The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2

Originally Posted by Matt D

Although for us to have a truly independent nuclear deterrent, wouldn't we really need to have our own missiles (rather than American Trident D5s), fitted with warheads not just made in the UK, but also fully UK designed?

I don't think the recipients of our SLBM's MIRVs would actually be bothered about the manufacturing process, more about the authorisation and delivery....

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------

Originally Posted by speedfreak

Just to save me searching the web and this thread, is there any possibility that the Lib Dems can win? Or is it a "wasted" vote?

No vote is wasted if it's for a party you wish to support, but I don't think they can win.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by speedfreak

Just to save me searching the web and this thread, is there any possibility that the Lib Dems can win? Or is it a "wasted" vote?

Well, surely it depends on where you are, whether it is a wasted vote or not (& depending on what you see as "wasted").

If your constituency is a two-horse race between Labour & the Conservatives, then a vote for the Lib Dem candidate could be considered to be wasted.

But if it's a tie up between Lib Dem / Labour or Lib Dem / Tory, then a vote for the Lib Dem candidate is not wasted.

As for them winning overall... highly unlikely, even with their current poll success (which of course may not last, & may not be accurate), simply due to the UK's voting system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8626154.stm

Originally Posted by BBC

SATURDAY'S POLLS

A Sun newspaper poll, carried out after the TV debate, suggests Labour are in third place on 28% (down 3%), with the Lib Dems on 30% (up 8%) and the Conservatives 33% (down 4%). Applying the figures from The Sun poll, which came from a YouGov survey of 1,290 people, to the BBC News website's election seat calculator, results in the following: Labour 276 seats; Conservatives 245 seats; Lib Dems 100 seats; Others 29 seats.

But even though it's unlikely that the Lib Dems could win, they could end up holding the balance of power in a hung parliament, with their support being needed by the majority party.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I don't think the recipients of our ICBM's would actually be bothered about the manufacturing process, more about the authorisation and delivery....

LOL, I guess you have a point!

Has Mr Cameron said anything more about China, btw?

Originally Posted by speedfreak

Just to save me searching the web and this thread, is there any possibility that the Lib Dems can win? Or is it a "wasted" vote?

They can't win, for all sorts of reasons. There's a very good video clip explaining why on the BBC Election website. I recommend you have a look - it's under 3 minutes long.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8626256.stm

[speedfreak]

Thanks matt, Id heard they definitely couldnt win but with the growing support it got me thinking. "wasted" was a strong word I meant even if I vote for them would it have an affect? My voting power in my region is very low and Im in a labour constituency so I guess not


Thanks chris, will have a look later when the mrs hasnt got britains got talent blasting out, cant concentrate with YMCA ringing in my ears

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

FYI

3. Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own nuclear weapons?
No.

They will not be needed if clegg has his way as we will not have any

[nomadking]

If we find that we did need them in the future, we could just nip down the shops to buy some. Sometimes you have to implement things in advance, because if you find that you urgently need something it may take several years to get them and it could be too late by then.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Sirius

They will not be needed if clegg has his way as we will not have any

As I & others posted earlier, more than once, Clegg did *not* say that a Lib Dem Government would scrap the UK's nuclear deterrent. He said that they say no to a like-for-like Trident replacement.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/defence.aspx

http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/...%20Defence.pdf

Originally Posted by Lib Dem's on Defence

No to like-for-like Trident.

Full-scale Trident is a Cold War system intended for a by-gone age. It is unnecessary and, at £100bn over a lifetime, it is unaffordable. We will hold a full defence review to establish the best alternative for Britain’s future security.

http://network.libdems.org.uk/manife...festo_2010.pdf

Originally Posted by Lib Dem Manifesto

• Saying no to the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear
weapons system, which could cost £100 billion. We will hold a full
defence review to establish the best alternative for Britain’s future
security.

I'll also repost an earlier reply I made to you:

Given the state of the economy, & given the kind of cuts needed, is it *really* worth spending that much money on a full like-for-like replacement of Trident? [Note that they haven't said "We will completely & utterly scrap the UK's nuclear deterrent".]

And besides... Who would nuke us? Seriously? Surely the biggest nuclear threat against us at the moment is the threat of a terrorist nuclear attack, rather than an attack by a nation? You can't nuke terrorists in retaliation...

But if we were nuked, and we did not have our own nuclear deterrent anymore whatsoever (which isn't what is actually being proposed), then as we are a member of NATO & an ally of the US, the US would retaliate for us, as an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.

------

So even if we had none, there is still a deterrent, as the US has them, as France has them. An attack on one NATO member = an attack on NATO = NATO retaliation.

Canada, Germany, etc. make do without them. Why do we need them? It is not the Cold War anymore. Would Iran or N. Korea really attack us? Why? If they did, they'd get nuked in response (by us if we still have nukes, by the US if we didn't). I think nuclear terrorism is a greater threat myself, & what use is an SLBM against a terror attack?

But, saying all that... as I said earlier: The Lib Dems are not proposing scrapping the UK's Nuclear Deterrent, they are not proposing unilateral nuclear disarmament, etc...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Matt D

But if we were nuked, and we did not have our own nuclear deterrent anymore whatsoever (which isn't what is actually being proposed), then as we are a member of NATO & an ally of the US, the US would retaliate for us, as an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.

If it's in their intrest to do so, financially and politically (Falklands anyone?).
If we were nuked, exactly how would we object to other NATO members for not coming to our aid for fear of themselves being nuked?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Matt D

As per above post.

I just cannot trust him. He reminds me to much of the biggest lier of them all Blair

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/groups/...-dem-responses

http://news.independentminds.livejou...m/6780913.html

Dear Violetta Pau,

Thank you for sending me your views regarding possible expenditure on Trident replacement. I concur with what you say and indeed am opposed to nuclear weapons in principle. I am pleased to say that the Liberal Democrats as a party have moved towards a position questioning the desirability and need for Trident replacement and I will continue to campaign for disarmament both within the party and as your MP if I am returned at the general election.

Yours sincererly,.

Jonathan Fryer
LibDem PPC Poplar & Limehouse

www.jonathanfryer.wordpress.com

Thanks for your email. I would personally skip the review and simply scrap our nuclear arsenal.

We don't need them, we don't want them, they cost too much, and they weaken our moral standing to persuade others to get rid of them. I have argued strongly for these positions for years.

If we couldn't secure agreement simply to scrap them, then I would of course support the issue being part of a review, and would argue my case within that.

I hope that helps to explain my views.

Yours,

Julian

---

Julian Huppert

Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge

http://www.julianhuppert.org.uk

During a debate sponsored by the Chatham House thinktank this week, Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, insisted Trident must be preserved. Liam Fox, the shadow defence spokesman, did not demur, though he held out the prospect of a cut in the number of nuclear warheads.

Now if that is the consensus among the libs then its role over and give in time if we are ever up against the wall
I cannot trust them and never will.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If it's in their intrest to do so, financially and politically (Falklands anyone?).
If we were nuked, exactly how would we object to other NATO members for not coming to our aid for fear of themselves being nuked?

OK, fair enough, if we no longer had a nuclear deterrent and if we were then subjected to a nuclear attack, and if our NATO allies decided "You know, I think we'd best stay out of this one...", we would of course be a bit screwed...Then again, one you've been nuked, what use is retaliation, other than post-mortem revenge?

I've always thought that the point of a nuclear deterrent was that it was meant to be, well... a deterrent.

We have these weapons to deter other nuclear states from attacking us, as they know that even if they flattened the whole of London (or more), our Vanguard subs out on patrol as a continuous at-sea deterrent would be able to swiftly retaliate with a load of Trident SLBMs, hence deterring anyone from attacking us in the first place.

If we no longer had any nuclear deterrent whatsoever (which is not what the Lib Dems are proposing), we would still be a member of NATO, our NATO allies the USA & France would still have nuclear weapons, and so there would still be a deterrent against attacking us. Any nuclear-armed rogue state would know that even if we did not have nuclear weapons any more, our allies would still have them, & would be assumed to come to our aid under our mutual/collective defence agreements.

Originally Posted by Sirius

I just cannot trust him. He reminds me to much of the biggest lier of them all Blair

I find that Cameron reminds me far more of Blair than Clegg does...

Originally Posted by Sirius

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/groups/...-dem-responses

http://news.independentminds.livejou...m/6780913.html

B]
Now if that is the consensus among the libs then its role over and give in time if we are ever up against the wall[/B]
I cannot trust them and never will.

[btw, the final quote you've bolded is that of Liam Fox, the Conservative Party's Shadow Defence Spokesman, who as you quoted has "held out the prospect of a cut in the number of nuclear warheads.".]

If it was the consensus among them, it would be party policy & their website & manifesto etc. would say something like "We believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament & wish to totally scrap the UK's nuclear deterrent". It isn't. They don't.

Some Lib Dem MPs & prospective parliamentary candidates are in favour of getting rid of our nuclear deterrent completely, but not all of them.

[Just as some Labour MPs are in favour of disarming, even though it is not party policy. Just as some Labour MPs are not in favour of Trident renewal, even though it is party policy, etc.]


http://www.thebulletin.org/web-editi...on-to-the-vote

When the vote to renew Trident came up in the Commons, 88 backbench Labour MPs voted against the Government's white paper on renewing Trident, rebelling against the three-line whip imposed by the party. The vote only passed because of Conservative support... however the Conservative party also imposed a three-line whip, & the article I've linked to says that "...with several past and present Tory MPs speaking against Trident renewal and calling for greater resources to be devoted to more effective non-nuclear means of defense and deterrence..." and "the use of a three-line whip to mandate support for another party's motion is very rare and indicates that more Tory MPs might have opposed Trident if left to their own judgment.".

[Also, note that voting against renewing it now does not equal voting in favour of scrapping the deterrent altogether]

This is also interesting regarding the renewal decision a few years ago: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...nt-436428.html


As mentioned earlier, if we did not have nuclear weapons, would it matter? Why do we need them? We're in NATO. The US has them. France has them*. But no-one else in NATO does & they get along just fine. Who would we use them against? It's not the Cold War any more...We can't use them in retaliation for a terror attack. We could use them against a nation, such as Iran or North Korea, if they for some insane reason chose to attack us, but without nuclear weapons of our own we would still have our nuclear-armed NATO allies as a deterrent against attack (or as retaliation for an attack). Why do *we* need them?

*[Actually... sod it... If France has them, then we MUST have them! ]

I'm not actually advocating nuclear disarmament by the UK (I've not been in CND since my student days over a decade ago, & personally I do accept the need for some sort of nuclear deterrent), I'm just trying to show the other side to "WE MUST HAVE THEM!!!!!!!".

Regardless, however, unilateral nuclear disarmament is not Lib Dem party policy, it is not Lib Dem party policy to totally ditch our nuclear deterrent. They simply think that we should not spend ££££££££££££££ on a like-for-like Trident replacement, given the cost and given the rather different situation in the world since the end of the Cold War & since we first got Trident (& Polaris before it).

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

FYI

FYI

So, what about independence of operation? Could Britain fire Trident if the US objected? In 1962 the then US defence secretary, Robert McNamara, said that the British nuclear bomber force did not operate independently. Writing in 1980, Air Vice-Marshal Stewart Menaul said it definitely could not be used without US authorisation. Today former naval officers say it would be extremely difficult. The many computer software programs, the fuse, the trigger, the guidance system as well as the missiles are all made in America.

Confidence tricks work best on people who want to believe in them, and the British elite and much of the public are desperate to believe that Britain's bomb gives them great-power status. Instead Britain gets the worst of all worlds: weapons that can't be used when the chips are down and a US-led policy that rejects disarmament in favour of pre-emptive war. And now, with Trident becoming obsolete, the government wants to renew the deal - behind the old, dishonest mask of independent deterrence.

---------- Post added at 06:56 ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I don't think the recipients of our SLBM's MIRVs would actually be bothered about the manufacturing process, more about the authorisation and delivery....

This is moving the goalposts. For generations governments have tried to prevent the public knowing how much nuclear weapons kit the UK gets from the US, so that they could sustain the myth that our deterrent was home-made. Now, suddenly, it doesn't matter if the missiles aren't British.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by speedfreak

Just to save me searching the web and this thread, is there any possibility that the Lib Dems can win? Or is it a "wasted" vote?

As others have said "No vote is wasted". Your vote will help to highlight the ridiculous system where a relatively large number of voters do not support the MP they end up with. I will continue to vote against the Tories as I have done since being able to vote and look at who I have for an MP.


<---

Just seen the polls which put Lib Dems in the lead (obviously incorrect) but the interesting thing is that although in that the Lib Dems would get the most votes they would still be the third party but quite a wide margin. Joke.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

FYI

So, what about independence of operation? Could Britain fire Trident if the US objected? In 1962 the then US defence secretary, Robert McNamara, said that the British nuclear bomber force did not operate independently. Writing in 1980, Air Vice-Marshal Stewart Menaul said it definitely could not be used without US authorisation. Today former naval officers say it would be extremely difficult. The many computer software programs, the fuse, the trigger, the guidance system as well as the missiles are all made in America.

Confidence tricks work best on people who want to believe in them, and the British elite and much of the public are desperate to believe that Britain's bomb gives them great-power status. Instead Britain gets the worst of all worlds: weapons that can't be used when the chips are down and a US-led policy that rejects disarmament in favour of pre-emptive war. And now, with Trident becoming obsolete, the government wants to renew the deal - behind the old, dishonest mask of independent deterrence.

---------- Post added at 06:56 ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 ----------



This is moving the goalposts. For generations governments have tried to prevent the public knowing how much nuclear weapons kit the UK gets from the US, so that they could sustain the myth that our deterrent was home-made. Now, suddenly, it doesn't matter if the missiles aren't British.

But there is nothing in that (Spectator, not v. unbiased, imho) article that states the UK could not fire the MIRVs independently, except a bit of FUD and hyperbole

Let us say that Britain wanted to fire Trident and the United States opposed this. What would happen? For one, the entire US navy would be deployed to hunt down Red-White-and-Blue October; it would know roughly where to look, starting from the last position notified to the US and Nato while on normal patrol. Meanwhile, the prime minister would be trying to find a radio that was not jammed, hoping that none of the software had a worm and that the US navy wouldn't shoot the missiles down with either its Aegis anti-missile system or the self-destruct radio signal that is used when missiles are test-fired.
From the moment of a breach with Washington, moreover, every Trident submarine sailing down the Clyde would find a waiting US escort. In months the software would be out of date, Lockheed Martin and Halliburton would fly home, taking much equipment with them, and no spare parts would be available. As Quinlan put it: "We would be in shtook."

The crux is about deployment and use, not manufacture - that is like stating we don't have an idependent Air Force or Army Air Corps, as none of their main technology (Fighters, Transports, Helicopters) are solely manufactured in the UK, or that we don't have an independent Army because they use Belgian LMGs and GPMGs, Italian LMVs, American MLRSs, French SAMs, and American Anti-Tank Missiles.

If we are going to talk Blair seem a likes then I reckon Cameron comes closest..I've see nothing but spin from that gent since he became the leader of the Conservatives.

Him I trust no more than GB,and I'm not sure I trust Clegg that much more.

However I think I will vote possibly Lib Dem in the hope that it might wake up the other 2 can't tell apart political parties especially if enough people also vote for Lib Dem as well.

So basically I'm not voting for a winner just a basic kick up the bum to the present generation of politicians who really cynically don't give a turd for the ordinary voter except at election times.

I'm also wondering if the MP expenses scandal will affect the number of people voting.Will they be so incensed that they actually bother to vote in larger numbers than in recent years OR will the numbers reduce even more due to a belief that democracy doesn't exist for those in the terraced housing and the council estates all over Britain.

---------- Post added at 10:25 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

And the punch up starts in earnest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8627745.stm