One of the worst interviews I've ever seen. This must be what it's like when idiots aren't given autocues or prompted questions.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
yes I will
I have voted labour in every general election (not always european or local where I have sometimes voted libs sometimes greens)
I believe Corbyn would be a disaster and personally I would vote tactically in my constituency (libs) in a general election rather than vote for a corbyn lead government which I believe is economically a non starter... also his stance on nuclear, HS2, and renationalisation of the railways are all things which directly effect my business (though it would probably be some of my employees who would be hit harder than me)
He is a clusterfek... it will be one big feking bang after another after another until he has destroyed whatever is left of the party.
This is all getting a bit Tom Clancy. The point of Trident isn't really the "button pushing" aspect, the ultimate function of them is that, if the UK is destroyed by a nuclear attack and the government and Queen killed, there is a heavily guarded safe on each sub containing the PM's instructions on whether to launch retaliatory attacks against the aggressor. That is the cold, hard, basic essence of what Trident is about - whether we as a country have the ability, from beyond the grave, to stop a state that has pre-emptively used nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies. And that such states know we can do so even without anyone alive on UK soil. Basically a dead-man's trigger.
On Corbyn's statement, well, he can't really say anything else so my opinion on him is essentially the same as before. The shadow cabinet dynamic now though is so bizarre, never seen so many openly critical of positions the leader takes, on pretty much anything.
"What's that gobshite doing on the television?"
it's a bit of a joke though really. in this fanciful scenario where the UK is nuked (are we still living in the 50s?), of course there would be repercussions, not least from the USA. so we're spending billions on a glorified fear mongering doomsday scenario. I need to go watch some Kubrick again.
To be honest I would rather we spend the money on a social safety net that people can definitely enjoy, now, while we are all alive, rather than on a missile programme which we may get to use, possibly, in the future, but wont actually "enjoy" per se, because we'll all be dead.
But I understand my view on this is a long way from the mainstream.
But I understand my view on this is a long way from the mainstream.
I agree, the debate should not be about these scenarios because they are ridiculous and don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny - which was the point I was trying to make.
It's worth mentioning - although it doesn't really affect the argument - but I believe that the possibility that we use tactical (i.e. low yield) nuclear weapons in the event of a biological or chemical attack on British subjects (soldiers or civilians abroad) is part of our current policy. At least in 2003 the question was posed to Hoon, it wasn't ruled out and I'm not aware of any change since then.
I really don't see the point in Trident with the current and close-to-capable nuclear nations being who they are and USA acting as it does currently. Call me naive but I just don't see a MAD scenario as likely to happen and alongside that I think we should be able to maintain some sort of "close to being nuclear capable" status in case of the global situation changing.
There are also questions of whether it secures our seat on the UN security council (which some people view as good value for what Trident costs).
I'm not a fan of this view point. I'm not a nationalist and (maybe as a result of that) I don't want us to have in our possession, a "button" that if pressed, would almost instantly kill millions of innocent people.
This is turning into a big problem for Corbyn. If Corbyn isn't prepared to 'push the button' under any circumstances then Labour's policy becomes non-nuclear by default. Only the PM can use it, and Corbyn never would, so they're supporting spending £100Bn for something that will become redundant the day that Corbyn gets into number 10.
Or, to look at it another way, we're saying party policy will only come into effect when we get rid of our current leader.
Either way, extraordinary.
Or, to look at it another way, we're saying party policy will only come into effect when we get rid of our current leader.
Either way, extraordinary.
I wonder if, seeing as the supposed point of Trident is MAD, if he would be prepared to compromise by saying he would never push the "button" but would retain the orders to ensure retaliation in the case of an all out nuclear attack on the country. Basically what is already the only realistic possibility. At least I hope that we would never consider a first strike.
I don't think he should do that but it would potentially be the only compromise considering the stance of the likes of Benn and presumably most of the PLP.
This would of course only be necessary if the vote to renew trident passes next year (which it certainly will).
I don't know how that would go down PR wise - well I do, almost certainly badly - he could lose some of the support he already has and I doubt it would do much to convince those who strongly support Trident. It just seems sensible to me though.
Incidentally I read that Thatcher supposedly said she wasn't sure if she could ever press the button as she wanted a world for her grandchildren. Not sure how true that is though.
Besides anything else it's fecking insane that we (the human race) have these weapons and when you look at what is on the horizon in terms of rail guns, drones and whatnot... We really are fecked as a species.
No one knows the prime minister's orders (says the guardian) so people would just assume he's given instructions not to retaliate. Given his comments it's hard to imagine he could convince people otherwise at this point. Hard to see a decent outcome here.
In my scenario he would just keep the current orders as they were under Cameron.
It's hard to see a decent outcome in a world with nuclear weapons indeed!
But since he would no longer be prime minister they'd have no authority.
The PM handwrites and seals four identical letters, one for each of the Vanguard subs. They are then placed in a safes onboard the subs and only opened in the event that a series of tests indicates that the UK is no longer functional. The letters are destroyed without being opened when a PM leaves office so that only they know what they had written.
I thought the new PM sees the orders left by the last one. Might have dreamt that...
It's actually quite fun reading The Sun now, looking for their daily veiled dig. This one seems to be scraping the barrel, though.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ins-dullest-men-with-most-boring-hobbies.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ins-dullest-men-with-most-boring-hobbies.html
Not quite what I meant but that's irrelevant in the light of what Purry said above.
This is the thing most likely to force Corbyn out. If that happens I think the most appropriate scenario would be for David Miliband to parachute into the next Labour conference riding on a bomb.
The Sun and Telegraph would instantly switch allegiance.
Nope, they get destroyed, none have ever been read apparently. I have a vague memory that one former PM did speak about what he'd written, but that's all.
Scraping barrels should be on that list somewhere. Rupert from Australia's hobby.
Also I bet DC never wore such a cool t shirt. Not that the t shirt is cool...
Very interesting. As is everything to do with nuclear weapons - in a morbid way of course
Was it Callaghan? I remember something about him saying he would have used them.
May have been. I should probably glow in the dark, I grew up quite close to the AWE at Aldermaston, even played rugby inside the place a few times.
When questioned about the absence of Immigration from his conference speech, Corbyn's response was as follows:
I think the "close to being nuclear capable" part is instructive - that's not something we can switch on and off with relative ease. The knowledge base will die off, and these systems take more than a decade to get working even with it. Corbyn also says he wants to "replace Trident with jobs", so presumably the infrastructure in place to service the subs would also be gone. And yeah, millions dying would of course be horrific. But it obviously gets more complicated than that - if there's some mentalist state using nukes then are they going to kill hundreds of millions if they aren't stopped first? It's all very grim and apocalyptic, and undoubtedly unlikely. I myself am not really bothered whether we have them or not for the aforementioned reasons of likely being too dead to care, but I also wouldn't make a good leader of the Labour party and PM. I think with the long term strategic security of the country and its citizens, it's unwise to be as forthcoming as Corbyn was.
Why are we so scared of Iran being close to a bomb if even the UK, who already has the technical knowledge and a close relationship with the US (lest I remind you that our missiles are already designed by the USA), would take a decade to get back to capability.
Being "close to capable" is a genuine option that has merit.
Something that also hasn't been discussed is that in a MAD scenario where the infrastructure of the UK is destroyed we attack as retaliation, the only orders that we can expect to be followed are the pre-written ones left by the PM.
This means that the targets must surely be pre-defined, unless you expect a submarine commander to be able to reliably identify our attacker and respond - which is possible but considering the consequences of getting it wrong, not particularly likely - at least you'd fecking well hope not.
You can't do first-strike and survive unless you are certain that it will succeed and destroy all their nuclear missiles.
So in my opinion the whole thing is a shamwow that only really applied in the cold war when our existential threat was basically Russia and Russia alone.
There are potential uses of nuclear weapons outside of MAD such as the response to chemical/biological weapons I mentioned earlier in the thread but they are even more dodgy from a moral perspective.
Where Corbyn is going wrong is his expectation that there is any chance whatsoever of us going directly from Trident to being completely non-capable. Not based on the merit of either argument, just based on the fact that it's too controversial as we have seen the last few days.
I think it would be a far better approach to push for a gradual disarmament - whether it's a reduction in the size of the arsenal, a reduction in the level of readiness or both.
The problem is that his views are so well known and his election to Labour party leader was partly (or largely) on the basis of him being principled.
It's still a possibility that he compromises but he needs to be seen to be doing that under massive pressure to retain any credibility whatsoever.
I think it would be a far better approach to push for a gradual disarmament - whether it's a reduction in the size of the arsenal, a reduction in the level of readiness or both.
The problem is that his views are so well known and his election to Labour party leader was partly (or largely) on the basis of him being principled.
It's still a possibility that he compromises but he needs to be seen to be doing that under massive pressure to retain any credibility whatsoever.
I've only just heard what he said on nuclear weapons.... I have no interest in politics and no allegiances to any party, but every one of Corbyn's opinions I hear seems to be stupider than the last. I can't believe anyone would vote for someone with such extreme stances.
Does he not understand the concept of nuclear weapons being a deterrent? I genuinely believe the world would be a much more dangerous place without them.
Does he not understand the concept of nuclear weapons being a deterrent? I genuinely believe the world would be a much more dangerous place without them.
Nuclear capability and MAD IS the extreme stance here to say otherwise is ridiculous.
It has worked quite well for a while, to be fair.
Not that I want us to have nuclear weapons.
Could this be a causation-correlation fallacy? I am no expert, but am wondering if the fact that we haven't seen WW3 is because of MAD or rapid increases in 1st and 2nd world living standards, or other reasons like that.
I would share your claim to lack of knowledge, on that.
Because there's a difference between having the capability to create a nuclear warhead, and having a system like Trident, which cannot be taken out by any external force, is continually at sea and able to strike any point on the planet, which is what a genuine deterrent entails. Trident's replacement involves a hell of a lot of foreplanning and build time, which is why it's got to be started next year despite not coming online until the late 2020s. They're not worried about Iran having an ongoing nuclear deterrent, they're worried about it nuking Israel.
I'm not really sure what your point about targets is, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that our intelligence services are able to inform the subs as to threats and such even if the executive command in the UK has gone belly up.
Having dedicated nuclear missile submarines isn't the only choice in terms of delivery systems. We can't really do land launched or air launched but there are other possibilities in terms of multi-use submarines rather than just having the Trident subs that are only there to ensure a constant deterrent.
My point with the orders is, if the UK gets nuked, and there is any uncertainty whatsoever over who launched the attack (I'm talking fractions of a percentage of probability) then the submarine commander won't have enough confidence to launch the retaliatory strike unless he's a bit of a psychopath.
That's fine when our only worry is Russia in the cold war but the whole argument nowadays is "it's an uncertain world". If it's uncertain then you can't expect a submarine commander to be a genocidal maniac.
I still don't think he was refusing to sign the MAD order on behalf of the party. Intended or not he's got the public debate even if he didn't get the conference debate.
Would agree with all that.
I'm more comfortable with the idea that if we have to have nukes, they be on board dedicated, highly trained and specialised subs, the locations of which are known to very few people on that planet at any one time. This seems much better to me than grubbing some missiles off the US if things start to look hairy in North Korea and jamming them into some ageing Astutes.
Still not sure what your hypothetical's about - the tiny chance that we don't know who launched enough nukes against us to destroy the UK mainland?
He said it was immoral to use them and he'd have executive power, not sure where your confusion lies.
The look on Corbyns face when Eamon Holmes brings out his football analogy. That was car crash telly .
First of all I'm not talking about us knowing - you seem to be under the assumption that all our intelligence services will still be relevant in this scenario - I'm talking about the people on the Trident submarine knowing. Considering the letters of last resort apply in the case that they have no communication with the leadership of the country (which is the point), what makes you think they will have access to intelligence that they can be completely confident in? It's very likely that they will be isolated and uncertain.
Secondly, there are multiple reasons why we might not know who just crippled the country - for instance, if the attack is from submarine launched missiles, how would we know with certainty who launched them? Detection systems malfunction. Stealth aircraft will be more common in the future. Countries that have nuclear weapons share borders.
My hypothesis is even backed up somewhat by history. There have been instances in the past where the only reason that nuclear war didn't happen was because someone either bottled it or used common sense and didn't follow orders to the letter (i.e. Stanislav Petrov).
I see your point, but Britain saying we won't use our nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear war, won't prevent a nuclear war. Even if there was a global agreement to scrap them all (which there never will be) we live in an age where there's constant mistrust and misinformation about countries developing their own nuclear weapons. See North Korea for example. I'd feel a lot safer knowing we hold nuclear weapons when they are trying to develop their own. It's not the extreme stance in this context imo.
When I studied the Cold War through uni (and it was the same at high school if I remember correctly) lecturers talked about MAD as being the only thing that prevented it escalating to all out war. I mean they talked about it like it was a matter of fact. Like it went without saying.
That's why it was fought via smaller proxy wars - Korean war, Vietnam war, first Afghanistan War, etc. Not to mention the Berlin Wall, Cuban Missile Crisis, space race, etc. When they'd gone to these sort of extreme lengths I can't imagine both countries would have avoided direct war without the fear of MAD. As I say, the subject was taught with the background assumption that MAD was the only thing stopping the Cold War turning into a hot one. I genuinely believe it would have otherwise. Just look at the allied intervention that attempted to stop the Bolsheviks taking control in Russia originally after WW1. American and British troops fought in Russia to try and avoid a communist government. That would have been unthinkable after WW2 when military capabilities had advanced to create levels of destruction unimaginable in 1920.
Anyway I've gone way off topic. Point is it's in this context that Corbyn's comments seem incomprehensibly stupid to me. The fear of nuclear war is the best way to avoid it.
Alan Sugar has officially left the party.
One more reason to like this new Labour leadership.
One more reason to like this new Labour leadership.
Does anyone think it's moral to use them? That's an odd point to make.
Again, I'm not too sure about this, and way off topic, but wasn't the closest the Cold War came to MAD precisely when both countries were implementing their respective MAD strategies (Cuba/Turkey missiles)?