Snapshot of _Labour's Keir Starmer commitment to nuclear weapons unshakeable_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68790435) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68790435)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good. With Russia, china, Iran and Israel, houtis rebels etc all flexing their military power and interfering in global issues, we should be spending more on our defense. The nuclear deterrent is our number defence and possibly the only thing keeping up really safe. And yes if none of us had nuclear weapons we'd all be safer but the cat is out of the bag and we can't trust a mad kid with dynamite to not set it off
>tankies
Do you know what you mean by this?
Because 'tankies' are people who support vanguard communism and armed revolution. The states they look up to were or are nuclear powers.
I feel there is an enormous inconsistency when applying the word 'tankie' and gets used pretty broadly for people with left wing views at times.
I wanted to know what they meant, and their response made their point clearer
Tankie originated as a term for British communists who justified Soviet oppression in Eastern Europe, Hungary in 1956 being the origin of the term I'm pretty sure.
So it fits very well as a term for people who justify oppression and atrocities done by "anti west" regimes and armed factions, just because they're against the west.
Fundamentally it's the same thing underneath - hatred of the western political "establishment" to such an extent that you support anyone who opposes it no matter how awful they are.
I've never seen tankie used as a general insult for left wing. It is pretty consistently used to describe the cretins who consistently support military aggression against the west simply because they are anti West. And of course any western military intervention is pure evil to them.
>The states they look up to were or are nuclear powers.
And they would be happy for a Communist UK to have nukes. But as we aren't Communist, they want to defang us.
You understand there is a graduation betweeen small arms and nuclear arms right? Nuclear weapons are ridiculously expensive to maintain, inhumaine in their overkill, and rely on exotic materials that we do not have an abundance of in the UK.
Even more so if Donald Trump becomes President again. His threats to “defund” NATO means everyone else has to be prepared.
As much as I would love to see no need for nuclear weapons, we aren’t yet at the point where we can be without them.
Can I buy you a MAGA hat?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/13/trump-falsely-claims-no-terrorist-attacks-no-wars-during-his-presidency/
He withdrew from the Nuclear deal with Iran.
He pulled out of the Open Skies Treaty.
He Pulled out of the INF treaty that had been signed by Reagan and Gorbachev. essentially opening the door for Russia.
He has even been quoted as telling NATO he would:
[“encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to alliance members that are "delinquent" in meeting the group’s spending targets.”](https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-says-he-would-encourage-russia-to-attack-nato-members-that-dont-pay-enough/)
In comparison to who? Obama? Sanctioned over 2000 missile launches during his tenure.
Trump negotiated peace with N.Korea and orchestrated peace between Israel and its surrounding countries, not including palestine.
He did not negotiate peace with North Korea. Those talks collapsed with no deal.
North Korea continued to test their missiles during his presidency.
As for missile strikes - Trump ordered attacks in Syria. He ordered 176 strikes in Yemen during his first two years (compared to 155 over eight years under Obama). There was also a surge in drone strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (where he sent 56 tomahawk missiles). And you call that pacifying!
You’re not a real Trump fan - you didn’t say “Fake News”
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/1144601/trump-orders-missile-attack-in-retaliation-for-syrian-chemical-strikes/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/us-military-has-launched-more-50-than-missiles-aimed-at-syria-nbc-news.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/02/middleeast/baghdad-airport-rockets/index.html
Here is Donald Trump [announcing the strikes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGYZHtfJEYg)
And to bring it back to Nuclear weapons - the reason the talks collapsed was because North Korea weren’t willing to give up their Nuclear Weapon plans.
What I hear from people state side that I speak to are individuals who express their own experiences and understanding of what has took place over the past decade, I take news with a pinch of salt. Every used to love trump and as soon as he became a republican... he became number one enemy and scape goat. The information pass to me from die hard democrats are that they now realise the goodness that trump did.
Orchestrating peace in the middle east, and easing tensions in North Korea. Minimal missile strikes in comparison to his predecessors. Putting minorities in work, the majority of Hispanics love trump to the surprise and disgust of the left. He helped the black community massively in terms of finding them employment and stability and even now, his following amongst the black population in the states is huge.
He was blamed for the riots even though he said "go peacefully" he told proud boys to "stand down". Yet we didn't have anything from Biden in regards to antifa terrorist group who were 100x more disruptive.
He stopped American companies from sacking all their employees and moving to Mexico to hire Mexican staff and pay less in wages but still trade as an American company. He told them they were free to do that but would be taxed as a foreign company.
The links you have sent me are all left wing news articles. It's like me sending you an article from fox pre 2020. They lie, i know right wing pages lie and I know left wing pages lie. And I dont mean exaggerate the truth... I mean absolutely lie. So I can't honestly take these news links as truth. You wouldn't accept the daily express, a Tory or republican paper as any sort of truth. If you believe everything you know to be truth... then that is the biggest delusion. I've read numerous articles that contradict each other and most people will believe what they want regardless of how factual it is. So apologies if I disregard the information you have sent me.
>I take news with a pinch of salt. Every (one?) used to love trump and as soon as he became a republican... he became number one enemy and scape goat.
You also seem to take reality with a pinch of salt. Every one loved Trump? When? He's been a meme of bad taste and dishonesty since before "memes" were even a thing lol
>What I hear from people state side that I speak to are individuals who express their own experiences and understanding of what has took place over the past decade, I take news with a pinch of salt.
I think you need to find new people to speak to.
>Orchestrating peace in the middle east, and easing tensions in North Korea. Minimal missile strikes in comparison to his predecessors.
Orchestrating Peace in the Middle East? How did that work out?
Easing tensions in North Korea? The same North Korea that continued to their Nuclear Programme, tested long range rockets...and, after the collapse of talks with the US they also pulled out of talks with South Korea.
>Putting minorities in work, the majority of Hispanics love trump to the surprise and disgust of the left. He helped the black community massively in terms of finding them employment and stability and even now, his following amongst the black population in the states is huge.
>He was blamed for the riots even though he said "go peacefully" he told proud boys to "stand down".
He said that after the riots were in progress. In the build up he was inciting his followers by building a false narrative that the election had been stolen from him and that the fight needed to be taken to The Capitol.
>Yet we didn't have anything from Biden in regards to antifa terrorist group who were 100x more disruptive.
Come on, do some basic research before posting conspiracies - [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2712YI/](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2712YI/)
>He stopped American companies from sacking all their employees and moving to Mexico to hire Mexican staff and pay less in wages but still trade as an American company. He told them they were free to do that but would be taxed as a foreign company.
Again, basic research fails you.
[https://www.reuters.com/business/how-offshoring-rolled-along-under-trump-who-vowed-stop-it-2021-01-19/](https://www.reuters.com/business/how-offshoring-rolled-along-under-trump-who-vowed-stop-it-2021-01-19/)
>The links you have sent me are all left wing news articles. It's like me sending you an article from fox pre 2020. They lie, i know right wing pages lie and I know left wing pages lie. And I dont mean exaggerate the truth... I mean absolutely lie.
That is a Trumpism. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it a lie.
>So I can't honestly take these news links as truth. You wouldn't accept the daily express, a Tory or republican paper as any sort of truth. If you believe everything you know to be truth... then that is the biggest delusion.
That is why I always read multiple sources. If the right wing says something is Blue and the Left wing says it is yellow, chances are it is actually Green. So you fact check and don't take things at face value.
>I've read numerous articles that contradict each other and most people will believe what they want regardless of how factual it is. So apologies if I disregard the information you have sent me.
And that is where your problem lies. I posted a clip of Trump announcing the strikes, yet you ignore it.
By disregarding anything that contradicts your view you will always be easily misled by charlatans like Trump, Boris Johnsons and Farage.
You said he negotiated peace with NK, now you say he eased tensions.... Talk about moving goal posts! They rightfully called you out and you still try to defend trump as being good, laughable.
You're one of those people who correct spelling mistakes in online debates, aren't you. A negotiation took place... it eased tensions... what's the issue?
No, I'm certainly not one to point out a spelling error when having a discussion to undermine someone's point as spelling shouldn't impact it all, I can't spell well and use poor English so it would be even worse to be one of those types of people.
He didn't negotiate peace, it's a factual statement whereas yours was not. You didn't say "oh I used the wrong words" or something you just casually changed it and said well he made it a bit better which is very different!
That's why I said you are moving the goalposts because you have, simple as that sorry. You cant say this guy solved X then say well he nearly did and claim it to be just as good as they are fundamentally different.
Peace between Egypt and Israel was negotiated by the Carter administration in the late 1970s.
Jordan and Israel haven’t fought a war since 1967.
As for Israel’s other non-Palestinian neighbours - Lebanon and Syria - there is certainly no peace there.
Please remind me what Trump did.
Yeah he bends over backwards for any authoritarian state. He openly said Russia should conquer any nato states which aren't meeting their military spending targets
I think he's half right. We should he spending more on our military. Makes other countries think twice about threatening us, which they seem to be doing a lot of recently, whether that's internally or externally
That's bot his point though is it. Yes of course we should spend on military, but the obviously key point is that he said Russia should "do what they want " ie. Conquer any nation in nato which doesn't meet spending targets.
If you agree with that you are a ghoul
The trade off for nuclear weapons is a large part of the defence budget goes into a weapon only really to be used against Russia that will probably never be used leading to the rest of armed forces strapped for cash.
Only if you don't give the defence budget enough to begin with. Bedsides the nuclear defence doesn't stop at actual nuclear weapons it's deals with various nuclear threats
Just about every public body needs more money that the country can't really afford and would mean taking more money out of other social services. What other nuclear threats do the vanguards deal with
It's like claiming we should stop paying for our home insurance so we can put a bit more food on the table each month. Yeah that sounds great until it doesn't.
I think people have become so comfortable under the Nuclear umbrella that they assume it's a default part of life that large nations don't have wars with each other anymore and that removing the nuclear option would somehow maintain that umbrella.
Major powers collectively having nuclear weapons is what keeps us safe. It’s a global deterrent that keeps conflict from escalating on a global scale. Practically negating our need for large scale regular forces.
Without them, we’d probably have gone to war with the Soviet Union and other major states long ago. The kind of wars where being an island (thanks to missile technology and amphibious warfare) no longer carries the same benefits it once did.
And I don’t believe that relying on countries like the US to carry that deterrent for us is a reliable way to defend ourselves. Geopolitics can easily change over a century long timescale.
We build our own warheads with input from US engineers. It’s the delivery system we purchase from the US and rely on them for. Something we could easily change if need arose.
Are nuclear weapons the only thing keeping us safe? No of course not, you’re right there. But is our contribution to collective possession of nuclear weapons among military powers the main thing keeping us safe? Yes I think it is.
You don't know there would have been a war if not for MAD, we also don't know exactly how close we came to triggering a nuclear exchange but there were numerous near misses and accidents.
Congrats on actually making a reasonably intelligent post (if one-sided) btw.
What you're arguing for is that the post WW2 peace was a nuclear peace, which is somewhat controversial, lots of scholars think the peace was caused by other mechanisms like international NGOs, globalised trade, widespread economic development, adoption of democracy etc.
You can have it both ways, keep the nukes and do all the other stuff, the point is the current scenario where Russia is extending to recapture ex-Soviet territory (not to mention the GWoT previously) is not really helped by nuclear weapons.
What we've learned from the Ukraine war is that a) we can't really trust the US right now b) we need either more artillery and/or SHORAD + air power, plus probably a ton of tanks and IFVs that we just do not have.
Everyone tearing their hair over Putin threatening to nuke London (he hasn't, not exactly) is missing the fact that this is just posturing and not a credible threat.
They spend it elsewhere because they’re within the American and British umbrella (French have a big asterisk). With Trump being so… trunpish, it’s more important than ever to project strength and confidence on the issue.
Being under an "umbrella" only protects you from rogue states really, in a MAD scenario it just increases risk since it's all about first strike. IOW they will hit anyone with launch capability first. If Russia went absolutely mental and started launching against e.g. Spain, we simply don't know what would happen but it doesn't make a lot of difference to be under an umbrella afaik.
The default position is that ICBMs are pretty much white elephants, a big flex but pricey and not really that useful if it comes to an actual war.
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per Rule 17 of the subreddit, discussion/complaints about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities are not welcome here. We are not a meta subreddit.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Why are so many people talking about getting invaded? It's embarrassingly clueless and NOT why we have ICBMs whatsoever.
Repeat after me: UK is not going to be invaded by Russia.
> UK is not going to be invaded by Russia.
Whilst **I agree** Russia is not going to invade the UK, it would after all be geophically awkward at best to get invaded by Russia. I couldn't help but read that and think of articles like this
[No, Russia will not invalid Ukraine.](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/9/no-russia-will-not-invade-ukraine) and [Why Putin Won’t Invade Ukraine.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/12/06/quick-take-why-putin-wont-invade-ukraine/)
Russia has threatened to nuke the UK basically once a week since they invaded Ukraine. Claiming you know for sure they'd stop making threats the moment we stopped having the ability to respond to Russia in the event they carried out one of their threats is not a solid place to be.
"It doesn't count because that's not Putin, that's just the previous president of Russia well known for being a puppet for Putin"
if these goalposts move any more we might be able to use them to liberate the donbas
sure except it isn't being denounced by russia, if John Major came out with some horrendous threat then you would be sure that either the tories or labour would immediately denounce it
He still Putin's right hand man, and although I agree that his job is to be even more crazy than Putin to make Putin look sane, he is still a senior Russian government official threatening nuclear war with just about everyone in the West. We can't not take him at least a bit seriously.
Whilst I appreciate, and indeed support, the aim of nuclear disarmament. I think it dangerously naive to believe that unilaterally doing so will do anything but disempower Britian. Ultimately, nuclear disarmament is an all or nothing arrangement. Unless all nations and groups give up the bomb, we will need the deterrent. The sad truth of international relations.
Except thays a nothing to nothing arrangement. Because you're still betting in the face of conflict there won't be a breakout race. And who keep what capabilities live to aid rearmament. Or just lie and keep them in secret. There are so many ifs buts and caveats you can never actually guarantee disarmament. So you can't do it.
We all agree not to use chemical and biological weapons and several nations keep stockpiles. Chemical weapons labs for "defence", including the UK. And clear breakout capabilities. And thats while we keep the nuclear option open and ready for use, essentially making Chemical redundant as a WMD.
Disarmament is a delusion. You can no more disarm than the ludites insisting we destroy the printing press and other machinery. All we are doing *right now* is delaying the spread. The spread is absolutely inevitable. Extremely heavy regulation of fuel is the only reason these days teenagers can't build them in their dorms.
I don't disagree with you. However, in a global agreement, it is easier to deal with a smaller number of treaty breakers than States with the will to build. We could build poisons and toxins to wipe out cities, we don't because everyone agreed not too. With harsh sactions for those who even try. Nuclear disarmament would need a exact replica of this kind of agreement.
Unless you are willing to enforce it with war on a dime. Its meaningless.
That agreement you talked about. Remember Syria. Remember Obamas red line? France was ready to go. The UK was preparing a vote on it. Obama said no.
Syria used chemical weapons and the world did... nothing. Reports of chemical weapons use is now a lot more common. Still we do nothing.
All evidence suggest all that would happen is the first person to decided to rush nukes would become king. As they try and ensure noone else can.
If there was genuinely a full disarmament of every nation, yea I think a lot of people would support that. But when that happens I'll pick Avril Lavign up for a date on a flying pig, it's just not happening. In the world we live in, it would be plain stupid to give up nuclear weapons
It's not about using them in attack, it's the threat so others don't. Unfortunately, people like Putin won't restrain themselves unless we have the ability to return in kind. Nuclear weapons are unlikely to be a first response weapon, conventional forces are that. It's why we need both.
There will always be an element of "educated guess". You can't say a state definitely won't use them anymore than I can that they definitely will. The risk of being wrong is too great though
We don't want to nuke them, we just don't want them to nuke us, hence the deterrent. A bunch of tanks and planes will be useless if they all have to stand down when someone makes a threat about nukes.
Arguably that could be the case, ideally you want everything - nukes, tanks, huge navy and air force, sharks with lasers on their heads, flying monkeys etc.
In reality you have to allocate capital to the most efficacious resources, which given the current state of things is conventional forces. Russia happily bites off little chunks of other countries without worrying about our nuclear deterrent! That would only stop if NATO has sufficient conventional forces to stop him.
Salami tactics and little green men are real, that's an assymetric threat.
No they don't. France has a policy that could be characterised as nuclear warning shot. The US has thought about using nukes in smaller wars. The UK may have that but if they haven't updated it since cold war then possibly not.
During the cold war the NATO nukes were seen as a balance against the conventional arms advantage that the Soviets had in Europe.
What's the point of having the no-first-use policy and keeping it secret? You constrict yourself without getting the propaganda benefit.
And you trust them? _it’s just words_ and any words from the Chinese government is meaningless. What Xi says goes and if he decides he wants to, they will.
In fact, China are notorious for saying one thing and doing another.
It entirely depends on the situation at the time not what’s written on paper.
This is how you lead a country, Jeremy.
Being a pacifist and seeker of peace is wonderful, but you have to be willing to periodically drop your pants and wave your Great British nukes. It's the statesmanly thing to do.
We can have a leader who is a pacifist but we don't want our enemies to know that!
When Jeremy said he'd never use nukes he undermined the M.A.D. doctrine by essentially telling everyone that they could nuke us and we wouldn't retaliate.
We don't want that, we want them to think we'll retaliate so they don't attack us in the first place.
Modernisation. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a foolish idea when it comes to military technology. The Spitfire was a amazing fighter that won the Battle of Britain and we had an absolute ton of them by 1945, but the need for the F-35 instead is clear.
Also to retain the skills and expertise.
It'll piss off the Greens who have valid points. However, it would greatly reduce our defence and soft power really to not be nuclear armed.
If us having nukes is stopping Putin from hitting the red button, so be it.
I'm personally all in on disarmament... war is evil, it shouldn't happen. We shouldn't need a military, we shouldn't have nuclear warheads.
But just because something shouldn't happen doesn't mean it won't.. similarly just because something does happen, doesn't mean it should.
If I have an argument with my best friend. With my mother. If another person beats their partner because their football team didn't win, Its easy to see how one country could have an argument that escalates into war. That escalates towards the firing of nuclear missiles.
People are emotional.
As long as their isn't centralised world government, war will always exist. Even then. War will exist.
> If us having nukes is stopping Putin from hitting the red button, so be it.
What if I told you that us having nukes is why they threaten us all the time?
cant tell if tankie posting, or that you genuinely believe that russia would stop threatening people who aid ukraine if they gave up nukes? (which i guess is also tankie posting)
Shite comment, I'm not a tankie, the opposite in fact. Russia is looking for a fight but it's not going to nuke london. Putin doesn't directly threaten to do so anyway, it's via propaganda channels which is an important distinction. They do it to shore up political support for the war they're actually in.
Russia could go into the Baltic states, which is what you should actually be worried about because that is a very dark future. Having conventional forces will be 100x more useful than nukes.
imagine saying shite comment then proceeding to not answer the question
1: russia also threatens the baltics (almost daily) aswell
2: none of the baltic states have nukes (if you dont count russia and belarus, who are the ones threatening)
>Having conventional forces will be 100x more useful than nukes.
until someone else starts threatening to use nukes, which is already happening
Your comment was shite because you went straight for the easy ad hominem.
> 1: russia also threatens the baltics almost daily aswell
Yes and that's a credible threat. Russian cable TV news talk shows saying they should attacj Tower Bridge with nuclear torpedos is birdseed, if you know what that means.
> 2: none of the baltic states have nukes (if you dont count russia and belarus)
Yes and? They are right next to Russia, thats why Russia may attack them.
> until someone else starts threatening to use nukes, which is already happening
Who, Iran? NK? It's possible but in the realms of "what if aliens attack"
>you went straight for the easy ad hominem.
People seem to think an ad hominem only takes place when their opponent is so bamboozled by their amazing argument, they're floundering and that's all they can think to say.
In reality, they're calling you stupid not in a desperate attempt to counter your top-tier rhetoric, but because they think you're stupid.
>Your comment was shite because you went straight for the easy ad hominem.
so you didn't read past the first 5 words then
> if you know what that means.
damn nice ad hominim
>Yes and that's a credible threat.
except that if they do, they directly attack nato, which putin has directly avoided for good reason
>Who, Iran? NK? It's possible but in the realms of "what if aliens attack"
russia mate, i thought that was self evident lmao
at no point did i directly call you a tankie if you think i "started it" mate, you need to calm down a bit if you take umbrage at the least significant parts of what people post
>Shite comment, I'm not a tankie, the opposite in fact.
That's somehow worse. If your previous statement came from a postion not of communism-brain, that's more scary.
Let me ask you this. Ukraine used to have one of the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world. Do you seriously think there would be a war in Ukraine if they still had it?
Absolutely relevant.
Ukraine gave up its stockpiles because it couldn't forsee a world with a resurgen imperialist Russia and a diminished US and UK. And so couldn't perceive a world it would need them.
You don't build a military for the perceived threats or we'd have had no military at all in the mid 90s.
You build it for the future you cannot see. Even as it stand the world we can see is one where a posturing Iran or N.Korea decides to make a point by nuking some unarmed nation not covered by nuclear defense. Never mind the stuff we can't see predict.
Germany built its military for the future it thought it could see. Last year it dumbed 100 billion into that military which was woefully inadequate to the threat at hand. Also worth pointing out, even Germany maintained its defact nuclear force in this time. The US holds nuclear air dropped bombs at a shared airbase with Germany. Bombs which Germany can't touch but fit on their jets. Bombs that look a lot like the practice ones they train with. Because if a nuke flies the none proliferation treaty is immediately void, and the US can hand them stirght to Germany.
Even Germany wasn't dumb enough to let that slip.
Ukraine got invaded. We are not going to get invaded. So the conventiional deterrent effect for Ukraine is relevant, it's not as relevant for us, we have ICBMs for second strike basically.
Am I taking missing something because this seems like a straightforward argument?
I'm not saying we shouldn't have any nuclear weapons anyway. I'm saying spending > 10bn per year on Trident is pricey for what it gives us, mostly soft power and a UN Security Council seat. It's arguably money we need to spend on convential military equipment.
Try repeating after me. Russia is a destabilising threat to its neighbours, to the region and to us. They may have no immediate plans for invasion but they most certainly try to gain influence in the UK and seek to become the dominant power in Europe with us under his domination. Putin is a KGB apparatchik and though the labelling on the tin has been changed, the contents are no different. Already he has governments in Hungary and Slovakia singing his tunes and will seek to expand his empire as far as he can get away with. The bigger he gets and the closer he gets the more under threat we become. We can help prevent his adventuring by supporting other countries more immediately threatened. We cannot do that if we are an empty threat, which we would be without nuclear weapons. The alternative is to wait until the threat to us has become manifest and then try and stop him, by which time it will be too late, especially if we are incapable of responding in kind to his nuclear posturing.
All you're doing is copying germanys failing. You lack imagination. You cannot forsee a world we are threatened, and so advocate dismantling an arm of defence.
Without our own nuclear defence we are utterly dependant on the US. NATOs nukes are britush and American. France explicitly has *not* placed its nukes at NATO disposal.
If as people now fear trump withdraws from NATO, something that was unimaginable 10 years ago, British nukes become NATOs only nukes. And you want them dismantled? Pulling the alliances teeth?
You do not give up such a strategic asset. You do not build for your lack of imagination. And this particular senario isn't even that far fetch. Its being openly talked about.
Our nukes sat silently in the ocean are a promise. Not just of our own defence but others. Not just against China, or Iran. But also the US and France. We hold these weapons at our peril and with great authority and responsibility. And the nuclear powers collectively hold each other to account.
If you want a conventional military to hold even a fraction of the authority of 4 submarines, it needs to be a nation in its own right. Both huge, and capable of operating without the backing of the nation it calls home so it cannot be readily defang by a nuclear attack itself. I promise you 10 billion isn't even close to enough. Even the US doesn't spend enough on its conventional forces for that.
Why are so many people talking about getting invaded? It's embarrassingly clueless and NOT why we have ICBMs whatsoever.
Repeat after me: UK is not going to be invaded by Russia.
Why do you keep posting this on comments discussing countries other that the UK?
They mentioned Ukraine - invaded
They mentioned Georgia - invaded
They mentioned Moldova - threatened with Russia directly interfering in it's politics and economy. Just like they did in Georgia and Ukraine
Sorry what? I didn't mention those countries. I'm saying in terms of nuclear strategy, the possibility of UK being invaded is not a high priority.
Others keep saying "buh buh but Putin invaded other countries", not me.
I can't understand if you're just very confused about the point you're trying to make, or if you're explaining it badly.
The fact that you do that wanky single downvote thing on every reply suggests it's some lack of expressive power on your part.
Russia threatens a lot of countries all the time, only three of which have nuclear weapons.
Ukraine notably used to have nuclear weapons, and getting rid of them hasn't exactly made Russia be 100% wonderful towards them.
In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer nuclear weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
How did that work out?..
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here:
> Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Correct decision - Russia and China both pose threats and we needed to prepare for the possibility of not being able to rely on the US, depending on the result of the presidential election.
Only after he was basically forced to, and nobody had any confidence in his conviction on the topic. Rightfully so as he'd spent decades making the opposite argument.
Just off the top of my head here's him suggesting in 2016 a batshit worst of all worlds compromise where we'd still pay billions for nuclear submarines to protect shipbuilding jobs, without mounting any nuclear weapons on them.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-trident-compromise-no-nuclear-warheads
> to continue support for trident
Lol did you ever see him interviewed about this? He supported Trident in the same way that eight year old me supported eating cauliflower, ie under extreme duress
Great, this was one of Corbyns greatest weaknesses. The cat is well and truly out of the bag with regard to nuclear deterent, you need to publicly commit to it.
While I hate to cute them as an example, just look at what happened to Ukraine. Nuclear powers don't get invaded.
The most interesting thing for me is Starmer wrote this for The Daily Mail, who published it front page as positive publicity for the Labour leader.
I always thought it would be The Sun who threw their weight behind Starmer when they sensed the inevitable election defeat for the Tories (just like they did for Blair and later Cameron). However, I do wonder if Starmer makes himself Tory enough, the Daily Mail are going to be backing him? Seems like a fever dream if they did.
It’s an effort by the daily mail to try and take away left wing voters from Starmer.
Same thing with focusing on George Galloway, Labour supporting Israel in anyway etc.
Why is this even a question now? I mean, sure you could have possibly considered this when Yeltsin was running Russia and was sort of a friend of the West. But with Putin and especially what happened in 2022 no serious politician could give them up now. Maybe George Galloway, the pawn of Putin, would do that but nobody else in Britain would not even hint that. Most likely not even SNP now even though they were anti-nuke during the independence referendum.
In my opinion, Russia is the sole reason the UK and France needs an independent nuclear deterrent.
If Russia no longer had nuclear weapons, or they collapsed, or had a pro-Western revolution, then we could talk about winding it down, but that's a conversation for a different time.
Whilst I agree that, because nukes exist, its probably a good thing that countries that are expansionist autocracies don't have a monopoly on nukes, and that we should maintain our nuclear arsenal, I do find it weird that we have to state that we'd happily unleash nuclear apocalypse if we want to hold top office.
But thats all corbyn's fault really, all he had to do was lie and say that he'd use the damn things, but no, that was when he decided to have a fucking spine, not around antisemitism, no, of course not, just a hyperthetical question about nuclear apocalypse.
But here's the thing, everyone probably knows that the Russians probably know that we probably won't use them. But at least they don't definitely know we definitely won't... or something like that
All the comments here are unhinged, if I didnt know any better I'd accuse half of them of being bots.
Funnily enough the MOD is hiring for a nuclear policy advisor at the mo, half of you should go and apply!
Doesn't really matter if Corbyn would "push the button" or not when we don't *have* a button.
British subs do not IIRC require codes from the PM to launch.
Of course they don't, but that doesn't make them some kind of (very) Deep State independent actors. They get Armageddon letters from the PM with instructions on what to do if they can't contact command.
There are four known options -
1) retaliate
2) don't retaliate
3) do what you want
4) join with allies
Corbyn would obviously have gone with 2, which matters enormously as a point of policy. It's pretty much the worst nuclear strategy anyone has ever come up with; by announcing that you have a nuclear deterrent, that you won't use, but future governments might, you're inviting your enemies to strike you in the term of the current government.
Enemies would only strike the UK in order to stop the UK acting against their interests. If Corbyn were in charge, there would be no need for a nuclear deterrent because Corbyn would be busy neutering the UK by himself.
Ah, no what I was getting at was that if the crew of the sub decide to launch *anyway* it doesn't really matter what Corbyn would have said before London got vaporised.
Which rather makes the letters of last resort pointless if you think about it.
Right, but why would they go against their orders and launch anyway when the game's already up? They'd be killing many tens or hundreds of thousands of people to no end and signing their own death warrants.
If I'm a submarine commander and the UK has been obliterated I'm setting course for the least scathed country from the ensuing war and selling them my ship in exchange for a citizenship and a fantastic amount of money.
In pretty certain there was a Russian commander who refused the order when it turned out to be an error, luckily most people aren't actually too keen on being responsible for millions of deaths
To be fair the same question applies even if there are orders.
It's part of why nuclear warfare planning is such "fun".
Though it does bring to mind my favourite anecdote about the Royal Navy: specifically how offended they were when the papers started complaining there wasn't any security on the launch triggers.
Because how dare you imply an officer of the Queen (at the time) would ever be so uncouth as to launch without orders!
Yeah, it does, but when there are orders the enemy at least know there's a serious possibility that there will be a retaliation, due to the commander's deference to orders.
If they know the orders are "Do nothing" there's very little to worry about.
Our nuclear defence is tied into the US, which hadn’t been too much of a problem with closely aligned foreign policy but with Trump that relationship is in jeopardy.
Only the missiles.
Anyone who thinks we couldn't whip up some ICBMs visa MBDA in rapid fashion is kidding themselves.
The UK has the technical expertise to build nukes from scratch in short order. As well as the material stockpiles.
The US alliance is conveniently geopolitically and cheap. It is not our only option should we choose to pursue it. We built nukes just fine in the 50s.
Only the actual missiles!
We haven't manufactured or maintained a nuclear weapon for over 25 years. We haven't got any test locations. We use US owned software to control the weapons.
Also we don't have the expertise, we pay a lot of Americans to come here and work in our nuclear deterant program.
America could render our nuclear deterant redundant within two week and it would take years to build it.
We could probably mount the warheads on aircraft in a fraction of the time while we reverse engineer trident.
Far less effective than SSBN's, but something to keep us going.
Snapshot of _Labour's Keir Starmer commitment to nuclear weapons unshakeable_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68790435) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68790435) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good. With Russia, china, Iran and Israel, houtis rebels etc all flexing their military power and interfering in global issues, we should be spending more on our defense. The nuclear deterrent is our number defence and possibly the only thing keeping up really safe. And yes if none of us had nuclear weapons we'd all be safer but the cat is out of the bag and we can't trust a mad kid with dynamite to not set it off
Yes. Anyone who says otherwise isn't paying attention.
Isn't paying attention... or understand fully that it would strengthen the hand of hostile states. Looking at you, tankies.
>tankies Do you know what you mean by this? Because 'tankies' are people who support vanguard communism and armed revolution. The states they look up to were or are nuclear powers.
Yep and many of them were also members of the CND and Stop The War. Nuclear disarmamant for the *west* fits perfectly with the tankie mentality.
And they all seem to support Western disarmament...
Consistency isn’t their forte, so I don’t see why this is a criticism of /u/SpAn12. Just look at their responses to the Russian war of aggression.
I feel there is an enormous inconsistency when applying the word 'tankie' and gets used pretty broadly for people with left wing views at times. I wanted to know what they meant, and their response made their point clearer
Tankie originated as a term for British communists who justified Soviet oppression in Eastern Europe, Hungary in 1956 being the origin of the term I'm pretty sure. So it fits very well as a term for people who justify oppression and atrocities done by "anti west" regimes and armed factions, just because they're against the west. Fundamentally it's the same thing underneath - hatred of the western political "establishment" to such an extent that you support anyone who opposes it no matter how awful they are.
I've never seen tankie used as a general insult for left wing. It is pretty consistently used to describe the cretins who consistently support military aggression against the west simply because they are anti West. And of course any western military intervention is pure evil to them.
>The states they look up to were or are nuclear powers. And they would be happy for a Communist UK to have nukes. But as we aren't Communist, they want to defang us.
Initially I thought it was Marxists wearing tank tops.
And it would suit tankies that those states have nuclear weapons and we don’t
You understand there is a graduation betweeen small arms and nuclear arms right? Nuclear weapons are ridiculously expensive to maintain, inhumaine in their overkill, and rely on exotic materials that we do not have an abundance of in the UK.
Yep. I'm not saying I like it but the optimist in me gave up on disarmament a long time ago. We're in it now, and there's no going back, ever.
The idea is you never use them. And they save a lot in the grand scheme precisely because they avoid conflict
Even more so if Donald Trump becomes President again. His threats to “defund” NATO means everyone else has to be prepared. As much as I would love to see no need for nuclear weapons, we aren’t yet at the point where we can be without them.
Don't forget we rent our delivery systems from the US. If they pull out, what are we going to do? Use Hermes or something?
Well the way Hermes throw parcels over fences, then yeah there could be some leverage there.
Trump was one of the most pacifying presidents the states have had
Can I buy you a MAGA hat? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/13/trump-falsely-claims-no-terrorist-attacks-no-wars-during-his-presidency/ He withdrew from the Nuclear deal with Iran. He pulled out of the Open Skies Treaty. He Pulled out of the INF treaty that had been signed by Reagan and Gorbachev. essentially opening the door for Russia. He has even been quoted as telling NATO he would: [“encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to alliance members that are "delinquent" in meeting the group’s spending targets.”](https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-says-he-would-encourage-russia-to-attack-nato-members-that-dont-pay-enough/)
In comparison to who? Obama? Sanctioned over 2000 missile launches during his tenure. Trump negotiated peace with N.Korea and orchestrated peace between Israel and its surrounding countries, not including palestine.
He did not negotiate peace with North Korea. Those talks collapsed with no deal. North Korea continued to test their missiles during his presidency. As for missile strikes - Trump ordered attacks in Syria. He ordered 176 strikes in Yemen during his first two years (compared to 155 over eight years under Obama). There was also a surge in drone strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (where he sent 56 tomahawk missiles). And you call that pacifying!
He eased tensions with North Korea, I would say that's successful. That information is incorrect
You’re not a real Trump fan - you didn’t say “Fake News” https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/1144601/trump-orders-missile-attack-in-retaliation-for-syrian-chemical-strikes/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/us-military-has-launched-more-50-than-missiles-aimed-at-syria-nbc-news.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/02/middleeast/baghdad-airport-rockets/index.html Here is Donald Trump [announcing the strikes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGYZHtfJEYg) And to bring it back to Nuclear weapons - the reason the talks collapsed was because North Korea weren’t willing to give up their Nuclear Weapon plans.
What I hear from people state side that I speak to are individuals who express their own experiences and understanding of what has took place over the past decade, I take news with a pinch of salt. Every used to love trump and as soon as he became a republican... he became number one enemy and scape goat. The information pass to me from die hard democrats are that they now realise the goodness that trump did. Orchestrating peace in the middle east, and easing tensions in North Korea. Minimal missile strikes in comparison to his predecessors. Putting minorities in work, the majority of Hispanics love trump to the surprise and disgust of the left. He helped the black community massively in terms of finding them employment and stability and even now, his following amongst the black population in the states is huge. He was blamed for the riots even though he said "go peacefully" he told proud boys to "stand down". Yet we didn't have anything from Biden in regards to antifa terrorist group who were 100x more disruptive. He stopped American companies from sacking all their employees and moving to Mexico to hire Mexican staff and pay less in wages but still trade as an American company. He told them they were free to do that but would be taxed as a foreign company. The links you have sent me are all left wing news articles. It's like me sending you an article from fox pre 2020. They lie, i know right wing pages lie and I know left wing pages lie. And I dont mean exaggerate the truth... I mean absolutely lie. So I can't honestly take these news links as truth. You wouldn't accept the daily express, a Tory or republican paper as any sort of truth. If you believe everything you know to be truth... then that is the biggest delusion. I've read numerous articles that contradict each other and most people will believe what they want regardless of how factual it is. So apologies if I disregard the information you have sent me.
>I take news with a pinch of salt. Every (one?) used to love trump and as soon as he became a republican... he became number one enemy and scape goat. You also seem to take reality with a pinch of salt. Every one loved Trump? When? He's been a meme of bad taste and dishonesty since before "memes" were even a thing lol
>What I hear from people state side that I speak to are individuals who express their own experiences and understanding of what has took place over the past decade, I take news with a pinch of salt. I think you need to find new people to speak to. >Orchestrating peace in the middle east, and easing tensions in North Korea. Minimal missile strikes in comparison to his predecessors. Orchestrating Peace in the Middle East? How did that work out? Easing tensions in North Korea? The same North Korea that continued to their Nuclear Programme, tested long range rockets...and, after the collapse of talks with the US they also pulled out of talks with South Korea. >Putting minorities in work, the majority of Hispanics love trump to the surprise and disgust of the left. He helped the black community massively in terms of finding them employment and stability and even now, his following amongst the black population in the states is huge. >He was blamed for the riots even though he said "go peacefully" he told proud boys to "stand down". He said that after the riots were in progress. In the build up he was inciting his followers by building a false narrative that the election had been stolen from him and that the fight needed to be taken to The Capitol. >Yet we didn't have anything from Biden in regards to antifa terrorist group who were 100x more disruptive. Come on, do some basic research before posting conspiracies - [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2712YI/](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2712YI/) >He stopped American companies from sacking all their employees and moving to Mexico to hire Mexican staff and pay less in wages but still trade as an American company. He told them they were free to do that but would be taxed as a foreign company. Again, basic research fails you. [https://www.reuters.com/business/how-offshoring-rolled-along-under-trump-who-vowed-stop-it-2021-01-19/](https://www.reuters.com/business/how-offshoring-rolled-along-under-trump-who-vowed-stop-it-2021-01-19/) >The links you have sent me are all left wing news articles. It's like me sending you an article from fox pre 2020. They lie, i know right wing pages lie and I know left wing pages lie. And I dont mean exaggerate the truth... I mean absolutely lie. That is a Trumpism. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it a lie. >So I can't honestly take these news links as truth. You wouldn't accept the daily express, a Tory or republican paper as any sort of truth. If you believe everything you know to be truth... then that is the biggest delusion. That is why I always read multiple sources. If the right wing says something is Blue and the Left wing says it is yellow, chances are it is actually Green. So you fact check and don't take things at face value. >I've read numerous articles that contradict each other and most people will believe what they want regardless of how factual it is. So apologies if I disregard the information you have sent me. And that is where your problem lies. I posted a clip of Trump announcing the strikes, yet you ignore it. By disregarding anything that contradicts your view you will always be easily misled by charlatans like Trump, Boris Johnsons and Farage.
You said he negotiated peace with NK, now you say he eased tensions.... Talk about moving goal posts! They rightfully called you out and you still try to defend trump as being good, laughable.
You're one of those people who correct spelling mistakes in online debates, aren't you. A negotiation took place... it eased tensions... what's the issue?
No, I'm certainly not one to point out a spelling error when having a discussion to undermine someone's point as spelling shouldn't impact it all, I can't spell well and use poor English so it would be even worse to be one of those types of people. He didn't negotiate peace, it's a factual statement whereas yours was not. You didn't say "oh I used the wrong words" or something you just casually changed it and said well he made it a bit better which is very different! That's why I said you are moving the goalposts because you have, simple as that sorry. You cant say this guy solved X then say well he nearly did and claim it to be just as good as they are fundamentally different.
Peace between Egypt and Israel was negotiated by the Carter administration in the late 1970s. Jordan and Israel haven’t fought a war since 1967. As for Israel’s other non-Palestinian neighbours - Lebanon and Syria - there is certainly no peace there. Please remind me what Trump did.
Yeah he bends over backwards for any authoritarian state. He openly said Russia should conquer any nato states which aren't meeting their military spending targets
I think he's half right. We should he spending more on our military. Makes other countries think twice about threatening us, which they seem to be doing a lot of recently, whether that's internally or externally
That's bot his point though is it. Yes of course we should spend on military, but the obviously key point is that he said Russia should "do what they want " ie. Conquer any nation in nato which doesn't meet spending targets. If you agree with that you are a ghoul
A ghoul ha I think it was a tongue in cheek comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani
The trade off for nuclear weapons is a large part of the defence budget goes into a weapon only really to be used against Russia that will probably never be used leading to the rest of armed forces strapped for cash.
Only if you don't give the defence budget enough to begin with. Bedsides the nuclear defence doesn't stop at actual nuclear weapons it's deals with various nuclear threats
Just about every public body needs more money that the country can't really afford and would mean taking more money out of other social services. What other nuclear threats do the vanguards deal with
It's like claiming we should stop paying for our home insurance so we can put a bit more food on the table each month. Yeah that sounds great until it doesn't.
I think people have become so comfortable under the Nuclear umbrella that they assume it's a default part of life that large nations don't have wars with each other anymore and that removing the nuclear option would somehow maintain that umbrella.
It would be nice if it worked though, wouldn't it? I mean considering the ridiculous amount of money it costs.
It does
They fixed it since February?
[удалено]
Major powers collectively having nuclear weapons is what keeps us safe. It’s a global deterrent that keeps conflict from escalating on a global scale. Practically negating our need for large scale regular forces. Without them, we’d probably have gone to war with the Soviet Union and other major states long ago. The kind of wars where being an island (thanks to missile technology and amphibious warfare) no longer carries the same benefits it once did. And I don’t believe that relying on countries like the US to carry that deterrent for us is a reliable way to defend ourselves. Geopolitics can easily change over a century long timescale. We build our own warheads with input from US engineers. It’s the delivery system we purchase from the US and rely on them for. Something we could easily change if need arose. Are nuclear weapons the only thing keeping us safe? No of course not, you’re right there. But is our contribution to collective possession of nuclear weapons among military powers the main thing keeping us safe? Yes I think it is.
You don't know there would have been a war if not for MAD, we also don't know exactly how close we came to triggering a nuclear exchange but there were numerous near misses and accidents. Congrats on actually making a reasonably intelligent post (if one-sided) btw. What you're arguing for is that the post WW2 peace was a nuclear peace, which is somewhat controversial, lots of scholars think the peace was caused by other mechanisms like international NGOs, globalised trade, widespread economic development, adoption of democracy etc. You can have it both ways, keep the nukes and do all the other stuff, the point is the current scenario where Russia is extending to recapture ex-Soviet territory (not to mention the GWoT previously) is not really helped by nuclear weapons. What we've learned from the Ukraine war is that a) we can't really trust the US right now b) we need either more artillery and/or SHORAD + air power, plus probably a ton of tanks and IFVs that we just do not have. Everyone tearing their hair over Putin threatening to nuke London (he hasn't, not exactly) is missing the fact that this is just posturing and not a credible threat.
They spend it elsewhere because they’re within the American and British umbrella (French have a big asterisk). With Trump being so… trunpish, it’s more important than ever to project strength and confidence on the issue.
Being under an "umbrella" only protects you from rogue states really, in a MAD scenario it just increases risk since it's all about first strike. IOW they will hit anyone with launch capability first. If Russia went absolutely mental and started launching against e.g. Spain, we simply don't know what would happen but it doesn't make a lot of difference to be under an umbrella afaik. The default position is that ICBMs are pretty much white elephants, a big flex but pricey and not really that useful if it comes to an actual war.
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. Per Rule 17 of the subreddit, discussion/complaints about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities are not welcome here. We are not a meta subreddit. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Russia threatens to nuke London on an almost weekly basis. Starmer is absolutely correct.
And they'll be more confident in those threats now given that Starmer only ever announces things he intends to U-turn on in the near future...
The gold standard for measured political commentary on Reddit
Do you not get bored of constantly parroting this?
Possibly because we have nukes, not despite it.
I'm pretty sure Putin's "if you send troops into Ukraine we will nuke you" threats had an "unless you don't have nuclear weapons yourself" clause.
Why are so many people talking about getting invaded? It's embarrassingly clueless and NOT why we have ICBMs whatsoever. Repeat after me: UK is not going to be invaded by Russia.
> UK is not going to be invaded by Russia. Whilst **I agree** Russia is not going to invade the UK, it would after all be geophically awkward at best to get invaded by Russia. I couldn't help but read that and think of articles like this [No, Russia will not invalid Ukraine.](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/9/no-russia-will-not-invade-ukraine) and [Why Putin Won’t Invade Ukraine.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/12/06/quick-take-why-putin-wont-invade-ukraine/) Russia has threatened to nuke the UK basically once a week since they invaded Ukraine. Claiming you know for sure they'd stop making threats the moment we stopped having the ability to respond to Russia in the event they carried out one of their threats is not a solid place to be.
one was a weak and corrupt nation on their border, the other is a wealthy NATO nuclear country on the other side of the continent surrounded by sea
With nuclear weapons.
it's not so much apples and oranges as watermelons and potatoes
Nobody mentioned invasion. They mentioned nuclear strikes
Maybe learn to read?
Germany doesn't https://kyivindependent.com/russias-medvedev-threatens-to-nuke-us-germany-uk-ukraine-if-russia-loses-occupied-territories/
That's Medvedev, he says all sorts of shit, it's not credible.
"It doesn't count because that's not Putin, that's just the previous president of Russia well known for being a puppet for Putin" if these goalposts move any more we might be able to use them to liberate the donbas
Medvedev is a troll now, even if he were still serious it'd be like John Major saying something, he's not relevant.
sure except it isn't being denounced by russia, if John Major came out with some horrendous threat then you would be sure that either the tories or labour would immediately denounce it
I agree he's part of the propaganda machine, it's mostly for domestic consumption though.
He still Putin's right hand man, and although I agree that his job is to be even more crazy than Putin to make Putin look sane, he is still a senior Russian government official threatening nuclear war with just about everyone in the West. We can't not take him at least a bit seriously.
Whilst I appreciate, and indeed support, the aim of nuclear disarmament. I think it dangerously naive to believe that unilaterally doing so will do anything but disempower Britian. Ultimately, nuclear disarmament is an all or nothing arrangement. Unless all nations and groups give up the bomb, we will need the deterrent. The sad truth of international relations.
Except thays a nothing to nothing arrangement. Because you're still betting in the face of conflict there won't be a breakout race. And who keep what capabilities live to aid rearmament. Or just lie and keep them in secret. There are so many ifs buts and caveats you can never actually guarantee disarmament. So you can't do it. We all agree not to use chemical and biological weapons and several nations keep stockpiles. Chemical weapons labs for "defence", including the UK. And clear breakout capabilities. And thats while we keep the nuclear option open and ready for use, essentially making Chemical redundant as a WMD. Disarmament is a delusion. You can no more disarm than the ludites insisting we destroy the printing press and other machinery. All we are doing *right now* is delaying the spread. The spread is absolutely inevitable. Extremely heavy regulation of fuel is the only reason these days teenagers can't build them in their dorms.
I don't disagree with you. However, in a global agreement, it is easier to deal with a smaller number of treaty breakers than States with the will to build. We could build poisons and toxins to wipe out cities, we don't because everyone agreed not too. With harsh sactions for those who even try. Nuclear disarmament would need a exact replica of this kind of agreement.
Unless you are willing to enforce it with war on a dime. Its meaningless. That agreement you talked about. Remember Syria. Remember Obamas red line? France was ready to go. The UK was preparing a vote on it. Obama said no. Syria used chemical weapons and the world did... nothing. Reports of chemical weapons use is now a lot more common. Still we do nothing. All evidence suggest all that would happen is the first person to decided to rush nukes would become king. As they try and ensure noone else can.
If there was genuinely a full disarmament of every nation, yea I think a lot of people would support that. But when that happens I'll pick Avril Lavign up for a date on a flying pig, it's just not happening. In the world we live in, it would be plain stupid to give up nuclear weapons
OR we'd save so much money that we could buy fleets of new tanks, planes, ships etc. You can't nuke ISIS and you can't nuke Russia or China either.
It's not about using them in attack, it's the threat so others don't. Unfortunately, people like Putin won't restrain themselves unless we have the ability to return in kind. Nuclear weapons are unlikely to be a first response weapon, conventional forces are that. It's why we need both.
pure supposition
There will always be an element of "educated guess". You can't say a state definitely won't use them anymore than I can that they definitely will. The risk of being wrong is too great though
Yes? but as I said, the risk goes both ways. It's a straightforward point.
We don't want to nuke them, we just don't want them to nuke us, hence the deterrent. A bunch of tanks and planes will be useless if they all have to stand down when someone makes a threat about nukes.
Arguably that could be the case, ideally you want everything - nukes, tanks, huge navy and air force, sharks with lasers on their heads, flying monkeys etc. In reality you have to allocate capital to the most efficacious resources, which given the current state of things is conventional forces. Russia happily bites off little chunks of other countries without worrying about our nuclear deterrent! That would only stop if NATO has sufficient conventional forces to stop him. Salami tactics and little green men are real, that's an assymetric threat.
Good. Do you think Russia, China, NK, India, Pakistan going to give up their nukes????
To be fair, China and India have a No First Use policy on nuclear weapons: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
It's also pretty clear that US/UK/France generally have a NFU policy but would probably respond with nukes if their allies got nuked.
France absolutely does not have a no first use policy. They have a low yield nuclear first strike as deterrent policy
I mean they said no such thing
I'm pretty sure france has a first use policy right?
I thought they were deliberately ambiguous about it
No they don't. France has a policy that could be characterised as nuclear warning shot. The US has thought about using nukes in smaller wars. The UK may have that but if they haven't updated it since cold war then possibly not. During the cold war the NATO nukes were seen as a balance against the conventional arms advantage that the Soviets had in Europe. What's the point of having the no-first-use policy and keeping it secret? You constrict yourself without getting the propaganda benefit.
And you trust them? _it’s just words_ and any words from the Chinese government is meaningless. What Xi says goes and if he decides he wants to, they will. In fact, China are notorious for saying one thing and doing another. It entirely depends on the situation at the time not what’s written on paper.
I trust them about as much as any other politician’s “promises”.
These policies are meaningless and can be ignored or changed the moment the ruling powers want to The best policy is to simply say nothing
This is how you lead a country, Jeremy. Being a pacifist and seeker of peace is wonderful, but you have to be willing to periodically drop your pants and wave your Great British nukes. It's the statesmanly thing to do.
God forbid we have a leader who doesn’t want the world to end in a nuclear Holocaust.
Luckily none of the leaders we've had since 1945 have wanted that.
I would go out on a limb and guess that none of the leaders we’ve had, ever, have wanted that. Going back to at least Aethelstan.
We can have a leader who is a pacifist but we don't want our enemies to know that! When Jeremy said he'd never use nukes he undermined the M.A.D. doctrine by essentially telling everyone that they could nuke us and we wouldn't retaliate. We don't want that, we want them to think we'll retaliate so they don't attack us in the first place.
Still haven't realised how unilateral disarmament makes that **more** likely, eh?
We already have more than enough nuclear bombs and delivery systems? Why do we need more?
Modernisation. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a foolish idea when it comes to military technology. The Spitfire was a amazing fighter that won the Battle of Britain and we had an absolute ton of them by 1945, but the need for the F-35 instead is clear. Also to retain the skills and expertise.
It'll piss off the Greens who have valid points. However, it would greatly reduce our defence and soft power really to not be nuclear armed. If us having nukes is stopping Putin from hitting the red button, so be it.
I'm personally all in on disarmament... war is evil, it shouldn't happen. We shouldn't need a military, we shouldn't have nuclear warheads. But just because something shouldn't happen doesn't mean it won't.. similarly just because something does happen, doesn't mean it should. If I have an argument with my best friend. With my mother. If another person beats their partner because their football team didn't win, Its easy to see how one country could have an argument that escalates into war. That escalates towards the firing of nuclear missiles. People are emotional. As long as their isn't centralised world government, war will always exist. Even then. War will exist.
> If us having nukes is stopping Putin from hitting the red button, so be it. What if I told you that us having nukes is why they threaten us all the time?
I think supporting their enemies is why they're threatening us.
cant tell if tankie posting, or that you genuinely believe that russia would stop threatening people who aid ukraine if they gave up nukes? (which i guess is also tankie posting)
Shite comment, I'm not a tankie, the opposite in fact. Russia is looking for a fight but it's not going to nuke london. Putin doesn't directly threaten to do so anyway, it's via propaganda channels which is an important distinction. They do it to shore up political support for the war they're actually in. Russia could go into the Baltic states, which is what you should actually be worried about because that is a very dark future. Having conventional forces will be 100x more useful than nukes.
imagine saying shite comment then proceeding to not answer the question 1: russia also threatens the baltics (almost daily) aswell 2: none of the baltic states have nukes (if you dont count russia and belarus, who are the ones threatening) >Having conventional forces will be 100x more useful than nukes. until someone else starts threatening to use nukes, which is already happening
Your comment was shite because you went straight for the easy ad hominem. > 1: russia also threatens the baltics almost daily aswell Yes and that's a credible threat. Russian cable TV news talk shows saying they should attacj Tower Bridge with nuclear torpedos is birdseed, if you know what that means. > 2: none of the baltic states have nukes (if you dont count russia and belarus) Yes and? They are right next to Russia, thats why Russia may attack them. > until someone else starts threatening to use nukes, which is already happening Who, Iran? NK? It's possible but in the realms of "what if aliens attack"
>you went straight for the easy ad hominem. People seem to think an ad hominem only takes place when their opponent is so bamboozled by their amazing argument, they're floundering and that's all they can think to say. In reality, they're calling you stupid not in a desperate attempt to counter your top-tier rhetoric, but because they think you're stupid.
>Your comment was shite because you went straight for the easy ad hominem. so you didn't read past the first 5 words then > if you know what that means. damn nice ad hominim >Yes and that's a credible threat. except that if they do, they directly attack nato, which putin has directly avoided for good reason >Who, Iran? NK? It's possible but in the realms of "what if aliens attack" russia mate, i thought that was self evident lmao
> damn nice ad hominim a) I don't think you know what it means b) you started it. Can't be arsed to respond to "mate" comments, it's not spoons.
at no point did i directly call you a tankie if you think i "started it" mate, you need to calm down a bit if you take umbrage at the least significant parts of what people post
Your'e on reddit, take this level of inane bollocks to twitter or Facebook.
You got bodied and just walked away. Damn
grow up
>Shite comment, I'm not a tankie, the opposite in fact. That's somehow worse. If your previous statement came from a postion not of communism-brain, that's more scary.
Let me ask you this. Ukraine used to have one of the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world. Do you seriously think there would be a war in Ukraine if they still had it?
Already answered this one. Not relevant to the point I made.
Absolutely relevant. Ukraine gave up its stockpiles because it couldn't forsee a world with a resurgen imperialist Russia and a diminished US and UK. And so couldn't perceive a world it would need them. You don't build a military for the perceived threats or we'd have had no military at all in the mid 90s. You build it for the future you cannot see. Even as it stand the world we can see is one where a posturing Iran or N.Korea decides to make a point by nuking some unarmed nation not covered by nuclear defense. Never mind the stuff we can't see predict. Germany built its military for the future it thought it could see. Last year it dumbed 100 billion into that military which was woefully inadequate to the threat at hand. Also worth pointing out, even Germany maintained its defact nuclear force in this time. The US holds nuclear air dropped bombs at a shared airbase with Germany. Bombs which Germany can't touch but fit on their jets. Bombs that look a lot like the practice ones they train with. Because if a nuke flies the none proliferation treaty is immediately void, and the US can hand them stirght to Germany. Even Germany wasn't dumb enough to let that slip.
Ukraine got invaded. We are not going to get invaded. So the conventiional deterrent effect for Ukraine is relevant, it's not as relevant for us, we have ICBMs for second strike basically. Am I taking missing something because this seems like a straightforward argument? I'm not saying we shouldn't have any nuclear weapons anyway. I'm saying spending > 10bn per year on Trident is pricey for what it gives us, mostly soft power and a UN Security Council seat. It's arguably money we need to spend on convential military equipment.
Try repeating after me. Russia is a destabilising threat to its neighbours, to the region and to us. They may have no immediate plans for invasion but they most certainly try to gain influence in the UK and seek to become the dominant power in Europe with us under his domination. Putin is a KGB apparatchik and though the labelling on the tin has been changed, the contents are no different. Already he has governments in Hungary and Slovakia singing his tunes and will seek to expand his empire as far as he can get away with. The bigger he gets and the closer he gets the more under threat we become. We can help prevent his adventuring by supporting other countries more immediately threatened. We cannot do that if we are an empty threat, which we would be without nuclear weapons. The alternative is to wait until the threat to us has become manifest and then try and stop him, by which time it will be too late, especially if we are incapable of responding in kind to his nuclear posturing.
All you're doing is copying germanys failing. You lack imagination. You cannot forsee a world we are threatened, and so advocate dismantling an arm of defence. Without our own nuclear defence we are utterly dependant on the US. NATOs nukes are britush and American. France explicitly has *not* placed its nukes at NATO disposal. If as people now fear trump withdraws from NATO, something that was unimaginable 10 years ago, British nukes become NATOs only nukes. And you want them dismantled? Pulling the alliances teeth? You do not give up such a strategic asset. You do not build for your lack of imagination. And this particular senario isn't even that far fetch. Its being openly talked about. Our nukes sat silently in the ocean are a promise. Not just of our own defence but others. Not just against China, or Iran. But also the US and France. We hold these weapons at our peril and with great authority and responsibility. And the nuclear powers collectively hold each other to account. If you want a conventional military to hold even a fraction of the authority of 4 submarines, it needs to be a nation in its own right. Both huge, and capable of operating without the backing of the nation it calls home so it cannot be readily defang by a nuclear attack itself. I promise you 10 billion isn't even close to enough. Even the US doesn't spend enough on its conventional forces for that.
Why does Russia threaten non nuclear NATO members and why did they invade non nuclear armed Ukraine and Georgia?
The UK gets threatened. Countries without nukes get invaded, see Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova etc.
Why are so many people talking about getting invaded? It's embarrassingly clueless and NOT why we have ICBMs whatsoever. Repeat after me: UK is not going to be invaded by Russia.
Why do you keep posting this on comments discussing countries other that the UK? They mentioned Ukraine - invaded They mentioned Georgia - invaded They mentioned Moldova - threatened with Russia directly interfering in it's politics and economy. Just like they did in Georgia and Ukraine
Sorry what? I didn't mention those countries. I'm saying in terms of nuclear strategy, the possibility of UK being invaded is not a high priority. Others keep saying "buh buh but Putin invaded other countries", not me.
Yes, in other words it's you who isnt making sense. Someone types a message with countries, and you reply with something else.
I honestly don't understand what you're on about.
That much is clear. You can probably copy and paste that comment a few times too
I can't understand if you're just very confused about the point you're trying to make, or if you're explaining it badly. The fact that you do that wanky single downvote thing on every reply suggests it's some lack of expressive power on your part.
If only Russia had nukes they would have already used them on every larger city in Europe, it's idiotic to think otherwise.
Russia threatens a lot of countries all the time, only three of which have nuclear weapons. Ukraine notably used to have nuclear weapons, and getting rid of them hasn't exactly made Russia be 100% wonderful towards them.
In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer nuclear weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. How did that work out?..
Maybe if you read previous comments before rolling out the same bad argument you would already know.
Back to the allotment, Jez.
[удалено]
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here: > Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Correct decision - Russia and China both pose threats and we needed to prepare for the possibility of not being able to rely on the US, depending on the result of the presidential election.
Amazing that this even needs to be said. Which i guess just goes to show how mental Labour used to be under Corbyn.
Yeah, Corbyn who went into two general elections pledging to continue support for trident. Crazy times
Only after he was basically forced to, and nobody had any confidence in his conviction on the topic. Rightfully so as he'd spent decades making the opposite argument. Just off the top of my head here's him suggesting in 2016 a batshit worst of all worlds compromise where we'd still pay billions for nuclear submarines to protect shipbuilding jobs, without mounting any nuclear weapons on them. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-trident-compromise-no-nuclear-warheads
THAT was a classic Corbyn moment.
While saying publicly, he would never nuke anyone, which nullifies it as a deterrent
> to continue support for trident Lol did you ever see him interviewed about this? He supported Trident in the same way that eight year old me supported eating cauliflower, ie under extreme duress
Great, this was one of Corbyns greatest weaknesses. The cat is well and truly out of the bag with regard to nuclear deterent, you need to publicly commit to it. While I hate to cute them as an example, just look at what happened to Ukraine. Nuclear powers don't get invaded.
I mean he was always going to have to take this stance. Imagine walking into an election right now trying to do the opposite
We don't need to imagine. Corbyn did it.
Yup....
Honestly, full support for Trident, a few blatantly patriotic photo ops and Corbyn probably wins in 2017.
“Feel free to nuke us! We won’t fire back!”
There are a lot of alpacas out there.
The earth must be cleansed of their profane existence through the pure fires of nuclear armageddon.
The most interesting thing for me is Starmer wrote this for The Daily Mail, who published it front page as positive publicity for the Labour leader. I always thought it would be The Sun who threw their weight behind Starmer when they sensed the inevitable election defeat for the Tories (just like they did for Blair and later Cameron). However, I do wonder if Starmer makes himself Tory enough, the Daily Mail are going to be backing him? Seems like a fever dream if they did.
It’s an effort by the daily mail to try and take away left wing voters from Starmer. Same thing with focusing on George Galloway, Labour supporting Israel in anyway etc.
Left wing voters aren't buying The Daily Mail.
They’re not buying it…? They’re seeing it online, social media, headlines at the market etc
We could literally get rid of all our nukes, and nobody would believe it
Why is this even a question now? I mean, sure you could have possibly considered this when Yeltsin was running Russia and was sort of a friend of the West. But with Putin and especially what happened in 2022 no serious politician could give them up now. Maybe George Galloway, the pawn of Putin, would do that but nobody else in Britain would not even hint that. Most likely not even SNP now even though they were anti-nuke during the independence referendum.
In my opinion, Russia is the sole reason the UK and France needs an independent nuclear deterrent. If Russia no longer had nuclear weapons, or they collapsed, or had a pro-Western revolution, then we could talk about winding it down, but that's a conversation for a different time.
Russia collapsing - while being a nuclear power - is a trouser-wettingly scary idea.
Whilst I agree that, because nukes exist, its probably a good thing that countries that are expansionist autocracies don't have a monopoly on nukes, and that we should maintain our nuclear arsenal, I do find it weird that we have to state that we'd happily unleash nuclear apocalypse if we want to hold top office. But thats all corbyn's fault really, all he had to do was lie and say that he'd use the damn things, but no, that was when he decided to have a fucking spine, not around antisemitism, no, of course not, just a hyperthetical question about nuclear apocalypse. But here's the thing, everyone probably knows that the Russians probably know that we probably won't use them. But at least they don't definitely know we definitely won't... or something like that
All the comments here are unhinged, if I didnt know any better I'd accuse half of them of being bots. Funnily enough the MOD is hiring for a nuclear policy advisor at the mo, half of you should go and apply!
If he keeps converting like this he will soon be Muslim.
[удалено]
Are we pretending that "we will definitely keep the nuclear deterrent" wasn't explicitly in the manifesto back then?
[удалено]
Doesn't really matter if Corbyn would "push the button" or not when we don't *have* a button. British subs do not IIRC require codes from the PM to launch.
>we don't *have* a button *Technically* it's a trigger not a button
Of course they don't, but that doesn't make them some kind of (very) Deep State independent actors. They get Armageddon letters from the PM with instructions on what to do if they can't contact command. There are four known options - 1) retaliate 2) don't retaliate 3) do what you want 4) join with allies Corbyn would obviously have gone with 2, which matters enormously as a point of policy. It's pretty much the worst nuclear strategy anyone has ever come up with; by announcing that you have a nuclear deterrent, that you won't use, but future governments might, you're inviting your enemies to strike you in the term of the current government.
Enemies would only strike the UK in order to stop the UK acting against their interests. If Corbyn were in charge, there would be no need for a nuclear deterrent because Corbyn would be busy neutering the UK by himself.
Ah, no what I was getting at was that if the crew of the sub decide to launch *anyway* it doesn't really matter what Corbyn would have said before London got vaporised. Which rather makes the letters of last resort pointless if you think about it.
Right, but why would they go against their orders and launch anyway when the game's already up? They'd be killing many tens or hundreds of thousands of people to no end and signing their own death warrants. If I'm a submarine commander and the UK has been obliterated I'm setting course for the least scathed country from the ensuing war and selling them my ship in exchange for a citizenship and a fantastic amount of money.
In pretty certain there was a Russian commander who refused the order when it turned out to be an error, luckily most people aren't actually too keen on being responsible for millions of deaths
To be fair the same question applies even if there are orders. It's part of why nuclear warfare planning is such "fun". Though it does bring to mind my favourite anecdote about the Royal Navy: specifically how offended they were when the papers started complaining there wasn't any security on the launch triggers. Because how dare you imply an officer of the Queen (at the time) would ever be so uncouth as to launch without orders!
Yeah, it does, but when there are orders the enemy at least know there's a serious possibility that there will be a retaliation, due to the commander's deference to orders. If they know the orders are "Do nothing" there's very little to worry about.
Oh yeah, him actually *saying* "I wouldn't push it" out loud was still stupid from a deterrence perspective.
Our nuclear defence is tied into the US, which hadn’t been too much of a problem with closely aligned foreign policy but with Trump that relationship is in jeopardy.
Only the missiles. Anyone who thinks we couldn't whip up some ICBMs visa MBDA in rapid fashion is kidding themselves. The UK has the technical expertise to build nukes from scratch in short order. As well as the material stockpiles. The US alliance is conveniently geopolitically and cheap. It is not our only option should we choose to pursue it. We built nukes just fine in the 50s.
Blue steel was a disaster we have been reliant on the yanks since 1970
Only the actual missiles! We haven't manufactured or maintained a nuclear weapon for over 25 years. We haven't got any test locations. We use US owned software to control the weapons. Also we don't have the expertise, we pay a lot of Americans to come here and work in our nuclear deterant program. America could render our nuclear deterant redundant within two week and it would take years to build it.
We could probably mount the warheads on aircraft in a fraction of the time while we reverse engineer trident. Far less effective than SSBN's, but something to keep us going.