on US technology for it. The Trident missiles are outright purchased from the US, and the warheads, which are claimed to be a UK development, are too:

The British government maintains that the warheads used in the UK Trident system were "designed and manufactured in the UK at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), Aldermaston". However, declassified US Department of Energy documents indicate that development of the non-nuclear elements of the warhead may have taken place alongside those of the US W76 nuclear warhead fitted in some US Navy Trident missiles.[21]

The National Audit Office noted that most of the warhead development and production expenditure was incurred in the US.[22][23]

Even Pakistan relies on their own technology to uphold their nuclear deterrent (admittedly, technology obtained with a little bit of spying).

I wouldn't be surprised if it would turn out that 10 Downing Street doesn't have the ultimate authority on their deployment, but rather 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

[The Don]

to those who think "economic muscle" will carry the day: The IMF/World Bank's days of monopoly are numbered as China (along with Russia) is establishing the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank as an alternative to the ****ups that came with the IMF in South East Asia and Africa. Meanwhile, Germany has little, if any overseas clout, thanks to how WW2 left them with "NO NUKES OR INTERNATIONAL PRESTIGE FOR YOU!" clauses, coupled with Demographic and economic shifts meaning that well, white people who used to get rich from plundering the third world will now have to share with it. The EU/USA share of world GDP has been shrinking with the rise of India and China, and within 20 years, that gulf will close significantly as Africa moves into industrialisation.

Russia has nukes and is an international laughing stock, currently being economically crippled by a combination of low commodity prices and international sanctions.

Nuclear weapons are useless unless you are prepared to use them. The range of situations where economic sanctions can be used and are effective is much, much broader.

If, as you predict, the rest of the world takes its appropriate place at the international table in the future, whether or not the UK has nuclear weapons will, IMO, have no impact on our international influence beyond our continued seat on the UN Security Council. Meanwhile our actual ability to project useful force overseas in the kinds of conflicts which have been going on almost continuously since WWII will be compromised by having to blow a significant portion of the defence budget on a militarily almost-useless national vanity project.

 

[Craig B]

to those who think "economic muscle" will carry the day: The IMF/World Bank's days of monopoly are numbered as China (along with Russia) is establishing the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank as an alternative to the ****ups that came with the IMF in South East Asia and Africa. Meanwhile, Germany has little, if any overseas clout, thanks to how WW2 left them with "NO NUKES OR INTERNATIONAL PRESTIGE FOR YOU!" clauses, coupled with Demographic and economic shifts meaning that well, white people who used to get rich from plundering the third world will now have to share with it. The EU/USA share of world GDP has been shrinking with the rise of India and China, and within 20 years, that gulf will close significantly as Africa moves into industrialisation.

I take it this is some sort of parody of a mad fascist you're treating us to. If so, it's a bit crude.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Russia has nukes and is an international laughing stock, currently being economically crippled by a combination of low commodity prices and international sanctions.

Considering how the AIIB is already becoming the alternative to decades of IMF/WB Mismanagement and screwups, it is doubtful that will be the case for long.

Nuclear weapons are useless unless you are prepared to use them. The range of situations where economic sanctions can be used and are effective is much, much broader.

Again, this relies on the IMF and World Bank being the only financial institutions in town, and that is coming into question.

If, as you predict, the rest of the world takes its appropriate place at the international table in the future, whether or not the UK has nuclear weapons will, IMO, have no impact on our international influence beyond our continued seat on the UN Security Council. Meanwhile our actual ability to project useful force overseas in the kinds of conflicts which have been going on almost continuously since WWII will be compromised by having to blow a significant portion of the defence budget on a militarily almost-useless national vanity project.

How many wars Between USA/UK/China/Germany/France/Russia have there been since Atomic weapons were first used? NONE! Because Nukes are meant to prevent another World war and it has succeeded brilliantly in that regard.

ETA: Apologies for any flaming, following Greece and the Immigration crises has left me in a really bad mood lately.

 

[Information Analyst]

Do you really think I might think that?

Indeed. That was my point.

That's quite a lot vacuous.

These were all issues in which the putative influence of an independent nuclear deterrent would be expected to manifest, but there's no evidence of it.

Your mistake is expecting that to be the case in situations when it wasn't.

 

[Information Analyst]

This remark of "own nuclear deterrent" is more than a bit ironic considering that the UK relies on US technology for it. The Trident missiles are outright purchased from the US, and the warheads, which are claimed to be a UK development, are too:

Even Pakistan relies on their own technology to uphold their nuclear deterrent (admittedly, technology obtained with a little bit of spying).

I wouldn't be surprised if it would turn out that 10 Downing Street doesn't have the ultimate authority on their deployment, but rather 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For decades British nuclear doctrine has been based on the "Moscow Criterion," i.e. the principle that in the absence of American (or French) support in the face of an attack on the UK by the Soviet Union, the UK on its own has the ability to destroy Moscow in rwetaliation. In all that time, if the US had had a Magic Off Switch™, we'd probably know about it.

 

[ddt]

And effectively the Greens, as it seems highly unlikely Natalie Bennett can win the seat she is standing for.

At least, she's standing, and that was Mia's prime criterion.

I agree with "unlikely", but she may well achieve a good result and give Labour a chase for their money. The long-standing Labour incumbent Frank Dobson is standing down, so she may attract quite some voters from Labour. And with the current impopularity of the LibDems, who had 28% of the vote in 2010, she may also attract voters from them. According to May2015, a whopping 21% of the voters in the constituency are students, which is another argument for a good result for the Greens. She herself is optimistic, of course (Independent).

My totally unscientific prediction: 20-25% for Ms Bennett.

 

[ddt]

For decades British nuclear doctrine has been based on the "Moscow Criterion," i.e. the principle that in the absence of American (or French) support in the face of an attack on the UK by the Soviet Union, the UK on its own has the ability to destroy Moscow in rwetaliation. In all that time, if the US had had a Magic Off Switch™, we'd probably know about it.

I wouldn't count on that. Nothing even approaching that situation has occurred in the 44 years of Cold War, nor thereafter. And there are older, still classified documents. For instance, we still don't know the ins and outs of the Englandspiel - how it was possible that dozens of Dutch agents were dropped in the Netherlands, immediately in the hands of the Germans, while London should have known that the first agents had been captured and sent messages without the required security checks.

 

[ddt]

There are pressures on the defence budget (so that spending on the NHS, education and so on can be maintained in real terms). If Trident is renewed then conventional forces will have to bear (more than) their share of the pain. If it isn't then there may be scope to further reduce the defence budget without reducing our conventional capability.

Or to put it in plain English: if you scrap Trident, you can use half of the savings to spend extra on conventional defence, and the other half to spend extra on NHS, education etc.

 

[ddt]

I take it this is some sort of parody of a mad fascist you're treating us to. If so, it's a bit crude.

I'm getting a mental image of Doktor Merkwürdigeliebe.

 

[The Don]

Considering how the AIIB is already becoming the alternative to decades of IMF/WB Mismanagement and screwups, it is doubtful that will be the case for long.

The primacy of the IMF and or World Bank is not a pre-requisite for a country of group of countries to put economic sanctions in place. Even if the AIIB was the only show in town, the UK (or EU) could place restrictions on, for example, imports of Russian commodities and put the Russian economy under stress.

Again, this relies on the IMF and World Bank being the only financial institutions in town, and that is coming into question.

Not at all, economic sanctions are implemented independently of those institutions.

How many wars Between USA/UK/China/Germany/France/Russia have there been since Atomic weapons were first used? NONE! Because Nukes are meant to prevent another World war and it has succeeded brilliantly in that regard.

There have been quite a number of proxy wars, there just haven't been any World Wars. Then again there have been only two (or three or four or more depending on how you count them) in the entire history of the World so maybe there aren't enough data points to be sure. After all solid state electronics has only been in place since WWII. Maybe that's reason why there hasn't been a WWIII. We don't have a "control" Earth where nuclear weapons have not been a factor post WWII.

Even if you argue that a nuclear deterrent is required, not every country needs one.

 

[Information Analyst]

I wouldn't count on that. Nothing even approaching that situation has occurred in the 44 years of Cold War, nor thereafter. And there are older, still classified documents. For instance, we still don't know the ins and outs of the Englandspiel - how it was possible that dozens of Dutch agents were dropped in the Netherlands, immediately in the hands of the Germans, while London should have known that the first agents had been captured and sent messages without the required security checks.

I'm nopt sure that's a valid comparison. Many Second World War records are still classified, but many aren't, and that latter also applies to an increasing number of Cold War records. We certainly know that when the UK's nuclear deterent was partly based on US-supplied Thor missiles, while there was adual-key launch system, RAF veterans have been quite open in admitting that they'd worked out officially-sanctioned bypass methods in the event of the non-coperation of the American key-holders. You also have to bear in mind that Polaris originally replaced freefall bombs and air-launched standoff missiles over which the Americans clearly had no control whatsoever. I can't seen any government or cabinet swapping them for something the US could veto in the hour of need.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The primacy of the IMF and or World Bank is not a pre-requisite for a country of group of countries to put economic sanctions in place. Even if the AIIB was the only show in town, the UK (or EU) could place restrictions on, for example, imports of Russian commodities and put the Russian economy under stress.



Not at all, economic sanctions are implemented independently of those institutions.



There have been quite a number of proxy wars, there just haven't been any World Wars. Then again there have been only two (or three or four or more depending on how you count them) in the entire history of the World so maybe there aren't enough data points to be sure. After all solid state electronics has only been in place since WWII. Maybe that's reason why there hasn't been a WWIII. We don't have a "control" Earth where nuclear weapons have not been a factor post WWII.

Even if you argue that a nuclear deterrent is required, not every country needs one.

Fair enough.

 

[The Don]

I suppose this is the official public position with regard to Trident's independence:

The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power. In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval

Source:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

Of course whether that is true is another matter entirely.

 

[ddt]

I'm nopt sure that's a valid comparison. Many Second World War records are still classified, but many aren't, and that latter also applies to an increasing number of Cold War records. We certainly know that when the UK's nuclear deterent was partly based on US-supplied Thor missiles, while there was adual-key launch system, RAF veterans have been quite open in admitting that they'd worked out officially-sanctioned bypass methods in the event of the non-coperation of the American key-holders.

I see quite a good parallel there to the Englandspiel. In the latter case, Leo Marks has stated in his memoirs that he raised concerns about the messages from the Dutch agents/radio operators - but none of the official documents, neither Marks' memos nor the answers, have been declassified. In your case, it's also only the public claims from RAF veterans, not the official documents that those bypasses were officially sanctioned.

You also have to bear in mind that Polaris originally replaced freefall bombs and air-launched standoff missiles over which the Americans clearly had no control whatsoever. I can't seen any government or cabinet swapping them for something the US could veto in the hour of need.

Why not? We're talking of a time when the Empire was quickly dissolving, and the British economy wasn't going quite stellar. And this was after the public humiliation of Suez.

 

[jimbob]

Some interesting bits about Trident in this article

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/20/putin-nuclear-trident-russia-britain-deterrent

But some in the defence world believe the whole debate is deluded. Trident, in its current form, was designed to deliver “minimum deterrence” – that is, using as little force as possible to threaten Russia with “unacceptable loss”. The method is to maintain at least one submarine continually at sea, armed with up to 12 missiles, each capable of dropping eight warheads on to enemy cities.

But few people understand that the UK’s nuclear deterrent is a system – not a technology – and one that must constantly evolve as the threat changes.

For a nuclear-armed submarine to pose a credible threat, it must avoid being tracked by Russian submarines. To do that it must get out of the River Clyde and, once at sea, be protected by aircraft trying to spot the Russian subs, plus an undersea surveillance system whose sensors are scattered across the ocean bed. On top of that, those controlling Trident must engage in a data-crunching battle with the Russian navy, whereby each side uses predictive modelling to guess where the other’s subs will be.

For informed critics and supporters of Trident, the difficulties start here. In 2010, David Cameron cancelled a programme to upgrade the Nimrod surveillance aircraft tasked to look for the Russian subs. The UK’s are now protected only by helicopters and ships.

TLDR version:

Cuts in conventional Anti Submarine capability mean that the UK is less certain that its nuclear deterrent will be safely hidden in case of war.