How Much is a Corbyn?

cells

antrobus wrote: »

Yes you did. You were objecting to the cost of a nuclear deterrent on the basis that you could achieve the same result with conventional weapons.

And when initally challenged on that assumption you responded by saying that iy was "fairly cheap to mass produce" these missiles of yours. When in fact you would be talking about the same missiles in any case.



And I can reduce that infrastructure to rubble with just one Vanguard submarine.

The result isn't the size of the explosion you lovely person you, the result is having the enemy not attack you. In which case I suggested and keep suggesting that I think non nuclear missiles hitting dams and power stations and reactors would be a big enough deterrent.

Also I said it was fairly cheap to produce nukes (on a per unit basis) or it was for the USA and USSR when they were ramping up.

Anyway we seem to be stuck on one point. Im saying normal missiles can do significant damage if they hit certain targets and you seem to be saying no they cant. Its a bit like you have a shotgun and I have a tiny knife. If I can stab out both your eyes before you kill me !!!!!! does it matter if the shotgun is more powerful you don't want to be blind do you. In which case they are both effective deterrents

Generali

cells wrote: »

The result isn't the size of the explosion dumbass, the result is having the enemy not attack you. In which case I suggested and keep suggesting that I think non nuclear missiles hitting dams and power stations and reactors would be a big enough deterrent.

Also I said it was fairly cheap to produce nukes (on a per unit basis) or it was for the USA and USSR when they were ramping up.

Anyway we seem to be stuck on one point. Im saying normal missiles can do significant damage if they hit certain targets and you seem to be saying no they cant. Its a bit like you have a shotgun and I have a tiny knife. If I can stab out both your eyes before you kill me !!!!!! does it matter if the shotgun is more powerful you don't want to be blind do you. In which case they are both effective deterrents

Probably better to keep it civil.

Just saying.

ruggedtoast

The fact is that Britain's nuclear deterrent makes no difference to NATO and is useless on it's own. We can't even fire it without the Americans permission beforehand, and probably can't not fire it if they decide its going to be fired.

Trident is an expensive utterly pointless white elephant that on a national level, is actually slightly humiliating (even Pakistan gets control over her own nukes). We would better off without it if only because we could spend the money on something else.

cells

Generali wrote: »

Probably better to keep it civil.

Just saying.

misquote?

princeofpounds

We can't even fire it without the Americans permission beforehand, and probably can't not fire it if they decide its going to be fired.

I think that is something of an urban myth.


It is correct to say that Britain's capability is not truly independent.


The missile/warhead supply chain is US-dependent, for one thing. If cut off, we would only have operational capability under current best practice standards for a few weeks.


For another, the GPS system is US-owned (which is not really anything to do with nuclear weapons per se - the same is true of your iphone). But that is not the only guidance mechanism, and it's not like to need to hit with precision.


There is actually quite a good summary of the interdependencies here (although the stuff about off-the shelf components - which is the majority of the items - is a red herring, to be honest).


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


The UK might even be prevented from changing targeting patterns. But the idea that the US directly controls launch capability is likely to be a stretch.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The fact is that Britain's nuclear deterrent makes no difference to NATO and is useless on it's own. We can't even fire it without the Americans permission beforehand, and probably can't not fire it if they decide its going to be fired.
.

That is completely untrue.

See here for details...

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E2054A40-7833-48EF-991C-7F48E05B2C9D/0/nuclear190705.pdf

The UK retains full command and control authority over it's nuclear weapons. The UK can input new target coordinates without US involvement or approval. And the UK can launch without US approval.

The US subs employ a different fire control system and cannot launch without signals being sent from a command centre in the US to avoid the risk of a rogue commander launching, UK subs do not use this system as the UK government determined that it was too vulnerable to disruption.

UK subs retain manual processes requiring two officers to open two safes and use two keys to launch after receipt of verified launch commands, and in addition contain a letter of last resort in the Captain's safe, signed by the Prime Minister, with instructions on what to do should the UK government cease to function.

Whilst it is true that UK missiles use American GPS signals for targeting, disruption to the GPS system does not prevent the missiles from launching or hitting targets, although it does degrade the accuracy somewhat.

And although it is also true that UK missiles rely on US maintenance, this doesn't preclude independent launch from a sub already armed and at sea. Future maintenance cooperation would be low on the priority list if someone actually had to push the button....

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That is completely untrue.

See here for details...

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E2054A40-7833-48EF-991C-7F48E05B2C9D/0/nuclear190705.pdf

The UK retains full command and control authority over it's nuclear weapons. The UK can input new target coordinates without US involvement or approval. And the UK can launch without US approval.

The US subs employ a different fire control system and cannot launch without signals being sent from a command centre in the US to avoid the risk of a rogue commander launching, UK subs do not use this system as the UK government determined that it was too vulnerable to disruption.

UK subs retain manual processes requiring two officers to open two safes and use two keys to launch after receipt of verified launch commands, and in addition contain a letter of last resort in the Captain's safe, signed by the Prime Minister, with instructions on what to do should the UK government cease to function.

Whilst it is true that UK missiles use American GPS signals for targeting, disruption to the GPS system does not prevent the missiles from launching or hitting targets, although it does degrade the accuracy somewhat.

And although it is also true that UK missiles rely on US maintenance, this doesn't preclude independent launch from a sub already armed and at sea. Future maintenance cooperation would be low on the priority list if someone actually had to push the button....

Fair enough. I still think it is at heart a subsidy of the US nuclear deterrent rather than an independent deterrent.

How would the French react if they couldn't service their own nukes and had to send them to America, and buy them from America, and not upset America or the servicing and the selling would be discontinued and then they wouldn't have any at all?

martinsurrey

cells wrote: »

Anyway we seem to be stuck on one point. Im saying normal missiles can do significant damage if they hit certain targets and you seem to be saying no they cant. Its a bit like you have a shotgun and I have a tiny knife. If I can stab out both your eyes before you kill me !!!!!! does it matter if the shotgun is more powerful you don't want to be blind do you. In which case they are both effective deterrents

You are bang on there, but my adaptation to your analogy would be that I don't care that much if you stab my eyes out, if I can regrow them, after I have shotgun-ed your head off, from which you cant recover.

Yours is a deterrent, mine is the ultimate deterrent.

MS1950

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I don't think they are done yet.

Its a shame as I generally have no interest in them as a party, but was prepared to sign up if it meant I could vote Corbyn. I was actually, mildly excited at this prospect, something I cannot remember feeling last about politics.

I then heard that they were denying new members a vote, didnt believe it so went away and checked, and found that they were actually rejecting new members altogether in case they didn't vote for one of the faceless totems no one had any interest in last year.

I am pretty annoyed about it too. At least the Conservatives are relatively unwavering in what they believe in, even if I am opposed to it. I have no idea what the hell the labour party even think they exist to do at the moment.

This New Statesman article seems to have a fairly balanced take on what's going on:

"So what does Labour's the party's plan to ensure a "clean" leadership ballot, dubbed "Operation Icepick" by outsiders, actually involve? The doomsday scenario at headquarters isn't a Corbyn victory - all but one or two of the party's staff believe that is inevitable - but a legal challenge following a close Corbyn victory......"

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/labour-purging-supporters-jeremy-corbyn

I suspect that - in addition to the sort of nonsense on Newsnight yesterday which implied that people who had failed to tell canvassers that they intended to vote Labour ought to included among those ineligible to become supporters - that it's over zealous staffers scanning social media for 'deviations' that lies behind much of this.....

martinsurrey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Fair enough. I still think it is at heart a subsidy of the US nuclear deterrent rather than an independent deterrent.

How would the French react if they couldn't service their own nukes and had to send them to America, and buy them from America, and not upset America or the servicing and the selling would be discontinued and then they wouldn't have any at all?

I think you underestimate the UK's nuclear ability, we would have time to develop our own replacement warheads long before the ones we hold needed to be taken out of service.

Other than the import of uranium the UK is one of the few countries to be self sufficient in all other nuclear facilities.