Scrap Trident?
22/4/10 23:03![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSeeing as it's International Relations Week, here is another hot potato for you.
Ok , I have my own take on this, but it is contentious - so convert me!
I think that Britain should not replace Trident, the nuclear missile system , because the UK does not need it.
It isn't just that we can hide behind America and use theirs instead - I think we should give up using nukes altogether.
Ok - who is going to attack the UK?
Well, Argentina and Spain might. Argentina already has, in fact. But nuclear weapons did not deter agression. The resolute use of conventional force evicted the Argantine invaders from the Falklands, though, so Britain should keep conventional forces and abandon Trident, I say.
But what about the Russians, I hear some ask.
Well, if Russia wants to invade the UK, it isn't starting from th Berlin Wall anymore. That landmark is not even there. The reds have got to start from their own border, fight thru Poland, then half of Germany, just to get where they used to be - then carry on invading Europe to reach us. And have they got the means and the motive any more? I doubt it.
Korea? They have to invade China first.
China? Surely they don't have any ambition to invade Europe - they would be more interested in competition with Japan and other places in that side of the world.
So, I don't think any nation has got the means and the motivation to attack us. but what do you say?
Also, nuclear weapons produce the ingredients for the ' dirty bomb '- a decent option from a terrorist's POV.
Nuclear power produces a mere 4 % of our electricity, but 100% of our weapons grade plutonium.
I think we can safely do without nuclear power, and the nukes they produce.
What say you, O politically savvy community watchers?
Ok , I have my own take on this, but it is contentious - so convert me!
I think that Britain should not replace Trident, the nuclear missile system , because the UK does not need it.
It isn't just that we can hide behind America and use theirs instead - I think we should give up using nukes altogether.
Ok - who is going to attack the UK?
Well, Argentina and Spain might. Argentina already has, in fact. But nuclear weapons did not deter agression. The resolute use of conventional force evicted the Argantine invaders from the Falklands, though, so Britain should keep conventional forces and abandon Trident, I say.
But what about the Russians, I hear some ask.
Well, if Russia wants to invade the UK, it isn't starting from th Berlin Wall anymore. That landmark is not even there. The reds have got to start from their own border, fight thru Poland, then half of Germany, just to get where they used to be - then carry on invading Europe to reach us. And have they got the means and the motive any more? I doubt it.
Korea? They have to invade China first.
China? Surely they don't have any ambition to invade Europe - they would be more interested in competition with Japan and other places in that side of the world.
So, I don't think any nation has got the means and the motivation to attack us. but what do you say?
Also, nuclear weapons produce the ingredients for the ' dirty bomb '- a decent option from a terrorist's POV.
Nuclear power produces a mere 4 % of our electricity, but 100% of our weapons grade plutonium.
I think we can safely do without nuclear power, and the nukes they produce.
What say you, O politically savvy community watchers?
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 22:26 (UTC)Say wha?
*Invade*? Bwahhahaha. What for? You have terrible weather (and so do they).
Besides. If they wanted to hurt you they'd rather send someone to poison John Pilger. They're good in that.
Spain? Oh... you mean Gibraltar. OK.
You really think big countries still want to *invade* each other? Or was this satire that I failed to detect? ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 22:52 (UTC)Please...
Korea does not have the missiles with enough range to even reach us.
Russia and China? More likely to be involved in a mutual border dispute than a war against the UK.
We do not need Trident. for these and other reasons.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 23:50 (UTC)That's because people are dumb.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 06:38 (UTC)most people I meet who express such fears are mis informed, and rather fearful of the Cold War re-starting.
When you think of what we went through in the Cold War - and I am talking about Brits here, who had the Red Army practically on it's doorstep and had ' Protect and Survive' leaflets shoved through the letterbox, you have to understand that it's a couragous step to take to even think about doing without a nuclear detterent.
But, as someone who has thought about it in some detail, I think the situation has changed, and Trident and any replacement is no longer needed.
And that seems to be a majority opinion here, I'm pleased to say.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 10:53 (UTC)So yes, you could say 'misinformed'.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 22:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 22:33 (UTC)By the way weren't you a wannabe politician? I thought their grammar skills are flawless. I learn new things every day...
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 22:57 (UTC)If America chooses to keep their nukes, well, hopefully, they will do like we do one day and do without them. not having US missiles behind us for defence is not going to change my mind. And would America really risk themselves to save an ally? I don't think so...
But, yeah, I must remember to turn on my spell checker.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 23:06 (UTC)Yeah, you're right. America totally doesn't have a history of risking their soldiers to help out European allies at all...
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 23:19 (UTC)I mean, nice of you guys to turn up an all that, but we started the war against Hitler in 1939, not the day after Pearl Harbour - know what I'm sayin'...?
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 23:42 (UTC)And yes, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, because we were screwing with their fuel supply. But last I checked, we didn't just send our troops to fight the Japanese, and the Normandy invasion wasn't somewhere in the pacific ocean.
So what's your bitch? That we didn't help you soon enough? 500,000 + American soldiers that died fighting both of these wars doesn't count as Americans risking themselves for their allies?
Go ahead. Get rid of your military's nukes, but understand that the only reason you can do something that utterly stupid is because Americans and their nukes make it possible.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 00:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 00:15 (UTC)So it was certainly self-interest, rather than some pure altruist tendency that motivated U.S. efforts in the first place.
But that is as it should be. No-one expects to provide help, military or otherwise, for no return and it would be foolish in the extreme to do so. Equally painting the U.S. as being some saintly provider of selfless aid to those in need is at least as foolish.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 00:35 (UTC)I'm not. I don't think we're saints at all. I think we're enablers who need to stop enabling, bribing and defending other countries so they'll do what we want. We should let them stand or fall on their own. Unfortunately that's not going to ever happen if they do stuff like disarm themselves.
Actually, while it must be said there was a certain level of political will in the U.S. to intervene on behalf of England, the tipping point at which it became a politically viable option in the face of isolationist tendecies, only came once it became obvious that should England fall, the U.S. would be next on the list.
Right. Because I'm sure after fighting most of of Europe as well as the Russians, the Germans were totally going to be in such awesome shape that they could cross the Atlantic and seriously threaten the US. Or that Kaiser Wilhelm's troops were a real threat to US sovereignty.
I don't think so. Not for either WWI or II.
Was it pure altruism? No. But it really wasn't us jumping to our own self defense either. A lot of it was about helping our allies out, not just with our troops but with our resources too - so to see an Englishman of all freaking people, be all "derp, derp, derp Americans wouldn't help out their allies" kinda irritates me considering our history.
Let's start with WW2
Date: 23/4/10 05:13 (UTC)Really? You don't think the worlds best army, in control of the entire resources of continental Europe, fresh from having beaten the worlds largest army, was a viable threat to the 3rd rate, undermanned, underequipped, under-trained and unexperienced armed force which was the U.S. army at that point in time?
I mean, we're all greatful the U.S. helped out in WW2, but it wasn't until the end of the war, after the Russians had already turned the war around that it really started to have an impact in Europe. And we all know, the U.S. wasn't there just out of the goodness of your hearts. So saying that we can't expect the U.S. to rush to the rescue of it's allies in any future conflict is not unreasonable.
Machiavelli warned against allying with those who are stronger, because they don't need you, and are liable to abandon you when you are in the time of your greatest need and largest threat, at the greatest threat.
It's not an insult to the U.S., it's just a recognition of pragmatic facts.
Re: Let's start with WW2
Date: 23/4/10 10:53 (UTC)No. Because after fighting all of Europe and the Russians and taking all of the casualties and destruction of their infrastructure, they'd actually have to keep the territory that they took and spend a generation or two rebuilding. Then they'd have to cross the Atlantic ocean and tangle on the soil of a highly populated, very large and extremely industrialized nation that wasn't ravaged by two world wars.
So to say that we were in any immediate danger from Germany is pretty laughable. Any danger that may or may not have come would have been a generation or two later and even then it may or may not have ever happened.
So saying that we can't expect the U.S. to rush to the rescue of it's allies in any future conflict is not unreasonable..
What it is, is total bullshit. But hey, if the half a million American troops that died fighting fights that weren't ours, and the billions and billions of dollars of American tax money spent afterwords rebuilding Europe with the Marshall Plan aren't enough to convince you that America has a history of sticking by their European allies, then nothing will.
If something happened to England right now, the first country everyone come crying to is the US. And I think, given our history with England we deserve the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Re: Let's start with WW2
Date: 24/4/10 06:42 (UTC)What you talk about is exactly what the U.S. was fearful of, that after the Germans pacified Europe, they would be facing an enemy in control of the entire continent of Europe, the North of Africa and parts of the Middle East.
Against that would be the U.S. alone and isolated, with an unexperienced army which no-one up to that point took seriously. It doesn't matter that your potential industrial output was that high, because the Germans would be able to match it, plus they were allied with the Japanese, who would likely be in a similar position in Asia by that point.
Anyway, the thing is, of course the U.S. would PROBABLY come to the aid of England, but frankly, if you think the English should rely on it, simply because America has been a good ally in the past, you don't understand military history.
And then there's the 1st world war
Date: 23/4/10 05:26 (UTC)So yes, the Germans certainly expected to create a real threat to U.S. sovereignty. In hindsight and in light of modern U.S. superpower status it might seem like the outcome was never in doubt and there was never any real threat to the U.S., but that is certainly not the view or motivation of the U.S. at the time when it decided to enter the first, or second world war. Both times, it was out of a perceived need, in order to ensure it's territorial integrity and survival.
Re: And then there's the 1st world war
Date: 23/4/10 11:08 (UTC)No. We jumped into the war after Pearl Harbor. Not because "OMG THE MEXICANS ARE COMING!" And certainly, Germany wasn't a real threat to us in WW1 either.
So yes, the Germans certainly expected to create a real threat to U.S. sovereignty.
So what if they did? That doesn't make it a particularly realistic expectation. Again, they'd have to do this with really dodgy allies, after fighting through all of Europe and Russia and rebuilding their infrastructure as well as finding a way to keep what they held.
You do realize that America is a country that's in large part populated by immigrant groups from Europe. And that people here had a lot of familial and cultural ties to the countries that Germany happened to be trying to steamroll? And that maybe, just maybe, that was one of our motivations for jumping into a fight that wasn't ours and fighting an enemy what wasn't really a threat to us?
Re: And then there's the 1st world war
Date: 24/4/10 06:35 (UTC)Pearl harbour was the second world war.
Re: And then there's the 1st world war
Date: 24/4/10 06:48 (UTC)The primary reason the U.S. joined the 1st world war is because the Germans were trying to bring the Mexicans into the war and pin down U.S. forces, in return for assistance in recapturing Texas from the U.S.
In 1914, the Mexican army could have been a serious potential adversary to the U.S.
Read up on the Zimmerman telegram.
It was the perception in the U.S. that they were facing a serious threat to their territory that spurred them into declaring war on Germany. If it wasn't for that, the U.S. would likely not have gotten involved, even though they were sympathetic to the Allied cause.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 06:41 (UTC)So it was certainly self-interest, rather than some pure altruist tendency that motivated U.S. efforts in the first place.
But that is as it should be. No-one expects to provide help, military or otherwise, for no return and it would be foolish in the extreme to do so. Equally painting the U.S. as being some saintly provider of selfless aid to those in need is at least as foolish.
Thanks. I see that sanity has not totally left the forum yet.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 06:53 (UTC)As others have said, America was isolationist, only came in when it's own interests were seriously threatened - like all nations , I grant you, but the point is that we cannot count on American help for nothing. We have no bases to offer them this time.
What makes it possible is the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Warsaw Pact; the Proximity of China to the Pacific , not the Atlantic and the short range of Korea's missile system. We are not facing nuclear threat any more, quite simply.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 10:59 (UTC)Yes. You can scrap Trident, and then hide behind American power the way that most of Europe already does. That way, American can play world cop the way that we always do, when one of our allies that is actually armed, defangs themselves.
It would be stupid as hell of you, but you could do it. What makes me laugh is that you want to do it, even though you'd think America would let England twist in wind if you all were threatened.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem too bright of you.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 00:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 06:44 (UTC)See, after WW1, nobody had any grandiose ideas any more about how sweet and glorious it was to die for ones country. Everyone thought they could , and should avoid war by giving Hitler what he wanted. And the terms of the Treatyof versailles made this seem a fair and just option.
But let's return to the presnt. No nukes is good nukes, agreed?
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 03:34 (UTC)The UK brought the shit on itself by not preventing Hitler from remilitarizing the Rhineland, then there was Austria, then the Sudetenland, then finally you got a pair of balls with Poland; but even then you guys didn't send in a single man or piece of artillery. American help with lend-lease and other under-the-table-deals (almost 31 BILLION dollars), along with some mistakes by Germany was the only thing that kept you guys from goose-stepping by Buckingham Palace with Hitler on the balcony.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 06:48 (UTC)But how does this stack up against scrapping Trident?
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 22:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 22:59 (UTC)So long as the Ruskies can keep misusing the power of veto, we are none of us getting nowhere.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 23:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 00:50 (UTC)Who has (mis)used the security council veto more than any other nation?
I think you should go check the voting records, because you will probably be astonished at the kinds of things that have been voted down and by whom.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 07:00 (UTC)but if the UK, or the French, or even the Americans have abused the voto to squash ideas they didn't like - well, this does not suprise me either and I am not going to argue - as far as I am concerned, this simply supports my point. Britain should scrap it's nukes, not replace them , and make the Security council an elected body.
We gave up an Empire - mainly because running it was not worth the effort - but we were the first power to give our Empire back to those we took it from.
The right thing to do now is give up our seat on the Security Council, for the greater good of world peace.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 11:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 11:27 (UTC)I do suggest you look up which permanent member has used its veto power overwhelmingly even when the vast majority of the security council attempts resolutions.
It isn't Russia.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 23:53 (UTC)If you think you won't be nuked, nukes do nothing. If you think you will, they do.
Invasion? That's like saying a thief will steal your house if you don't have a gun. When in truth they will be happy enough to just take your wallet. Go on, drop your nukes. You can decide which superpower you get to pay tribute to for "protection".
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 07:04 (UTC)If you think you will, they do.
Well, here is the deal - I don't think we are gonna be nuked at all.
most people with nukes will only use them if we threaten to overwhelm them.
We don't intend to invade Iran , or Korea, or China. Certainly not Frace or the USA, so, why do we need nukes? Who are they protecting us from and how?
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 01:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 02:57 (UTC)In otherwords, who is going to invade them
France
Germany
USA
USSR
All could become potential threats in as little as 20 years, this is especially true of France and Germany because the Eurozone is almost certainly going to fragment, if not soon over Greece then within a decade or so as Spain, Italy, Portugal et al go down the same way Greece is. Additionally the Demographic implosion going on in Southern and Eastern Europe make the possibility of a very aggressive Muslim state arising in one of those areas within the next 20 - 30 years a strong possibility.
As far as Russia, why would they need to go through Germany? Take out the baltics and use the ports on the Baltic sea to launch a seaborne invasion, the Royal Navy isn't even a shell of what it was in 1939 so without US backing the odds that they could prevent the landings would be minimal at best. Even if they don't do that though, the largest Russian Naval bases are on the North Atlantic and their bomber bases are a short hop away from Brittan with no one else's airspace to fly over.
Now that said you also miss the fact that Nukes are not just a deterrent to conventional invasion but also to a nuke strike. This means Iran and China are legitimate threats because while they lack the capacity to invade Brittan they certainly have (or will soon have) the ability to bomb England back to the Stone age if they wish.
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 07:10 (UTC)It all gos back to this ' population bomb' thing. the good ol' Welfare State' thing that Americansabhor so much means that women can get access to the pill without hubby knowing. Funny thing is, a lotta women do. And Muslim daughters are already kicking up against the old order. So, I am not actually dreading the Muslim takeover.
Nor do I feel that the French or germans have any plans on using the Channell tunnel for anything more than paid vacations, but you may disagree.
China could hit us, but why?
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 03:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 11:29 (UTC)That being Iceland of course.
Hey, they're still sore about the 70's cod wars. And just you watch, they'll get Sealand onside!
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 14:44 (UTC)Yes!
Date: 23/4/10 22:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 17:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/10 00:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/10 09:46 (UTC)