Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Arklight

The nuclear deterrent isn't a nuclear deterrent because the UK isn't a great power. Britain has very limited means to project power outside its own borders so tactically the only reason anyone would bomb Britain would be as part of a wider strike against US forces that may be stationed here.

The one, at a push two, nuclear submarines we may have on operational duty were this to happen would probably be told to shoot at something, by someone, after the orders had gone through a US command structure. Their contribution to the ensuing holocaust would be virtually nil, and certainly not worth all the schools and hospitals that were never built here before humanity decided to annihilate itself.

I think most people understand this when they are presented with the facts. If nothing else, using Trident to engage in some kind of international willy waving contest when all it shows is that we have the smallest willy, seems pointless at best.

Enterprise_1701C

cogito wrote: »

In 1982, Argentina invaded the Falklands because we led them to think that we would simply abandon them. At the time, they were going through a major economic crisis and wanted to divert domestic attention from it.

Today, they are going through another economic crisis and are again trying to divert domestic attention.

I'm not suggesting that they are planning another invasion but if Corbyn were PM, my guess is that they would chance their arm. What would Corbyn do? Try to arrange a meeting to discuss it?

He might even roll out the tea and cakes, whilst our people are being forcibly relocated.

Arklight

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

He might even roll out the tea and cakes, whilst our people are being forcibly relocated.

Actually, Corbyn is a strong supporter of the armed forces and has been vocally and forcefully critical of the Tories' cuts that have left our service men and women stretched to breaking point trying to enforce Britain's military commitments.

Under Labour, squaddies will be properly paid, properly housed, properly resourced, and properly looked after when they end their service.

You should be delighted. From the manifesto:

We have a duty to properly reward
and remunerate our Armed Forces.
Under the Conservatives, our Armed
Forces have been hit by rent rises,
pay restraint, and changes to tax
and benefits, putting real pressure
on service personnel and their
families. We will ensure they get the
pay and living conditions that their
service merits.
Dedicated service personnel are
at the heart of our defence policy.
Labour will immediately examine
recruitment and retention policies in
order to stem the exodus seen under
the Conservatives. We will publish
new strategic equality objectives to
ensure our personnel reȵect our
diverse society.
We will drive up standards in Service
Accommodation, and take action
where private companies have failed
to deliver. We will consult with service
personnel, giving them greater
autonomy over their housing choices,
and review and improve the Forces
Help to Buy scheme.
Personnel who are injured while
serving should have prompt access
to support and compensation. We
will resist any Conservative proposals
to abolish the right to seek legal
redress against the MoD where
compensation claims cannot be
otherwise settled.
We are fully committed to supporting
our veterans. We will promote
greater awareness of the Armed
Forces Covenant, seek greater
consistency in its implementation
by public authorities, and promote
increased participation in the
Corporate Covenant.
We will also roll out a Homes Fit for
Heroes programme that will insulate
the homes of disabled veterans
for free.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

Why do you think these EU companies run things better?

I don't. I'm saying they should be allowed to tender so that if they do run things better then they can be used. Just taking the British option can mean a substandard job at high expense, take a look at Carillion.

cogito wrote: »

That’s all very well if the playing field is level but if it's deliberately skewed so that a UK contractor cannot possibly win a contract for €1.5 bn, that is simply wrong. Probably the most absurd example was by the last Labour government framing terms of a rolling stock contract so that the only possible winner was Siemens at the expense of Bombardier and at the cost of 1400 British jobs.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8621498/Bombardier-had-little-chance-on-Thameslink-because-of-contract-terms.html

Did the EU set the contractual terms, or are you trying to blame the EU for another UK governmental failing?

kabayiri

Arklight wrote: »

The nuclear deterrent isn't a nuclear deterrent because the UK isn't a great power. Britain has very limited means to project power outside its own borders so tactically the only reason anyone would bomb Britain would be as part of a wider strike against US forces that may be stationed here.

The one, at a push two, nuclear submarines we may have on operational duty were this to happen would probably be told to shoot at something, by someone, after the orders had gone through a US command structure. Their contribution to the ensuing holocaust would be virtually nil, and certainly not worth all the schools and hospitals that were never built here before humanity decided to annihilate itself.

I think most people understand this when they are presented with the facts. If nothing else, using Trident to engage in some kind of international willy waving contest when all it shows is that we have the smallest willy, seems pointless at best.

You're right to point out the current limitations.

When countries develop hypersonic delivery platforms (Mach 5+), then the equation changes.

The delivery time comes down to a matter of minutes, and the chances of coordinated mass response all but disappear.

There are 3 countries at a progressed stage with their hypersonic programs. I shall let you work out who they are !

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

Did the EU set the contractual terms, or are you trying to blame the EU for another UK governmental failing?

Of course I'm not. Did you actually read my post?

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

So it doesn't matter that he wants to give away the Falklands, even though the Falklanders want to remain British.

Do they still want to remain British? If they are, then I'm sure he'd support them remaining British, but if they wanted to become Argentinian I don't see the problem beyond some notional loss of Empire.

Wants to reunify Ireland, even though the last referendum went against it, and he thinks Scottish independance is "absolutrly fine".

Which is entirely consistent with his stance of leaving the EU - smaller bodies that the people want. Rather than the confusing stance of the Convservative And Unionist party, who are all for all unions except the European Union, for some reason.


If he's nothing else, he's consistent. He's terrible at playing politics though. People don't seem to like consistent, honest politicians. Especially businesses and other politicians who are clearly wary of someone who seemingly can't be bribed.

That is the whole idea of a deterrent. If Putin, or anyone else, wished to fire a nuclear weapon at us at the moment they know it would come at a cost.

The deterrent only works if it's too late though, and assumes they don't take out our meagre retaliatory ability before we can do anything. We can provide a similar deterrent without irradiating chunks of the planet.

If, however, Corbyn was in power, they would know that they could do it and suffer no retaliation from us

Not true. We'd still retaliate, the UN would retaliate, the US and EU would likely retaliate (unless Trump wants paid). We don't need 4 boats with nukes on them to be a deterrent.


Just think what else we could do with the money we'll waste on replacing Trident (with US hardware), and how much hassle we already have dealing with the nuclear material.

Enterprise_1701C

Arklight wrote: »

Actually, Corbyn is a strong supporter of the armed forces and has been vocally and forcefully critical of the Tories' cuts that have left our service men and women stretched to breaking point trying to enforce Britain's military commitments.

Under Labour, squaddies will be properly paid, properly housed, properly resourced, and properly looked after when they end their service.

You should be delighted. From the manifesto:

Yes, they will be very well looked after, they won't even have to do any fighting, that's where the savings will come from. And by the end of his term, if he ever got in, there would be far less of the UK to defend.

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Yes, they will be very well looked after, they won't even have to do any fighting, that's where the savings will come from. And by the end of his term, if he ever got in, there would be far less of the UK to defend.

He's not going to have them fighting unless they need to, and I'm all for that. If May keeps going as she is, we're going to have a lot less UK to defend too.

Thrugelmir

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Yes, they will be very well looked after, they won't even have to do any fighting, that's where the savings will come from. And by the end of his term, if he ever got in, there would be far less of the UK to defend.

Given JC's voting history against the deployment of the UK's armed forces. Could well be greatly reduced. To fund his other pet projects.