General Election 2017

[HanoiVillan]

I don't understand this fuss about nuclear weapons. I was under the impression that it was long-standing, bipartisan policy that the UK would never engage in a nuclear first-strike, ie that any deployment of nuclear weapons would be retaliatory in nature (due to either a strike on ourselves or a treaty ally). Has our nation's nuclear defence policy been ripped up during this election campaign, or was I simply confused in the first place? 

This is not a trick, I'm looking for genuine clarification here. @Awol? @blandy? @peterms? Anyone else?

[peterms]

I think it's to do with the Lizard of Oz.  The essence of the campaign has been to discredit Corbyn in whatever way possible, and they have been researching for a very long time what possible faults they can attribute to him.  It doesn't matter if it's true or false, if he says the same as eg MI5 about Iraq leading to terrorism or Michael Fallon about nuclear weapons making you a target.  The only aim is to smear him, and throw enough dirt that people won't look too closely at the issue, but just form a general impression.

It's this kind of thing that demeans politics, and turns people off.

That's a side benefit - if they can keep the core loyalists voting, and reduce the turnout of anyone under 50, result!

[Awol]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't understand this fuss about nuclear weapons. I was under the impression that it was long-standing, bipartisan policy that the UK would never engage in a nuclear first-strike, ie that any deployment of nuclear weapons would be retaliatory in nature (due to either a strike on ourselves or a treaty ally). Has our nation's nuclear defence policy been ripped up during this election campaign, or was I simply confused in the first place? 

This is not a trick, I'm looking for genuine clarification here. @Awol? @blandy? @peterms? Anyone else?

UK has neither a first strike policy nor a first strike capability and weapon system. The logic of a first strike relies on the removal of all enemy means of nuclear retaliation, which is not possible with the amount of weapons/warheads we deploy in   the duty missile submarine (SSBN).

Trident is defined as a second strike weapon because it cannot be destroyed by an enemy's first strike. It's role is to be employed as a retaliatory measure that is hugely destructive (capable of removing over 100 targets in one salvo) and can't be intercepted, hence the deterrent effect to not strike UK with nuclear weapons in the first place. 

'You nuke us, we'll nuke you back regardless.' That's the very simple concept of nuclear deterrence, but it relies on the person responsible for it NOT saying the use of the deterrent is unthinkable and thereby rendering the whole thing moot. 

Implying that anyone who questions the efficacy of unilateral/multilateral disarmament is some psychotic warmonger is as silly as that dimwit Fallon gobbing off about first strikes.

Edit: just to add, had Ukraine not been persuaded by the Russians, Americans and ourselves to give up nuclear weapons in 1994, it is vanishingly unlikely that Putin would have annexed Crimea or invaded Eastern Ukraine. 

The North Korean leadership are crazy, but not stupid. Ditto Iran. 

Edit 2: Also worth noting that different nuclear powers have different policies. The US maintains a 'nuclear Triad' of subs, bombers and land based ICBM's and do not (to my knowledge) explicitly rule out 'first strike' in their doctrine. 

First use is a different concept and was the basis of NATO's war planning to halt the Sov's if they invaded Western Europe. That's where tactical nuclear weapons come in, where their use is part of a war fighting strategy. 

Interestingly Russia has recently reintegrated the offensive rather than defensive use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe back in to their strategic war planning. That's about escalation dominance, basically gambling you'll go further than your opponent who won't risk an escalation into a strategic missile exchange and the MAD scenario. 

Sorry, I'll stop now! 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by Awol
Add

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

but it relies on the person responsible for it NOT saying the use of the deterrent is unthinkable and thereby rendering the whole thing moot. 

Agree with all of your post, except the bit quoted. What someone says ( in an election campaign especially) and what someone would do in the event of an actual conflict are different. Corbyn saying "I wouldn't" or May saying "I would" is almost irrelevant and renders nothing moot ( IMO).

[Awol]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

Agree with all of your post, except the bit quoted. What someone says ( in an election campaign especially) and what someone would do in the event of an actual conflict are different. Corbyn saying "I wouldn't" or May saying "I would" is almost irrelevant and renders nothing moot ( IMO).

He's not yet responsible for it, so you're right that it doesn't currently matter. If he got into office and did so that would be a different scenario. 

[peterms]

Telling it like it is.

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

I don't really get May's 'enough is a enough it's time to change' argument, as all roads lead to her. She was home sectary and then prime minister. If we have been 'too tolerant' of extremism then it's because of her policies. Her speech was a bit of a dog whistle IMO, but with these attacks happening on her watch, I don't see how this can be spun in her favour (which she clearly is trying to do). 

Edited June 4, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss

[Chindie]

9 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

I don't really get May's 'enough is a enough it's time to change' argument, as all roads lead to her. She was home sectary and then prime minister. If we have been 'too tolerant' of extremism then it's because of her policies. Her speech was a bit of a dog whistle IMO, but with these attacks happening on her watch, I don't see how this can be spun in her favour. 

The spin is done by the Othering. The Problem's Totally Them, not in any part Us. And she's Us. and nobody will draw attention to the fact she holds some of the can given her position in power for 7 years (6 as Home Sec), because that will 'playing politics with a tragedy' or 'lack decorum' or otherwise be deflected to reflect badly on whoever asks the question. Despite the fact it's a valid point.

It was absolutely, in part, dog whistle stuff. The stuff about extremism was to play to the minds looking at Muslims with suspicion, and to lay groundwork for further attacks on liberty. What else does it say otherwise? Some Muslims support some pretty grim views? No shit. Lots of bodies shows you that. Society as a whole seems fairly intolerant of extremism. But she said it, people go 'Yeah!' and accept her proposals to fix it, because she should know, right? Except why didn't she know in the past 6 years? And if she did, why did she either do nothing, or do things that didn't make things better?

You can only shake your head.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Chindie

[StefanAVFC]

Made the point in the other thread, but we, as a country, view politicians at an all time low, yet when it comes to 'national security' people are willing to bend over and accept everything they say.

You point out Theresa May has wanted to take privacy away from people for years, well you must be a sympathiser.

We are heading down a very slippery slope.

[Risso]

The police responded as quickly as possible last night, and thankfully dispatched the terrorists before they could kill even more.  Good to know therefore, that Jeremy Corbyn opposes a 'shoot to kill' policy in the face of such attacks.

[StefanAVFC]

Ah, classy politicising of the attacks there.

Related,

Yet, the attacks are happening under the current Tory government.

Makes me sick these vermin will get another 5 years.

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, Risso said:

The police responded as quickly as possible last night, and thankfully dispatched the terrorists before they could kill even more.  Good to know therefore, that Jeremy Corbyn opposes a 'shoot to kill' policy in the face of such attacks.

We don't have a shoot to kill policy.

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, Risso said:

The police responded as quickly as possible last night, and thankfully dispatched the terrorists before they could kill even more.  Good to know therefore, that Jeremy Corbyn opposes a 'shoot to kill' policy in the face of such attacks.

Are you claiming that last night was an example of a 'shoot to kill' policy being employed by the Met?

[peterms]

41 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

I don't really get May's 'enough is a enough it's time to change' argument, as all roads lead to her. She was home sectary and then prime minister. If we have been 'too tolerant' of extremism then it's because of her policies.

It's worse than being too tolerant.  This account sets out a case which suggests that the actions of the British state covertly supported a terrorist group of which the Manchester bomber was a member.  This while she was Home Secretary.  If the media had any integrity, they would be trying very hard to establish whether this account is true - and paying it rather more attention than who Corbyn spoke to 35 years ago.

Quote

Summary

In summary, the evidence so far shows that there are six inter-related aspects of blowback:

1. Salman Abedi and his father were members of a Libyan dissident group – the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – covertly supported by the UK to assassinate Qadafi in 1996. At this time, the LIFG was an affiliate of Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and LIFG leaders had various connections to this terror network.
2. Members of the LIFG were facilitated by the British ‘security services’ to travel to Libya to fight Qadafi in 2011. Both Salman Abedi and his father, Ramadan, were among those who travelled to fight at this time (although there is no evidence that their travel was personally facilitated or encouraged by the security services).
3. A large number of LIFG fighters in Libya in 2011 had earlier fought alongside the Islamic State of Iraq – the al-Qaeda entity which later established a presence in Syria and became the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). These fighters were among those recruited into the British-backed anti-Qadafi rebellion.
4. UK covert action in Libya in 2011 included approval of and support to Qatar’s arming and backing of opposition forces, which included support to hardline Islamist groups; this fuelled jihadism in Libya.
5. One of the groups armed/supported by Qatar in 2011 was the February 17th Martyrs Brigade which, some reports suggest, was the organisation which Ramadan Abedi joined in 2011 to fight Qadafi.
6. Qatar’s arms supplies to Libya in 2011 also found their way to Islamist fighters in Syria, including groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The media should also be interrogating May on the suppression of a report which, the Independent says, highlights the role of Saudi Arabia in funding terrorism.

Quote

An investigation into the foreign funding of extremist Islamist groups may never be published, the Home Office has admitted.

The inquiry commissioned by David Cameron, was launched as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats in December 2015, in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Isis into Syria.

But although it was due to be published in the spring of 2016, it has not been completed and may never be made public due to its "sensitive" contents.

It is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia, which the UK recently approved £3.5bn worth of arms export licences to.

Why does the media fasten like a terrier on Corbyn's supposed softness on security, and ignore these rather more pressing and very current issues?

 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

We don't have a shoot to kill policy.

It's nuanced. In reality we (rightly) do. Firearms training for both police and military (unless it's changed) has always focused on hitting the main part of the torso - basically the chest, which bluntly is highly likely to kill people. Aiming for arms, legs, hands, feet or wherever risks missing. Aiming at the head which would also kill pretty much all the time is also not done because of the small target area. I'm not talking about snipers here, but "normal" armed personnel.

It's not called shoot to kill, and legally the aim is to incapacitate the miscreant/enemy, but basically it means killing them.

It's playing with words and legalese really - reasonable force and all that. Armed personnel carry rules of engagement cards, and these can differ for different countries, for the military, but for UK police I think they still stress reasonable force and incapacitate the target, but the training is aim at the torso/chest area.

*this might be out of date, but it's certainly how it used to be.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

It's nuanced. In reality we (rightly) do. Firearms training for both police and military (unless it's changed) has always focused on hitting the main part of the torso - basically the chest, which bluntly is highly likely to kill people. Aiming for arms, legs, hands, feet or wherever risks missing. Aiming at the head which would also kill pretty much all the time is also not done because of the small target area. I'm not talking about snipers here, but "normal" armed personnel.

It's not called shoot to kill, and legally the aim is to incapacitate the miscreant/enemy, but basically it means killing them.

It's playing with words and legalese really - reasonable force and all that. Armed personnel carry rules of engagement cards, and these can differ for different countries, for the military, but for UK police I think they still stress reasonable force and incapacitate the target, but the training is aim at the torso/chest area.

*this might be out of date, but it's certainly how it used to be.

Fully aware of all that.

It's still not shoot to kill.

[chrisp65]

14 minutes ago, Risso said:

The police responded as quickly as possible last night, and thankfully dispatched the terrorists before they could kill even more.  Good to know therefore, that Jeremy Corbyn opposes a 'shoot to kill' policy in the face of such attacks.

I'm glad you've pointed this out. That bastard would lead us in to danger.

I'll be voting for May, her experience as Home Secretary and PM must mean we'd be safer with her in control.

Rather 19,000 less police and 2,500 less prison officers (with a larger prison population) and no tax increases than the prospect of some idiot that doesn't support shoot to kill. 

 

 

[chrisp65]

Tories calling for longer prison sentences today.

Here's a quick list of officer numbers on their watch:

Howard League

 

Personally, for old school general crime I'm not a big fan of locking people up. But then, I'm not claiming to be tough on crims or pretending enough is enough.

I actually find that 'enough is enough' line utterly unacceptable. What is that message? Up until now she was ok with low level terror deaths in the UK, but she had an acceptable number in her head and we've just reached it?

It's either bollocks for the idiots, or she's actually got a death rate formula that tells her when to bother doing something about it.

My word, I thought Brexit means Brexit was offensive. I had no idea.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Tories calling for longer prison sentences today.

Here's a quick list of officer numbers on their watch:

Howard League

 

Personally, for old school general crime I'm not a big fan of locking people up. But then, I'm not claiming to be tough on crims or pretending enough is enough.

I actually find that 'enough is enough' line utterly unacceptable. What is that message? Up until now she was ok with low level terror deaths in the UK, but she had an acceptable number in her head and we've just reached it?

It's either bollocks for the idiots, or she's actually got a death rate formula that tells her when to bother doing something about it.

My word, I thought Brexit means Brexit was offensive. I had no idea.

If they're serious on this, then more needs to be done around decriminalisation and regulation of drugs.

Last thing we need is thousands of drug users clogging up our prisons when the Tories want longer sentences, with less prison officers.

[peterms]