The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[tonyh29]

However, as I can't find it in myself to defend any potential use of a nuclear weapon, I can't really defend having one in the first place.

So, yeah.

 

What if a giant asteroid is heading towards us and the only way to stop it is to drill a hole and detonate a nuclear warhead deep inside it ?

It's never ever the only way. I think the same affect could be achieved with lots of much smaller impacts.

Rather than one big hollywood bang, we could fire old Hollywood bangers at it. A steady stream of hasbeen film heroes would, over a period of time, chip away and eventually destroy the asteroid. The exact speed etc., would be calculated depending exactly how imminent our demise was.

A rapid fire despatch of Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Nick Cage, Morgan Freeman, Will Smith, and Tommy Lee Jones should be enough to establish how many more we would need to round up and ping into oblivion.

Really doesn't need anything more than that.

I see now the argument that we can't do anything  without the Americans

 

they would probably arrive late and blow up the friendly asteroid anyway

Edited October 2, 2015 by tonyh29

[bickster]

Britain's nuclear submarines are "completely useless" against modern warfare, and the £20bn spent on renewing them is a waste of money, retired senior military officers said yesterday.

The former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued that the huge sums being spent on replacing the delapidated submarines that carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used to buy conventional weapons which are badly needed by the armed forces.

"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism," the group said in a letter to the Times. "Our independent deterrent has become ­virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics."

Retired army general Lord Ramsbotham, one of the signatories, said he wanted to restart the debate over the renewal of ­Trident, which was approved by the House of Commons in March 2007, despite a large rebellion by Labour MPs.

Ramsbotham told BBC2's Newsnight programme: "We argue that it is conventional weapons we now need. Their pinpoint accuracy, their ability to help our forces in the sort of conflicts that are taking place is something which means you have to question the huge expense of Trident, which is limiting what we can do."

Ramsbotham said he no longer believed that Britain's nuclear deterrent was truly independent.

"We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States," he said.

"The fact is that Trident is an inappropriate weapons system. You can't see Trident being used against something like nuclear blackmail by international terrorism. It is a cold war weapon. It is not a weapon for the situation where we are now."

Ramsbotham said he was "quite certain" that some serving members of the military shared his doubts. He added that the government's decision to renew ­Trident was driven more by political considerations than by the true requirements of national defence.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/16/trident-is-20bn-waste-say-generals

Damn commie pinko former generals saying Trident is a complete load of bollocks back in 2009….

[tonyh29]

Britain's nuclear submarines are "completely useless" against modern warfare, and the £20bn spent on renewing them is a waste of money, retired senior military officers said yesterday.

The former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued that the huge sums being spent on replacing the delapidated submarines that carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used to buy conventional weapons which are badly needed by the armed forces.

"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism," the group said in a letter to the Times. "Our independent deterrent has become ­virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics."

Retired army general Lord Ramsbotham, one of the signatories, said he wanted to restart the debate over the renewal of ­Trident, which was approved by the House of Commons in March 2007, despite a large rebellion by Labour MPs.

Ramsbotham told BBC2's Newsnight programme: "We argue that it is conventional weapons we now need. Their pinpoint accuracy, their ability to help our forces in the sort of conflicts that are taking place is something which means you have to question the huge expense of Trident, which is limiting what we can do."

Ramsbotham said he no longer believed that Britain's nuclear deterrent was truly independent.

"We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States," he said.

"The fact is that Trident is an inappropriate weapons system. You can't see Trident being used against something like nuclear blackmail by international terrorism. It is a cold war weapon. It is not a weapon for the situation where we are now."

Ramsbotham said he was "quite certain" that some serving members of the military shared his doubts. He added that the government's decision to renew ­Trident was driven more by political considerations than by the true requirements of national defence.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/16/trident-is-20bn-waste-say-generals

Damn commie pinko former generals saying Trident is a complete load of bollocks back in 2009….

Out of interest how many generals say the opposite  ? is it 3 out of 3  ..or is it 3 out of 10 or even 3 out of 80 ?

 

[MakemineVanilla]

Britain's nuclear submarines are "completely useless" against modern warfare, and the £20bn spent on renewing them is a waste of money, retired senior military officers said yesterday.

The former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued that the huge sums being spent on replacing the delapidated submarines that carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used to buy conventional weapons which are badly needed by the armed forces.

"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism," the group said in a letter to the Times. "Our independent deterrent has become ­virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics."

Retired army general Lord Ramsbotham, one of the signatories, said he wanted to restart the debate over the renewal of ­Trident, which was approved by the House of Commons in March 2007, despite a large rebellion by Labour MPs.

Ramsbotham told BBC2's Newsnight programme: "We argue that it is conventional weapons we now need. Their pinpoint accuracy, their ability to help our forces in the sort of conflicts that are taking place is something which means you have to question the huge expense of Trident, which is limiting what we can do."

Ramsbotham said he no longer believed that Britain's nuclear deterrent was truly independent.

"We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States," he said.

"The fact is that Trident is an inappropriate weapons system. You can't see Trident being used against something like nuclear blackmail by international terrorism. It is a cold war weapon. It is not a weapon for the situation where we are now."

Ramsbotham said he was "quite certain" that some serving members of the military shared his doubts. He added that the government's decision to renew ­Trident was driven more by political considerations than by the true requirements of national defence.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/16/trident-is-20bn-waste-say-generals

Damn commie pinko former generals saying Trident is a complete load of bollocks back in 2009….

To be fair I think the three branches of the military compete for national resources and given the jobs they are expected to do and the cuts made, it should be no surprise that army generals would claim that Trident is a waste of money while cuts are made where it mattered.

I seem to remember a quote from Yes Minister: 'Without Trident, the Navy would not have a role", or something like that.

[tonyh29]

Found this gem from Yes Minister whilst reading up on Trident

As Sir Humphrey cautioned the PM when he announced his intention to cancel Trident on the grounds that everyone knew he probably wouldn’t press the button: ‘Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t they don’t certainly know that although you probably wouldn’t there’s no probability that you certainly would.’

[Xann]

[mjmooney]

Shouldn't this thread be retitled now?

(In before Tony/Richard's "The Race For Labour Leader 2016"...)

[Awol]

Britain's nuclear submarines are "completely useless" against modern warfare, and the £20bn spent on renewing them is a waste of money, retired senior military officers said yesterday.

The former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued that the huge sums being spent on replacing the delapidated submarines that carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used to buy conventional weapons which are badly needed by the armed forces.

"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism," the group said in a letter to the Times. "Our independent deterrent has become ­virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics."

Retired army general Lord Ramsbotham, one of the signatories, said he wanted to restart the debate over the renewal of ­Trident, which was approved by the House of Commons in March 2007, despite a large rebellion by Labour MPs.

Ramsbotham told BBC2's Newsnight programme: "We argue that it is conventional weapons we now need. Their pinpoint accuracy, their ability to help our forces in the sort of conflicts that are taking place is something which means you have to question the huge expense of Trident, which is limiting what we can do."

Ramsbotham said he no longer believed that Britain's nuclear deterrent was truly independent.

"We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States," he said.

"The fact is that Trident is an inappropriate weapons system. You can't see Trident being used against something like nuclear blackmail by international terrorism. It is a cold war weapon. It is not a weapon for the situation where we are now."

Ramsbotham said he was "quite certain" that some serving members of the military shared his doubts. He added that the government's decision to renew ­Trident was driven more by political considerations than by the true requirements of national defence.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/16/trident-is-20bn-waste-say-generals

Damn commie pinko former generals saying Trident is a complete load of bollocks back in 2009….

To be fair I think the three branches of the military compete for national resources and given the jobs they are expected to do and the cuts made, it should be no surprise that army generals would claim that Trident is a waste of money while cuts are made where it mattered.

I seem to remember a quote from Yes Minister: 'Without Trident, the Navy would not have a role", or something like that.

Bang on target, have a like.

[HanoiVillan]

This £100 Billion deterrent that will last 40 years. Firstly, I have absolute confidence that this military high tech project will be delivered on time and to budget. Secondly, I am thoroughly impressed that nothing can be designed or conceived in the next 40 years that could possibly undermine what will clearly be infallible technology.

This needs to be pitched to the public in the right way. We can have a british military shield that will last a thousand years, employ a thousand people and melt a thousand cities. OR, you can have an extra £5 in your pocket for a pint.

That should put it in perspective at the next election for the average voter.

on the basis that nothing has been developed in the 70 years since the first bomb I'm curious why you suddenly think they can come up with something in 40 years ?

 

The Tories estimate it will cost £20 Bn and Greenpeace £34bn.... So the £100bn figure you've borrowed from Corbyn seems to have already factored in overspend 

 

I guess the 15,000 defence jobs that depend on its renewal can be retrained as part of the 2,000,000 nurses we are going to employ instead with the money though

The hilarious irony this week of all these true-blue Tories begging us to consider the plight of the British worker!

EDIT: I need to say Tony, this really isn't a good argument for you. The British government could literally pay every single one of those workers triple their current salary to simply sit at home and play Playstation for the next 40 years, and the British taxpayer would still be quids in, if your main concern is the impoverishment of workers. 

I wasn't really making that argument more pointing out the flaw in this we could better spend it elsewhere argument using the established currency of nurses [1]

You could equally argue had we not bailed the banks out that we'd also have been able to sit at home in PlayStation Utopia [2] but that's sorta the point , Governments will always find other ways to blow our money ...Least with trident we get to keep the boogie man from our door 

[1] - You haven't really made that point at all. This line:

I guess the 15,000 defence jobs that depend on its renewal can be retrained as part of the 2,000,000 nurses we are going to employ instead with the money though

bemoans the loss of 15,000 jobs, but Trident isn't a job-creation scheme and if it were, it would represent truly hopeless value for money. Even if we put the budget of Trident at a conservative thirty billion pounds, that's a cost of training of £20,000 per worker. If it cost the JobCentre £20k to find a job for everyone who came through the door, we'd abolish it immediately and start again.

No one is suggesting we employ 2 million new nurses (I'm not counting members of the public answering vox-pops on the street as considered opinion here). 

[2] Nobody could make that argument at all, because it would obviously be untrue. Also note that I'm not actually recommending people are paid to stay at home, simply noting that it would be more cost-effective than renewing Trident  to protect 15,000 jobs. To be honest, paying them to shovel £50 notes into a furnace or empty the Atlantic with teaspoons would also be better value for money. 

The only possible argument for Trident is that it's essential for the defence of the realm. No other argument makes sense even on the surface. 

[tonyh29]

Shouldn't this thread be retitled now?

 

(In before Tony/Richard's "The Race For Labour Leader 2016"...)

I did suggest on a message to Blandy  that he change the thread name to the Treasonous Queen hating  hypocrite party thread but he passed ...

on the positive side at least he hasn't deleted the thread. 

[blandy]

I was busy buying CND stickers for my 2CV. Anyway you should be happy now 

Edited October 3, 2015 by blandy

[mjmooney]

That's better.

[villa4europe]

Would have preferred "don't bother trying to do well for yourself, we'll pay for you" Labour Party

[MakemineVanilla]

Renaming the thread created some pleasing symmetry but I was surprised that a certain Yorkshire-dwelling, guitar-playing, quiz-winning, granddaughter-doting, grammar-pedant, failed to object to the lack of hyphenation? 

[PaulC]

With the death of Dennis Healey marks the end of the old Labour which stood for Nationalisation and unions. Not sure Healey supported those views but he was there under Harold Wilson.

[chrisp65]

Skinner, Meacher and Kaufmann were all elected in 1970.

[turnbull]

Politics is as broken as football at the moment.

[snowychap]

With the death of Dennis Healey marks the end of the old Labour which stood for Nationalisation and unions. Not sure Healey supported those views but he was there under Harold Wilson.

So, the death of a 98 year old chap 'marks the end of old Labour' even if he didn't 'support those views' but he was old enough to be there under Wilson?

Is that you, Mr Hanna?

[MakemineVanilla]

The death of Healey is a strong reminder of where Labour went wrong in the 1970s and 1980s.

The rejection of Barbara Castle's 'In Place of Strife' (1969) and the choice of Foot rather than Healey as leader (1980), led to the election of Thatcher and her subsequent eleven years in Number Ten.

 

[HanoiVillan]

The death of Healey is a strong reminder of where Labour went wrong in the 1970s and 1980s.

The rejection of Barbara Castle's 'In Place of Strife' (1969) and the choice of Foot rather than Healey as leader (1980), led to the election of Thatcher and her subsequent eleven years in Number Ten.

 

Am I missing something? Thatcher was elected in '79 . . .