British Politics Thread

Thing is, only an idiot is deterred by a nuke.

North Korea could be easily stomped by anyone. Nukes or not. Heck. North Korea could be stomped on by South Korea. If anything, North Korea is being deterred from war so they do not kill themselves.

As for the Pakistan example it seems like a cocaine addled junkie sitting on a powder barrel threathening to explode everyone if he isnt paid any money. Except instead of taking the barrel away from him, we pay him to keep the barrel?

Nukes are hardly a deterrent to groups like Daesh, or internal terrorists. Whoever launches a nuke stands to lose a lot more than whoever is threathened by it.

As for a luxury item, yeah, sure. It is pretty to have luxury items, I guess. Personally, I cannot have a counter argument to that. But. People with econonomical difficulties and the high price of living in London could have a word to say against that.

I mean look at an example of the fleets in being. Pearl Harbor.

edited 30th Nov '15 10:11:29 AM by Aszur

Considering how much of a clusterfuck international relations are, is using something that works on idiots really that bad a bet?

I actually disagree that only an idiot is deterred by one, they do seem to have worked, look at MAD doctrine and how it held up. Now you're right about North Korea, nuke are only a part of why it can't go south, but they're a very representative part, you could remove most of the conventional forces and the nukes might well do the job on their own, the Nork, Israeli and other nukes are similar, they make it so that you can never be fully backed into a corner, because if you're cornered you might nuke, so nobody corners you.

And with Pakistan, yeah that's basically it, because we can't take the barrel away (if we tried he might blow it), so we pay him to make sure he doesn't lose it, possibly into the hands of someone less sane. It's not good for us, but it works from the perspective of the Pakistani goverment/military.

You're applying a square peg to a round hole, they're not meant to be a deterrent to such groups, no one military tactic works for every situation.

Not if they've already lost everything, if someone with a nuke has nothing more to lose then it's a bad day for everyone, so everyone has to make sure that the guy with a nuke never gets to that point.

Now that's only the conventional/standard use of nukes, their are others, and yes what I'm describing is the international equivalent of a suicide vest, welcome to studying International Relations.

It depends what you consider luxury, it's about power and influence at an international level, it varies if people consider that a luxury item.

Cancelling Trident wouldn't solve the problem of London's cost of living, that needs regulation more then anything to solve, that and a desire to solve it, London's cost of living isn't what it is because we're short on money, it's the way it is because it's in the political and financial interests of those in charge to keep the cost of living this high.

Sure, when you're flee is such that it can be (almost) taken out with a single strike then it's not foolproof, no plan is. Though nukes are specifically set up normally with seconds trike capabilities, specifically to prevent Pearl Harbour "take them out first" tactics being viable.

Mutually Assured destruction was all the rage in the times of the Cold War but we need to remember that the Cold War happened when Michael Jackson was alive. Or as I like to refer to it: "A shitton of time ago, seriously who gives a fuck".

Listen, I am not too stupid when it comes to understanding why some people believe they need to have nukes. Fear is an excellent motivator. Fear is a great motivator. Let us say the glorious Costa Rican army◊ invaded the poor, defenseless England. Somehow, the Glorious Armada has penetrated all of England and is about to take the very heart of London: Madame Tussaud's.

Now then, at this point some guy with a crazy hot accent can threathen the army. You enter there, we nuke San José. The army might hesitate but this creates another cornered rat once more, escalating the violence to even crazier levels. Once they are done with Madame Tussaud's, since now they have nothing to lose, they will ruthlessly rampage through all of the Ripper Tour spots, and maybe even your local cinema!

Sure, revenge feels nice, but, there is no possible winner out of any situation that necessitates a nuke. Vying to get rid of all of them is the healthiest choice, and stuff like rewarding financially those who keep them is not quite that.

I understand how necesary a strong arm may seem right now but, there are other means. Britain specially is pretty great at it. there are financial motivators. Political, trade, and even educational ones that can foster a different mindset than one led by nukes.

So, for the sake of a discussion, just try to think that my argument tries to not so much ignore the past but to promote a different way of thinking for the present and future. A way that does not involve Our Glorious Armies trampling through Portobello Road.

You mean nuclear terrorism?

Thing is you're jumping to far ahead with your scenario. It's before the war, the leaders of the Glorious Costa Rican Army are meeting to discuss their plans for conquering England, they know they've got the advantage in conventional warfare, but what about England's nukes? After assessing the damage that the English nukes would do if England was conquered the nukes were were fired, they decide that it's not worth it, the risk that somebody in England might actually fire the dam things is to great and the damage to massive, it woudl be simpler to just conquer Cuba instead.

Nukes aren't about using them in the moment, they're about the fear that you might meaning that the moment never happens. It's not about what the cornered man with his finger over the button would do, it's about the calm men in suits planning a war deciding that they fear the cornered man to much to risk cornering him.

On a level yes, nukes are really a psychological and political weapon more then anything else, so I guess they could be called terrorism.

edited 30th Nov '15 11:18:50 AM by Silasw

No, the quote (in particular "their[sic] are others") seemed to imply unconventional use of nuclear weapons, in other words, something like nuclear terrorism.

edited 30th Nov '15 11:22:47 AM by Greenmantle

That is a thing that's feared, I've seen it argued (only half seriously) that the nuclear poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko technically was a nuclear attack on the UK. Though there's a limit when it comes to nation states, sure you could do a lot of damage, but a nuclear thing sets of so many alarm bells and would get so many people antsy, if you're a nation state conventional means are probably best. For terrorists obviously a nuclear devise is a dream come true, but so is any powerful weapon, be it a WMD or simply a tank.

State based nuclear terrorism is up there with state based cyber terrorism, sure it could be done, but you could also poison a well, or just smuggle a normal bomb in and use that, the reason it's not done isn't tech based, it's that very few nation states actually want to fund direct terrorist attacks on their enemies.

But that's not what I was meaning to imply, by other uses I meant that they are useful as a way to attain a certain level of prestige and international acclaim, you're one of the big boys if you have a nuke. They're a good cover/excuse if you want to explain why someone helped you when they shouldn't have (I'm still not convinced that the French didn't cook up the Thatcher nuke threat as a way to cover their butts). The fear factor can also work as a conflict limiter, on top of that there's the nuclear umbrella principle, where fear of a nation's nukes can act to protect not only it but also its allies.

edited 30th Nov '15 11:43:49 AM by Silasw

The problem with this is that you assume the Glorious Costa Rican Armies will look like this◊

More and more often, the belligerent fringes are people more like this◊ who have nothing to lose already. Their last hope is to go out and cause as much harm as possible, and nukes give them the tools to do that. "Yes, but what about the nukes in England?" "Fuck them, we are lost already" or "Sounds like a pretty nice way to die" or "So what? Our target is to take London. I doubt they will nuke London and if they do, we win".

No, I am not suggesting the plot to most Action movies about terrorists getting a hold on nukes. I am not talking about Daesh, who have as much military capability of harming London as The Great Commander of the Glorious Costa Rican Armies◊. I am talking about Domestic terrorism, and strong enough governments such as Turkey that they could go insane and craft their own weapons to do this to themselves. Because modern examples might be a bit too rough, imagine if there were nukes in the 100 years war.

Sure, the war is avoided by WMD. But you create an atmosphere or fear and isolationism and that seldom ends well as it polarizes things more than ever. Us, versus Them. "The Republic of those fuckers with the nukes who force us poor people to get nukes to defend ourselves" versus "The Federation of those fuckers who force us poor people to get nukes to defend ourselves"

Sure but it's not for them, terrorists are dealt with by other means, likewise crazy governments willing to destroy their entire country in a mad rage, are dealt with by by other means (normally them not being allowed into power, the bar is pretty low, North Korea and Stalin passed the "are you that crazy?" test. It takes literal Hitler levels of crazy to fail).

Now that's a fair point, and a strong argument towards everyone disarming, but to get rid of that environment you need everyone to agree, not to do it unilaterally.

Only one country in history has given up nuclear weapons peacefully, and it did it for what might well be the worst reasons one could.

It was Apartheid South Africa at the very end of its time, they gave up the nukes because they didn't want black people having control over nuclear weapons.

edited 30th Nov '15 12:31:28 PM by Silasw

the NHS is in financial crisis and our leaders would prefer to spend billions on weapons designed only to kill civilians, rather than on keeping the general public alive, or think about how we could have come in nuclear fusion research if we spend the money we spend on nukes on that

Just saying, so far these "other means" do not seem to have yielded too much effect. And it does not solve the politization and radicalization of "sides", simply because of the possession of a weapon of mass destruction. And with this radicalization and "apartness" fostered by it, does it not foment in some way the appearance of these "Britain First" dumbasses and stuff?

I am not saying they are a political threat now. But this radicalization in the long term can lead to some Donald Trump being actually elected.

At least, I am going to need you to admit that you are terrified of the Costa Rican armies though.

edited 30th Nov '15 12:33:59 PM by Aszur

Thing is the thing stopping us spending money on that stuff isn't that we're spending it elsewhere, we can spend as much money as we want, remember we print the money.

Cutting Trident won't put money into the NHS, we can put money into the NHS by just putting money into the NHS, no cutting of Trident required.

When we believe that it's a choice between two things we are falling for their trap, the goverment doesn't go "this is how much we have to spend for the year, what shall we spend it on?", it goes "This is all the stuff we want to spend money on this year, now how do we want to get the money for it all?"

I did some editing but fair point, I'd say that the other means of stopping someone Hitler crazy coming to power in a strong country have worked, but yes the terrorism stuff hasn't worked, but don't blame the hammer for the crowbar's mistakes.

And the Costa Rican army is the equal of the English army, so it's a fair fight.

edited 30th Nov '15 12:38:19 PM by Silasw

The NHS is always in crisis. Then again, maybe it's time a humongous Keynesian stimulus...

Quite. We want money, ask the Bank of England to make as much as we need. Damn the consequences, because money can go just as quickly as it appears. Even from people's Bank Accounts, if necessary.

* Shrug *

I want results. As long as the money is spent carefully, of course.

edited 30th Nov '15 12:41:03 PM by Greenmantle

Hey we're in deflation, the consequences would be us maybe getting to the level of inflation we are meant to be at.

I want a tree shaped printer so bad.

Edit: I agree with your desire for results, I'm just pointing out that the "nasty side effect" woudl actually be a possessive.

edited 30th Nov '15 12:41:25 PM by Silasw

well except for the fact British armed forces have a long history of winning against armies that should, on paper, thrash them, a favourite example of mine is the opening days of WW 1, when the 100,000 strong BEF fought back the main German push of roughly the same number of elite regulars, and around 1 million conscripts we've been putting billions into the banks to no avail, perhaps we should spend that money on the country instead? try something different, after all, isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over, and over, again and expect different results?

I mean Defence, I mean Infrastructure down to repairing potholes in roads and footways^note  And removing areas of bloody slabs! , that sort of thing...

edited 30th Nov '15 1:05:42 PM by Greenmantle

Your "Britain First" thing is weird as fuck, too. It is a british nationalist group founded by a Scotsman and he is based in Northern Ireland.

Also. Costa Rican Armies mounted on the Argentinian Navy vs the Bolivian Navy and the english armies.

Go.

Fixed it. Also we do so have an army. Of puppies. Which I have been linking. Our air forces are inbound◊

edited 30th Nov '15 1:10:28 PM by Aszur

X3 You're missing the joke, Costa Rica has no military, thus its Army does not exist, likewise England stopped having an army upon the Act of Union, the British army is something different.

And yeah we need to start putting the money we print somewhere other then into banks, also we need more QE, as what we've had hasn't got inflation to where it's meant to be.

Some new housing would also be nice, though that woudl reduce house prices, and the middle aged/middle class/Tabloids would riot at that.

Hey I never said anything about the British Army, that's an entirely different thing to the English Army.

edited 30th Nov '15 1:09:25 PM by Silasw

I really need to keep up with this meta humour...

This ignores the fact that often pertinent military lessons can be synthesised from older conflicts. There was a reason, after all, why the Red Army (and presumably the US Army) were prolific students of military history during that selfsame conflict. We would do well to keep that in mind.

Nnnnnot exactly. It all depends on what Britain's nuclear strategy is.

As I've argued before, a counterforce strategy - particularly if tactical munitions are employed due to their lower yield and limited radioactive effects - is much less harmful in terms of civilian casualties. Why? Because a counterforce strategy prioritises the targeting and destruction of the enemy's armed forces and military facilities over the political and economic targets favoured by countervalue strategies. The latter - quelle surprise - would be highly likely to result in significant civilian casualties simply because political and economic targets are generally in and around cities.

Of course, even a counterforce strategy may result in civilian casualties; military facilities may be near civilian populations. However, in such a scenario it would be the lesser of two evils.

That's all I'm going to say on this since I fear we're going off topic; if you wish to discuss it further, take it to the Military Thread (where it would be on topic).

IIRC, British nuclear strategy is based around The Moscow Criterion. Click the link for details.

Well, looks like Dave is trying to push through the vote on strikes as quickly as possible, having rejected calls from both Labour and the SNP for a multi-day debate on the matter.

And of course the papers continue to toe the party line.

Ukraine also gave up nukes, they had some Soviet ones after the collapse.

They might be regretting that now...

They gave them up because we all promised to protect its sovreignty.