General Election 2017

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

Old purple men want to melt people.

I think they should be forced to watch videos and look at photos of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Though they'd probably enjoy it.

I hope they all got home OK and nothing tragic occurred. Might be in the wrong thread thinking about it.

I mean,  what are the chances of that many words removed in one place,  apart from the Commons ?

[peterms]

Adam Ramsay on the nonsense of Trident.

Quote

Tonight's Question Time quizzing of leaders saw audience members grill Jeremy Corbyn on whether he'd be willing to use Trident. It seems the nuclear question has arrived in this election.

And the important thing to remember about Trident is that that it's a strategy which depends entirely on hiding a massive submarine deep in the ocean and hoping that no one develops the technology to find it.

Crispin Blunt, the (Tory) chair of the foreign affairs select committee voted against renewal of Britain's nuclear weapons system last year for the simple reason that, in the modern world, this is an absurd assumption. As he put it:

"Marine biologists are already able to track shoals of fish in real time from several hundred miles away... If we are today able to detect the gravitational waves first created by the big bang, how can we be so confident that a capable adversary would not be able to track our submarines 20 years from now?"

A long string of former defence ministers, from Michael Portillo to Des Brown, have concluded that the whole thing is at best a massive waste of money. Even Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff has argued that nukes are useless.

And so, here’s the interesting question: why are we willing to spend perhaps £200 billion renewing them?

One answer sometimes offered is outlined by Major General Patrick Cordingley, who led British forces in the first Gulf War. As he said in 2015:

“Strategic nuclear weapons have no military use. It would seem the government wishes to replace Trident simply to remain a nuclear power alongside the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council. This is misguided and flies in the face of public opinion; we have more to offer than nuclear bombs.”

This explanation seems half right. But this assumes that politics is about hard, long term international strategy. And I think that’s probably not quite how the world works. I suspect it’s got much more to do with sentiment – both the sentiment of our politicians, and the sentiment of a significant number of voters: sentiment shaped by history and culture and identity; by race and masculinity.

And to understand that, we need to think through the history a little. The UK was the third country in the world to test an independently developed nuclear weapon. It did so in October 1952. Five years earlier, India had become independent. The US-UK mutual defence agreement was signed in 1958. Two years later, Ghana became the first African country to leave the empire.

Over the course of the second half of the 20th century, Britain went from being the centre of the biggest empire in human history to three quarters of an archipelago in the North East Atlantic. After generations of believing that we were special, the people of Britain had to start to come to terms with just being ordinary. This isn’t just an economic and geopolitical issue, but a psychological one too.

And fortunately, like a toddler with their scrap of cloth, we had a few rags to comfort us. There’s the monarchy – which still rules over a huge swathe of the planet. There’s the City of London, which we seem willing to forgive all crimes. And appearing like magic, just at the right moment, was a massive new toy, to make us feel secure about ourselves again: our nuclear weapons.

And so, yes. It is the fact that they give us a seat on the security council which matters. But that’s only a representation of what it’s really about. The yearning for Trident – and the need for members of tonight’s Question Time audience to know that Corbyn would use it – is surely at least to some extent a part of a deep desire for a return to the days of British global “greatness”?; to the days when we could travel round the world, kill black people, and steal their stuff? It is surely at least partly about the desire to cling to British empire bling?

And, perhaps more interestingly, Corbyn has repeatedly been attacked on this terrain – whether in relation to his alleged past links with the IRA or his long term opposition to Trident. And it has largely bounced off. It has often felt, particularly, it seems, to anyone under 35, like his opponents are obsessed with the past: with resurrecting the Troubles, and the Cold War. But perhaps the fact that these issues seem not to matter so much tells us something else important: that, for a generation which doesn’t remember very much of the last century, the ability of the Tories to pull on the yearning for empire is weaker than ever.

Trident is a weapon designed for the past. Britain’s willingness to squander billions on a technology which may well be redundant before it’s been fully installed would be absurd if it were about military strategy. But as a substitute for a proper process of truth and reconciliation over empire, it’s utterly useless.

 

[NurembergVillan]

Question Time inspired me to make a meme.

[Seat68]

3 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Question Time inspired me to make a meme.

Brilliant. 10/10. Snorted out loud. Would snort again. 

[snowychap]

23 minutes ago, peterms said:

The detailed plans that came to light in the 1980s (and which will no doubt have existed before then) involve setting out which areas are the likely targets of a nuclear attack

That was the one that had Kidderminster as one of the targets for annihilation, wasn't it?

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

That was the one that had Kidderminster as one of the targets for annihilation, wasn't it?

Carpet bombings I heard.

[snowychap]

Just now, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Carpet bombings I heard.

Very good.

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, peterms said:

The detailed plans that came to light in the 1980s (and which will no doubt have existed before then) involve setting out which areas are the likely targets of a nuclear attack, the effects of possible nuclear attack at varying levels of intensity, radiation effects caused by wind drift and so on.  They involve calculating roughly how many people would be immediately incinerated versus suffering lingering deaths in a number of scenarios.  They also involve assumptions about the amount of emergency services which might survive, the impossibility of getting any medical supplies or assistance to affected areas, and all the rest.  You must know this stuff exists, Pete.

The likely areas of attack are, obviously, strategically important military sites, major population centres, and anything else that is strategically important.  It's not rocket science.  (Oh, hang on...).

This is not "deciding which parts of this country get nuked" in the sense of being offered a menu and making a choice; it is however deciding which parts of this country to place at greater risk of being nuked by possessing nuclear weapons.  It is also deciding that this is an acceptable price to pay in return for the perceived benefits.

The choice of which parts of the uk to incinerate is not made by our pm, then, is it. It's made by whichever tyrant launches nukes from abroadia - pick your demon, putin, kim jong un, xi.....  and let's not fool ourselves, they'd pick London. Whether or not the uk has nukes, any other hostile barmpot wishing to harm us would pick the places you mention.

now, having put that away, the part about price v benefits is a good one. The point about us having nukes making us more likely or less likely to be attacked ourselves is a good question. As is a question of whether proliferation increases because we and others have them, or whether and how we can take steps to reduce them. How do we put the genie back in the bottle?  All good points and things which need to be understood and addressed. But Theresa May "picking which parts of the uk are to be incinerated" is a moronic argument, either on its own, or in support of corbyn's stance.

[NurembergVillan]

6 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Carpet bombings I heard.

[MakemineVanilla]

10 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

I watch TV shows like the Last Leg and Mock the Week and they all seem to be generally a lot more left leaning.

I see that most of social media seems to laugh at the Right and May more than any other party.

I work in Education and see first hand these cuts the Tories want to make and the lack of support for our current government.

I sit next to people at Villa who are deeply impacted by changes to Disability benefits.

My family, who work for the NHS, tell me the Tories are largely hated by the profession.

My mum is one of those effected by the pension change for those born in the 50s. My nan is concerned about the 'Dementia Tax'

Even on here, there seems to be a left leaning majority.

So where are all these Tory supporters? Are they all business people? Why are they all relatively silent? I genuinely don't understand why there is even a chance of a big Tory win when every part of society seems against them; the young, the disabled, the poor, the pensioners and those who work in Education, NHS or police particularly.

I'm not deluded enough to say it's a lie they are so popular and even the 'best' case scenario is a hung parliament, but I just don't understand why my life experiences indicate the complete opposite. I'm not overly political or scare people in to silence with my own views so why do Tory supporters generally stay so quiet?

If you're ashamed of who you're voting for, why are you voting for them?

If you are feeling rejected, a bit of introspection is usually far more fruitful than blaming those who reject you. 

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, peterms said:

Adam Ramsay on the nonsense of Trident.

Crispin Blunt, the (Tory) chair of the foreign affairs select committee voted against renewal of Britain's nuclear weapons system last year for the simple reason that, in the modern world, this is an absurd assumption. As he put it:

"Marine biologists are already able to track shoals of fish in real time from several hundred miles away... If we are today able to detect the gravitational waves first created by the big bang, how can we be so confident that a capable adversary would not be able to track our submarines 20 years from now?"

Much, much, better. On its own it's not 'the' answer, but stuff like this is so much more sane.

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

But Theresa May "picking which parts of the uk are to be incinerated" is a moronic argument, either on its own, or in support of corbyn's stance.

I must be losing track.  Where did I say what you have quoted there?  As opposed to knowing which parts of the UK will certainly be targetted, and choosing to place them at risk by possessing nuclear weapons?

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

I must be losing track.  Where did I say what you have quoted there?  As opposed to knowing which parts of the UK will certainly be targetted, and choosing to place them at risk by possessing nuclear weapons?

Quote

For me, one reason is that they involve our government making detailed and specific plans showing which of us will be sacrificed, how many millons of us will die, in which zones and for what likely radius people will be immediately incinerated as opposed to having their flesh torn away and their eyes burnt out, as opposed to simply developing inoperable cancers and giving birth to babies with deformities so severe we cannot imagine them, while our lords and masters cower in bunkers.

Again, The government doesn't decide or plan who will be" sacrificed". That's done by whoever fires at the uk. Whether or not we have nukes. We're going round in circles. (Apologies for iPad probs with quotes.)

[NurembergVillan]

18 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

If you are feeling rejected, a bit of introspection is usually far more fruitful than blaming those who reject you. 

Someone's been on the fortune cookies again   

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

Again, The government doesn't decide or plan who will be" sacrificed". That's done by whoever fires at the uk. Whether or not we have nukes. We're going round in circles. (Apologies for iPad probs with quotes.)

Picking which parts means deciding on them, ie saying "let's give them Teesside but not Berkhamstead".  Showing them means recognising what others will do, ie "they will bomb Flyingdales, not Rockall". 

The point is that knowing what others will do, and choosing to take a course of action which means the "others" will have more reason to use nuclear weapons is equivalent to a decision to sacrifice people.

Which of course is one reason why people in Scotland, and elsewhere, are not very grateful to have nuclear targets situated among them.

[Risso]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

Picking which parts means deciding on them, ie saying "let's give them Teesside....".

How would anybody tell the difference?

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, Risso said:

How would anybody tell the difference?

Harsh.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, peterms said:

Picking which parts means deciding on them, ie saying "let's give them Teesside but not Berkhamstead".  Showing them means recognising what others will do, ie "they will bomb Flyingdales, not Rockall". 

The point is that knowing what others will do, and choosing to take a course of action which means the "others" will have more reason to use nuclear weapons is equivalent to a decision to sacrifice people.

Which of course is one reason why people in Scotland, and elsewhere, are not very grateful to have nuclear targets situated among them.

If your argument is that by having nukes we are more likely to be attacked by another state with nukes and that is therefore "a decision to sacrificing people" it's pretty weak, really weak. We know that in war enemies attack, as you said, population centres and strategic facilities and military bases etc. That happened in WW2 before nukes existed..etc.  Conventional targets and weak spots exist and always will. Whether for terrorism, conventional weapons attack, or god forbid nuclear attack. The government doesn't decide to sacrifice people, nor have they sacrificed people. People targeted are targeted by the "enemy" the enemy makes the plans, does the killing. As long as people live and work in the uk they are potentially targets. 

Now if nukes makes us more likely to be targeted is another question. Would the U.S. have targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki if the Japanese had the ability to respond in kind? Or was their lack of ability to do so making them more likely to be nuked by the U.S. or did I it make no difference either way?  I don't know, no one does. But it's not unlikely that if Japan had nukes too ,they'd have been safer from the U.S. attacks is it?

i suppose we're going off the general election topic, so I'll stop, other than to say that Corbyn needs to really work out a better argument than he has so far managed. I broadly agree with the no nukes idea, but he's terrible at putting it across to the unconvinced or pro nuke people. It's easy to preach to the converted, which he does well, but he's poor on some of the other sides of it.

[villa4europe]

58 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That was the one that had Kidderminster as one of the targets for annihilation, wasn't it?

Hard to tell if it happened or not 

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

If your argument is that by having nukes we are more likely to be attacked by another state with nukes and that is therefore "a decision to sacrificing people" it's pretty weak, really weak. We know that in war enemies attack, as you said, population centres and strategic facilities and military bases etc. That happened in WW2 before nukes existed..etc.

Having nuclear weapons means that if you are attacked, your enemies have a very strong incentive to seek total obliteration.  It's the converse of the deterrence argument - "they wouldn't dare attack us".  If they did attack, but did so without achieving complete destruction, that would be very risky.  This is why (as Michael Fallon pointed out) having nuclear weapons makes you more of a target.

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Would the us have targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki if the Japanese had the ability to respond in kind?

Japan had a nuclear weapons development programme under way at the time.  I suppose part of the thinking was to beat them to it.