NationStates Jolt Archive

Brief Synopsis (my own, which is horribly biased, I'll admit) - With the NHS in a total crisis, and tax credits making the poor poorer, the Labour Party reckons that spending £25 billion (about $45 billion/€35 billion/many, many Yen) on new ways to nuke people for miles away is a good idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5104918.stm

Any semblance of sanity has officially gone from the Labour Party. And we might have to put up with the bastards for 3 years yet. Argh.

Brief Synopsis (my own, which is horribly biased, I'll admit) - With the NHS in a total crisis, and tax credits making the poor poorer, the Labour Party reckons that spending £25 billion (about $45 billion/€35 billion/many, many Yen) on new ways to nuke people for miles away is a good idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5104918.stm

Any semblance of sanity has officially gone from the Labour Party. And we might have to put up with the bastards for 3 years yet. Argh.


I think it is a pretty good idea.

I'll grant you that finding the dosh may be quite hard,
but I do have several terribly biased ideas on how to raise it.

PS: I don't begrudge you your biases - as long as you don't begrudge me mine.

£25 billion is rather a lot - in fact it's about a third of the NHS' budget. Which do you think is genuinely more important?

£25 billion is rather a lot - in fact it's about a third of the NHS' budget. Which do you think is genuinely more important?

The NHS. ( I hope you have gathered by now that I consider the NHS very important, the single most important domestic program we have. )

Meanwhile, there are enough ways to raise the 25 Billion Sterling over the required years. ( Over how many years would this expenditure of 25 Billion be required? )

Personally the Trident system still works, sure it's slightly more outdated and slower than other systems, but it still carries enough firepower to blast anywhere to kingodm come. it will get there, it will kill people. Why do we need a new load?

Personally the Trident system still works, sure it's slightly more outdated and slower than other systems, but it still carries enough firepower to blast anywhere to kingodm come. it will get there, it will kill people. Why do we need a new load?

2 words: Block Obsolence.
Trident will work just fine right now,
but in several years it will be as outdated as the last Vulcans were ca 1980.
Better start working on a replacement right now.

2 words: Block Obsolence.
Trident will work just fine right now,
but in several years it will be as outdated as the last Vulcans were ca 1980.
Better start working on a replacement right now.
They will fly anywhere in the world and blow up anything we want them to blow up. I can see no reason to upgrade already very, very dangerous weapons, especially with Blair and Brown in charge.

They will fly anywhere in the world and blow up anything we want them to blow up. I can see no reason to upgrade already very, very dangerous weapons, especially with Blair and Brown in charge.


You don't see it, but I do.
And so will Parliament.
You know that as well.

Will these Tridents still be good enough in 2020?
Will they be able to blow up every target in 2020?
Will Blair and Brown still be in charge in 2020?

I've noticed you've gone silent on the budget-question that I've raised - while I was speedy, clear, informative and open on the NHS-question you raised.

Your main point seemed to be the Budget. What is your main point now, please?

The NHS. ( I hope you have gathered by now that I consider the NHS very important, the single most important domestic program we have. )
Indeed.
Meanwhile, there are enough ways to raise the 25 Billion Sterling over the required years. ( Over how many years would this expenditure of 25 Billion be required? )
Which would be what?

Lower spending on education and benefits?

Unpopular tax increases?

I have no real idea about how long it would be required in, but I imagine something in the region of five to ten years.

That's stil rather a lot of money per year.

The Labour government have completely neglected the will of the people.

The NHS is fundamental to British society and whilst there is more money than ever before being spent, the service is failing.

Further to this, Gas prices are going through the roof, the transport infrastructure/public transport service is appalling and yet the Government is willing to spend 25 billion pounds on something that we don't want nor need - we can always sweet talk the Yankies to fight the battle, they are more willing to blow people up than care for them.

Socialist Britain is the way forward - viva la revolution!!!!

You don't see it, but I do.
And so will Parliament.
You know that as well.

Will these Tridents still be good enough in 2020?
Will they be able to blow up every target in 2020?
Will Blair and Brown still be in charge in 2020?
How could the tridents not be good enough in 2020?

The only real use of nuclear weapons is to blow up city-sized targets. Unless our foes put wheels on Beijing and tracks on Washington, and can somehow move them faster than an ICBM can move, they will be perfectly acceptable.

Brown and Blair probably won't be in charge, no, but what worries me about this decision is that they're trying to take it without a vote in the HoC. Not even a whipped vote, they're simply not having one at all.
I've noticed you've gone silent on the budget-question that I've raised - while I was speedy, clear, informative and open on the NHS-question you raised.
Sorry, I didn't see it. Sorted now.
Your main point seemed to be the Budget. What is your main point now, please?
My other main point is that I am against nuclear weapons. Not only them, but biological and chemical weapons as well.

On the off chance that we get attacked, using nuclear weapons would not be a good idea, simply because our enemy will respond in kind.

Having nuclear weapons as a "deterrent" only works if the enemy doesn't have them. And since the only real threats to us are from the US and possibly the EU, as well as Russia and China, this makes their use a bit risky.

Let's say that the US attacks. We then fire our missiles at some of their cities. This is just not cricket in the eyes of the US, so they say "GLASS THEM!" or whatever, and fire some at us. This is quite tragic.

Everyone else says "Nuclear warfare, eh? Might use some of that at the moment against my traditional foes."

At this point, Chechnya, Palestine, France/Germany, Poland and Japan get wiped off the face of the earth.

And it all gets a bit tragic. So really, nuclear disarmament rather than nuclear rearmament would be a better idea. If we want our green and pleasant land to stay that way, rather than at some point becoming a grey and horrible land.

The Labour government have completely neglected the will of the people.
I would disagree. Whilst there are a few decent back-benchers who want to speak their mind, they are pressured by Blair and Brown to stay quiet.

Blair has lost his marbles, though, you're right. He's surrounded himself by right-wing yesmen and has lost all contact with the public. He didn't make this announcement because he knows he'd be on his arse on the pavement outside of the House of Commons as soon as he did.
The NHS is fundamental to British society and whilst there is more money than ever before being spent, the service is failing.
There's not really that much being spent. What we really need is to take our troops out of Iraq, vastly cut down on our numbers of troops, take a lot of money out of the MoD's pockets, and put it into that of the NHS. Although it's not really the money that's the problem with the NHS, to be honest, it's more that people are living longer and occupying all of the beds, which is a bit tragic.
Further to this, Gas prices are going through the roof
Blame British Gas, don't blame the government, they can't do much about it.
the transport infrastructure/public transport service is appalling[/QUOTE
I wholeheartedly agree. The closing down of the Post Offices was also a pretty bad move on the part of the government. Profitability shouldn't be an issue with such a useful service.
[QUOTE]and yet the Government is willing to spend 25 billion pounds on something that we don't want nor need
Indeed. Maybe if we spent that money on healthcare and education, we could fix people's brains up so that they could realise that warmongering is a bad idea, and educate them on why.
we can always sweet talk the Yankies to fight the battle, they are more willing to blow people up than care for them.
Or even better - just not get involved in fighting.
Socialist Britain is the way forward - viva la revolution!!!!
We don't really need a revolution, what we need is to vote in somebody decent.

I would vote for the Lib Dems, but I don't really like Ming. He's a bit right-wing, and also far, far too old.

My vote's either going to the Conservatives (because they're currently to the left of Labour and David Cameron is alright) or to the Marxist Forum.

Indeed.

Which would be what?

Lower spending on education and benefits?

Unpopular tax increases?

I have no real idea about how long it would be required in, but I imagine something in the region of five to ten years.

That's stil rather a lot of money per year.

Ah, thank you.

I'll be making 2 assumptions here and I hope you don't consider them too unfair, when taken in junction.

Assumption 1: This 25 Billion must be paid for over 10 years, leading to an annual cost of 2.5 Billion.

Assumption 2: This sum will be paid for from 'new' revenue. Without a lengthy studies, it is a bit dishonest to rant or banter about 'efficiency' or 'parings elsewhere' or 'savings on this or that program'.

I'd be looking for some quick-fit new sources of revenue and decreased tax-rebates.

Idea 1. Remove all tax-rebates related to religious charities that spend more on lawyers and stuff than they spend on British homeless. A secondary requirement would be that such expenditures would be generic, and not mostly available to people of their own religion. Obviously, and I won't try to hide it, gifts to charities that send lost of cash to 'Palestine' would be first to be de-charitised. British as defined by passport - not by religion or race. ( I'm not exactly a BNP or UKIP-supporter. )

Idea 2. Higher fuel-taxes! Fuel-prices WILL continue to rise in the future.
I wish to keep the fraction of the petrol-price that goes to the Exchequer constant. If the price of Brent goes up in London by 10%, then petrol taxes will follow suit, without delay.

Idea 3. The Easy Jet Tax. Foreign travel by airplane out of Britain to be taxed with a 5-pound per ( one way) ticket new tax. I'm not sure how many plane-tickets are sold every year - but I think it would raise quite a lot.

Idea 4. The Hallal and Kosher Tax.
Every pound of meat butchered by 'religious' ceremony will be the target of the HKT. All meat that is Hallal or Kosher must be cleared designated as such.
An additional charge will be made for cooked meat sold for consumption on the premises or in public, butchered by religious ceremony. Call this the Kebab tax. I think it would raise quite a lot as well.

I'm sure these tax-increases would be very unpopular in certain circles, but frankly, I don't care.

My other main point is that I am against nuclear weapons. Not only them, but biological and chemical weapons as well.

Fair enough, and I agree to a certain extent( bio/chem) , but if your main thrust is that such weapons are out-of-bound anyway, you can't honestly expect people to take your practical objections serious when they they have good cause to think they are inspired on principle.
Surely it would not constitute proof that Blair et cie have lost it.

I would vote for the Lib Dems, but I don't really like Ming. He's a bit right-wing, and also far, far too old.

I will continue to support the Lib Dems, as I have done when Ashdown, Kennedy, and even Steele where running the show. I have ( of course ) no objection to Ming running the show, athough he is a bit old for my taste too.

How could the tridents not be good enough in 2020?
By that time, most components of that weapon-system will be worn out.
This includes, of course, the nuclear power-plants that run the submarines.
You'll agree, I hope, that it is sounder practise to replace those with new ones rather than have the old ones carry on.

Having nuclear weapons as a "deterrent" only works if the enemy doesn't have them. And since the only real threats to us are from the US and possibly the EU, as well as Russia and China, this makes their use a bit risky.
I consider the only real threat the Scumbag States ( Pakistan comes to mind ) which try to grab more power and influence.
My policy on international power, btw, is very simple and straightforward:
none but the 5 Veto Powers to have any serious form of armament.
Anyone else who jockies fot them to be a Valid Military Target.
Let me be very very clear: any nuclear have-not that tries to become a nuclear have to be penalised severely.
We have - you don't, it stays that way, and it is not open to discussion.

Bogmarsh - your ideas on taxation are novel, to say the least. But aside from them being 'obselete' in twenty years time, why should we upgrade our arsenal when more countries have abandoned the nuclear deterrent option then propagated it?

Does anyone know the sell-by date on a Trident?

For Labour to 'lose it' one must assume that they ever had some marbles to misplace.

Of course they should replace Trident. An independent Nuclear Deterent is an important part of a defence, even though it should (hopefully) never be used. The costs are exagerated, anyway; it's a far smaller recurring cost, not 25 billion all at once.

Why is it the same people who complain we are 'America's Poodle' then want to remove our independent means of defence?

For Labour to 'lose it' one must assume that they ever had some marbles to misplace.

Of course they should replace Trident. An independent Nuclear Deterent is an important part of a defence, even though it should (hopefully) never be used. The costs are exagerated, anyway; it's a far smaller recurring cost, not 25 billion all at once.

Why is it the same people who complain we are 'America's Poodle' then want to remove our independent means of defence?

Because they are less worried about an American mouse than about an American poodle...

Of course they should replace Trident. An independent Nuclear Deterent is an important part of a defence, even though it should (hopefully) never be used...
...Why is it the same people who complain we are 'America's Poodle' then want to remove our independent means of defence?

Defence against who? How many countries have nuclear weapons capable of hitting Britain? I count America, France, Russia, China and Israel.

So which of these guys are we going to be defending ourselves against? Which rogue state is going to be developing ICBMs and GPS networks? Iran? No, I don't think so.

I think it's pointless for the same reason that owning guns for home defense or walking around with a knife in case you're attacked is pointless - because you'll be the one hurt in real life rather than the mythical aggressor in your waking nightmares.

Bogmarsh - your ideas on taxation are novel, to say the least. But aside from them being 'obselete' in twenty years time, why should we upgrade our arsenal when more countries have abandoned the nuclear deterrent option then propagated it?

Does anyone know the sell-by date on a Trident?
The article posted in the first post says that the Trident missiles need to be replaced by 2024. £25bn spent over 18 years comes out at about £1.35bn/year. Put in place a higher top rate of income tax, and the money will be easy to find. 50% for people earning >£150k will easily bring in another £1bn/year.

Whether or not we need a nuclear deterrent is another matter. It is highly unlikely that, if global politics stay roughly stable, we are going to be involved in a large-scale war in the next 25 years. The main threat we face is from terrorism, and nuclear weapons aren't going to be very effective against that.

Defence against who? How many countries have nuclear weapons capable of hitting Britain? I count America, France, Russia, China and Israel.

So which of these guys are we going to be defending ourselves against? Which rogue state is going to be developing ICBMs and GPS networks? Iran? No, I don't think so.

I think it's pointless for the same reason that owning guns for home defense or walking around with a knife in case you're attacked is pointless - because you'll be the one hurt in real life rather than the mythical aggressor in your waking nightmares.
History has shown that those nations that are not prepared for war are caught out by it. Perhaps we will remain peaceful for a thousand years (I certainly hope so), but I would rather keep the weapons for that time never to use them than scrap them and wish we hadn't in a decades time.

The article posted in the first post says that the Trident missiles need to be replaced by 2024. £25bn spent over 18 years comes out at about £1.35bn/year. Put in place a higher top rate of income tax, and the money will be easy to find. 50% for people earning >£150k will easily bring in another £1bn/year.

Whether or not we need a nuclear deterrent is another matter. It is highly unlikely that, if global politics stay roughly stable, we are going to be involved in a large-scale war in the next 25 years. The main threat we face is from terrorism, and nuclear weapons aren't going to be very effective against that.

Why then, the Extreme Left must make up its mind.
A] We discuss the budgetary impact.
or
B] We discuss the need for a sytem at all.

Please make up your mind. Meanwhile, I am only interested in discussing A, inasmuch as the topic was introduced as a budgetary question.
To turn it into discussion B] is, to say the least, disingenuous.

Defence against who? How many countries have nuclear weapons capable of hitting Britain? I count America, France, Russia, China and Israel.
And India and Pakistan.

Ah, thank you.

I'll be making 2 assumptions here and I hope you don't consider them too unfair, when taken in junction.

Assumption 1: This 25 Billion must be paid for over 10 years, leading to an annual cost of 2.5 Billion.

Assumption 2: This sum will be paid for from 'new' revenue. Without a lengthy studies, it is a bit dishonest to rant or banter about 'efficiency' or 'parings elsewhere' or 'savings on this or that program'.
I don't consider them unfair at all, I think it's more that some years'll need, say, 7 or 8 billion pounds more per year and others might well need a few million or about a billion.
Idea 1. Remove all tax-rebates related to religious charities that spend more on lawyers and stuff than they spend on British homeless. A secondary requirement would be that such expenditures would be generic, and not mostly available to people of their own religion. Obviously, and I won't try to hide it, gifts to charities that send lost of cash to 'Palestine' would be first to be de-charitised. British as defined by passport - not by religion or race. ( I'm not exactly a BNP or UKIP-supporter. )
Ah - but there is a problem here - religious charities that spend more on lawyers and stuff is a bit vague. I'd have no tax rebates on any kind of religious organisation, simply because there'll always be people willing to use loop-holes and such.
Idea 2. Higher fuel-taxes! Fuel-prices WILL continue to rise in the future.
I wish to keep the fraction of the petrol-price that goes to the Exchequer to stay constant. If the price of Brent goes up in London by 10%, then petrol taxes will follow suit, without delay.
I'd support that, but the various farmers and truckers of the UK would get really quite mardy about it, and they're the kind of people who go out onto the motorways and drive very slowly or stop in an attempt to bring down the British economy. So I'd say it's probably not a good idea.
Idea 3. The Easy Jet Tax. Foreign travel by airplane out of Britain to be taxed with a 5-pound per ( one way) ticket new tax. I'm not sure how many plane-tickets are sold every year - but I think it would raise quite a lot.
Again, it'd be a bit controversial. The budget airlines and any who fly by them wouldn't be best pleased. BA and other more pricey airlines probably wouldn't mind, though.
Idea 4. The Hallal and Kosher Tax.
Every pound of meat butchered by 'religious' ceremony will be the target of the HKT. All meat that is Hallal or Kosher must be cleared designated as such.
An additional charge will be made for cooked meat sold for consumption on the premises or in public, butchered by religious ceremony. Call this the Kebab tax. I think it would raise quite a lot as well.
Why not just have an added tax on all meat?

It's environmentally unfriendly, so maybe putting VAT onto meat products would help solve the problem, or at the very least increase funds which could then be spent on renewable energy sources.

Bogmarsh - your ideas on taxation are novel, to say the least. But aside from them being 'obselete' in twenty years time, why should we upgrade our arsenal when more countries have abandoned the nuclear deterrent option then propagated it?

Does anyone know the sell-by date on a Trident?

Yootopia asked the question.
I answered it in full, in a straightforward and informative fashion.

If you can do better, in a politically feasable way, you are welcome to try.

Why then, the Extreme Left must make up its mind.
A] We discuss the budgetary impact.
or
B] We discuss the need for a sytem at all.

Please make up your mind. Meanwhile, I am only interested in discussing A, inasmuch as the topic was introduced as a budgetary question.
To turn it into discussion B] is, to say the least, disingenuous.
Ok, discussing A:

Budgetary impact - negligible. £1bn a year is, I believe, less than half of 1% of the UK's budget. There are plenty of ways in which the money could be raised that don't resort to tax increases. Sacking managers in the NHS (NHS budget is currently around £75bn). Cutting back on welfare (welfare budget - in excess of £100bn). Cutting back in other areas of the military (current military budget - almost £40bn). Reducing 'red tape' (perhaps difficult to achieve this to any extent).

1. I don't consider them unfair at all, I think it's more that some years'll need, say, 7 or 8 billion pounds more per year and others might well need a few million or about a billion.

2. Ah - but there is a problem here - religious charities that spend more on lawyers and stuff is a bit vague. I'd have no tax rebates on any kind of religious organisation, simply because there'll always be people willing to use loop-holes and such.

3. I'd support that, but the various farmers and truckers of the UK would get really quite mardy about it, and they're the kind of people who go out onto the motorways and drive very slowly or stop in an attempt to bring down the British economy. So I'd say it's probably not a good idea.

4. Again, it'd be a bit controversial. The budget airlines and any who fly by them wouldn't be best pleased. BA and other more pricey airlines probably wouldn't mind, though.

5. Why not just have an added tax on all meat?

It's environmentally unfriendly, so maybe putting VAT onto meat products would help solve the problem, or at the very least increase funds which could then be spent on renewable energy sources.

1. Thanks :) My proposals should, however, raise the 25 Billion in the required timeframe.

2. We'll be happy to create a good quango-watchdog. I think you know what I mean, and I think it is eminently feasable. So your charity spend money on building a mosque in... malaysia? We close you down. You spent 5 million on lawyers to protect some holy book of Scientology? We close you down. Your charity spent most of its budget on building a homeless shelter in Wellie Street? We're happy to give you a tax-rebate.
I'm sure you understand the drill.

3. Let 'em. Petrol prices have gone through the roof with neary a peep. So let 'em try.

4. So it is - but I'd be happy enough to take this kind of measure to the voters.

5. Meh. You know that punishing meat wont be very popular. You know that penalising religious butchering will be quite popular.

Also also, I raised these tax-issues to pay for one specific program, not to reorganise society in general. And I think these are items I can get away with.

Yootopia asked the question.
I answered it in full, in a straightforward and informative fashion.

If you can do better, in a politically feasable way, you are welcome to try.

Don't get me wrong - I wasn't being churlish or dismissing your ideas out of hand. In fact, you could hypothesize an income tax hike of 10% from the minimum which would cover the costs of development. Or higher taxes for derivative funds, for instance. Both are feasible, but probably won't happen.

And India and Pakistan.


The most advanced nuclear weapons in both country's arsenals is India's Agni-RV Mk.2. Its range is 3000km - the distance from Bombay to London is 7193km. Give or take.

Ok, discussing A:

Budgetary impact - negligible. £1bn a year is, I believe, less than half of 1% of the UK's budget. There are plenty of ways in which the money could be raised that don't resort to tax increases. Sacking managers in the NHS (NHS budget is currently around £75bn). Cutting back on welfare (welfare budget - in excess of £100bn). Cutting back in other areas of the military (current military budget - almost £40bn). Reducing 'red tape' (perhaps difficult to achieve this to any extent).


In that case, there is no madness involded at all.

@Zen Don't get me wrong - I wasn't being churlish or dismissing your ideas out of hand. In fact, you could hypothesize an income tax hike of 10% from the minimum which would cover the costs of development. Or higher taxes for derivative funds, for instance. Both are feasible, but probably won't happen.

Sorry about the typo, but when I say feasible, I mean something that you can get actually through the House.
That excludes penalising the yuppies.
But that includes frivolous lifestyle consumption.
Kebabs, non-Hindu curryhouses and Chavs flying to Torremolinos will be fair political game.

Brief Synopsis (my own, which is horribly biased, I'll admit) - With the NHS in a total crisis, and tax credits making the poor poorer, the Labour Party reckons that spending £25 billion (about $45 billion/€35 billion/many, many Yen) on new ways to nuke people for miles away is a good idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5104918.stm

Any semblance of sanity has officially gone from the Labour Party. And we might have to put up with the bastards for 3 years yet. Argh.

You'd rather have the only other alternative...the Conservatives?

The most advanced nuclear weapons in both country's arsenals is India's Agni-RV Mk.2. Its range is 3000km - the distance from Bombay to London is 7193km. Give or take.
I stand corrected. Although they could feasibly attack British forces in Asia. Though haven't both India and Pakistan officially stated that they have a 'no first use' policy with regard to nuclear weapons?

In that case, there is no madness involded at all.
Not from a financial point of view. However, despite what the OP focused on, to try to ignore B] is, to put not to fine a point on it, stupid. So, do we need the system at all?

The Guardian seems to think Trident has a lifespan of 30 years (1994-2024). Given a steady population of the UK, then you could equate trident to a form of insurance costing every man, woman and child £10 a year or less (£25 billion was the upper bound of the estimate). Hardly pricey. Though I don't know if this figure is just the development cost or if it includes estimated maitenence costs.

In the light of the Iran affair it would seem hypocritical to keep our nuclear deterent as it is. Perhaps a down sizing is in order. Though to be fair 16 warheads is a tiny amount compared to France, and non-existant compared to the USA's nuclear arsenal.

On the subject of the US nuclear arsenal is also the topic that our own arsenal is dependent on the US for servicing of our missiles... I hardly think that prudent. Especially if our nuclear deterent is supposed to be independent.


As for a proportion of the budget I'd prefer to know what it was in terms of the MOD's budget and not the NHS's.

In terms of paying for the development I presume deficeit spending would be the order of the day with a portion of the MOD's budget reallocated for repayments of the debt over the lifetime of the missiles. The MOD's budget is about £30 billion or so I think. So £2 billion a year shouldn't be too hard to find, should it? Perhaps especially so once we finally withdraw from Iraq.

The whole is probably not worth it though. How about getting the CDP off the ground. The EU memberstates pool their resources to fund a modest nuclear program. With the idea that an attack against one of us is an attack against all of us. That should save a fair bit of money, make the program self-reliant, with pretty much no loss in security (though some might argue that abolishing the nuclear program full stop would not make us any less secure - perhaps even more secure according to Claire Short. But I don't believe a word that bitch says since she didn't resign when she said she would).

Fair enough, and I agree to a certain extent( bio/chem) , but if your main thrust is that such weapons are out-of-bound anyway, you can't honestly expect people to take your practical objections serious when they they have good cause to think they are inspired on principle.
Surely it would not constitute proof that Blair et cie have lost it.
Maybe so, but my convictions don't really override the fact that Britain has larger priorities than nuclear re-armament and that Blair is acting like a dicatator on this one. How can he talk about the freedom of Iraq when he doesn't allow people to vote on an extremely important issue like this one?
I will continue to support the Lib Dems, as I have done when Ashdown, Kennedy, and even Steele where running the show. I have ( of course ) no objection to Ming running the show, athough he is a bit old for my taste too.
Aye, well I'll see when I get to vote which party I'm best aligned to. I've generally been a fairly staunch supporter of the Lib Dems because their policies are mostly very good, but Ming seems to be more of an economic liberal (I guess what the US would call a "Libertarian") than the previously more social liberal candidates. That's my main problem with him, anyway.
By that time, most components of that weapon-system will be worn out.
This includes, of course, the nuclear power-plants that run the submarines.
You'll agree, I hope, that it is sounder practise to replace those with new ones rather than have the old ones carry on.
Why not replace the nuclear power-plants that run the submarines, but not the missiles?

That's cheaper, and eliminates the risk of a meltdown undersea, whilst still not making them any more dangerous.
I consider the only real threat the Scumbag States ( Pakistan comes to mind ) which try to grab more power and influence.
My policy on international power, btw, is very simple and straightforward:
none but the 5 Veto Powers to have any serious form of armament.
Anyone else who jockies fot them to be a Valid Military Target.
Let me be very very clear: any nuclear have-not that tries to become a nuclear have to be penalised severely.
What happens when one of the veto powers goes a bit mental, and attacks another state for no real reason, then?

Let's say the US attacks Nigeria because "they're harbouring terrorists" or whatever, despite them not doing anything wrong, and they're clearly after the oil.

What do the rest of the veto powers do in that circumstance?

Because Britain and the US' interests would clash, and they're both veto powers - oh no! What happens?
We have - you don't, it stays that way, and it is not open to discussion.
What if a veto power takes control of an area and builds a few silos there, then has to run away for whatever reason?

How is the rest of the world going to deal with that particular problem?

History has shown that those nations that are not prepared for war are caught out by it. Perhaps we will remain peaceful for a thousand years (I certainly hope so), but I would rather keep the weapons for that time never to use them than scrap them and wish we hadn't in a decades time.

I agree with your first sentence, but we're talking about nuclear, not conventional, war. It's not a matter of being 'caught out', since it's a zero-sum game from the perspective of a tiny nation like Britain. Two options:

1) We have a second-strike capability. We are attacked. All major cities destroyed. Our submarines launch counter-strike. Other country's major cities destroyed.

2) We have no nukes. Aggressor launches attack and Britain is destroyed. There is no-one left to lament the impotence of British nuclear might.

Then the third option:

3) We develop second generation nukes and attack a country with no second-strike capability. They are destroyed, we are not.

All options are equally ugly and require an incredibly unstable geopolitical situation. Again - why do we need nukes? Who are we defending ourselves against, and more importantly; can it be called defense?

Ummmm. I was also wrong about the Agri II. India do have an ICBM - the Agri IV - but its range is 5500km, so they still can't hit London.

Phew, eh?

I agree with your first sentence, but we're talking about nuclear, not conventional, war. It's not a matter of being 'caught out', since it's a zero-sum game from the perspective of a tiny nation like Britain. Two options:

1) We have a second-strike capability. We are attacked. All major cities destroyed. Our submarines launch counter-strike. Other country's major cities destroyed.

2) We have no nukes. Aggressor launches attack and Britain is destroyed. There is no-one left to lament the impotence of British nuclear might.

Then the third option:

3) We develop second generation nukes and attack a country with no second-strike capability. They are destroyed, we are not.

All options are equally ugly and require an incredibly unstable geopolitical situation. Again - why do we need nukes? Who are we defending ourselves against, and more importantly; can it be called defense?
You missed number four, by far most important point:

4) We have nuclear weapons, so aggressive nations do not attack us in the first place.

That's why it's called a nuclear deterrent, not a nuclear attack.

You'd rather have the only other alternative...the Conservatives?
I'd rather have Cameron's Conservatives than Brown's Labour, yeah.

That said, my vote'll most likely go to the Marxist Forum, because it's basically a spoilt ballot in favour of neither side.

You missed number four, by far most important point:

4) We have nuclear weapons, so aggressive nations do not attack us in the first place.

That's why it's called a nuclear deterrent, not a nuclear attack.

I know. But again, of the five states I mentioned before, which ones have a reason to launch a full-scale nuclear war against us? Can you hypothesize a reason?

I know. But again, of the five states I mentioned before, which ones have a reason to launch a full-scale nuclear war against us? Can you hypothesize a reason?
Can you really say with absolute certainty that Britain will never be threatened by war again? A 100% guarantee that it will never happen?

1. Maybe so, but my convictions don't really override the fact that Britain has larger priorities than nuclear re-armament and that Blair is acting like a dicatator on this one. How can he talk about the freedom of Iraq when he doesn't allow people to vote on an extremely important issue like this one?

2. Aye, well I'll see when I get to vote which party I'm best aligned to. I've generally been a fairly staunch supporter of the Lib Dems because their policies are mostly very good, but Ming seems to be more of an economic liberal (I guess what the US would call a "Libertarian") than the previously more social liberal candidates. That's my main problem with him, anyway.

3. Why not replace the nuclear power-plants that run the submarines, but not the missiles?

That's cheaper, and eliminates the risk of a meltdown undersea, whilst still not making them any more dangerous.

4. What happens when one of the veto powers goes a bit mental, and attacks another state for no real reason, then?

Let's say the US attacks Nigeria because "they're harbouring terrorists" or whatever, despite them not doing anything wrong, and they're clearly after the oil.

What do the rest of the veto powers do in that circumstance?

5. Because Britain and the US' interests would clash, and they're both veto powers - oh no! What happens?

5A. What if a veto power takes control of an area and builds a few silos there, then has to run away for whatever reason?

6. How is the rest of the world going to deal with that particular problem?

1. How are talk and actions connected? Losely.
Freedom, as applied to Iraq, will have to mean one thing: Zero Sharia Tolerance.
And that is a good thing indeed!
( That does not stop me from decrying the Iraq War as a mistake ab ovo. )

2. The main thing ( from my POV ) is that the LibDems are the only serious party that will take action in favour of proportional representation.

3. Because the same obsolence applies to many systems within the system.
Not just the drive-train, not just the computers, not just the fire-detection, the list goes on.
When a car is growing too old, you buy a new one.
Repairing it bit by bit is an emergency-option only.
When a weapon-system is growing to old, you buy a new one.
Sound practise.

4. Veto Powers never go too mental at eachother. *shrug* not since 1945.

As for the children of a lesser god, such as Nigeria...
I guess they'll have to learn to OBEY.

5. Do you propose nuking the USA?
I really must council against that.

5A. *shrug* which is why we prefer SLBMs over ICBMs. ;)

6. They'll learn to obey - or die.

Ummmm. I was also wrong about the Agri II. India do have an ICBM - the Agri IV - but its range is 5500km, so they still can't hit London.

Phew, eh?
Depends where they launch it from. It couldn't hit London from Bombay, and it would be unlikely from Delhi (5900km). From northern Himachal Pradesh? That's between 5000-5500km from London.

Ummmm. I was also wrong about the Agri II. India do have an ICBM - the Agri IV - but its range is 5500km, so they still can't hit London.

Phew, eh?

I ain't worried about India.
I'm worried about Pakistan.

I know. But again, of the five states I mentioned before, which ones have a reason to launch a full-scale nuclear war against us? Can you hypothesize a reason?
And in the next, say, 50 years, how many countries that may have a reason to declare war on us will develop usable nuclear technology? Iran are likely to manage that, assuming America doesn't invade.

I ain't worried about India.
I'm worried about Pakistan.
Does Pakistan have nuclear weapons with the range to hit Britain?

And in the next, say, 50 years, how many countries that may have a reason to declare war on us will develop usable nuclear technology? Iran are likely to manage that, assuming America doesn't invade.



Which is why I support the Americans invading that...

They're about to discuss this on the Jeremy Vine show:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio2.shtml

You can enjoy a bit of Annie Lennox first. :p

Does Pakistan have nuclear weapons with the range to hit Britain?


Not yet. And lets make sure they don't get 'em either. cf: Iran.

For Labour to 'lose it' one must assume that they ever had some marbles to misplace.

Of course they should replace Trident. An independent Nuclear Deterent is an important part of a defence, even though it should (hopefully) never be used. The costs are exagerated, anyway; it's a far smaller recurring cost, not 25 billion all at once.

Why is it the same people who complain we are 'America's Poodle' then want to remove our independent means of defence?
I agree.

I don't see why we can't get rid of other bits of the armed forces to fund it. It's not like we have any need to launch an invasion fleet to anywhere.

The way I see it:
We have nuclear weapons; most people leave us alone.
Loopy country launches a military campaign against us.
We turn their major towns and cities to glass before they get here.
They now have far more important things to worry about than invading us, nobody doubts our will to defend ourselves and we're left alone by loopy countries in future. Almost everyone lives happily ever after.

It doesn't matter whether the loopy country is Iran, the US, or Sealand.

@Zen: From the Brits' point of view, option 3 is far and away the best.

Brief Synopsis (my own, which is horribly biased, I'll admit) - With the NHS in a total crisis, and tax credits making the poor poorer, the Labour Party reckons that spending £25 billion (about $45 billion/€35 billion/many, many Yen) on new ways to nuke people for miles away is a good idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5104918.stm

Any semblance of sanity has officially gone from the Labour Party. And we might have to put up with the bastards for 3 years yet. Argh.


heheh true but it is still better than a Tory goverment. So there!

I agree.

I don't see why we can't get rid of other bits of the armed forces to fund it. It's not like we have any need to launch an invasion fleet to anywhere.

SNIP.


Falkland Islands...

Which is why I support the Americans invading that...
Each to their own. I support a policy of non-intervention in pretty much every case.

Not yet. And lets make sure they don't get 'em either. cf: Iran.
I don't think it really matters if they do. If they ever use them, no matter who on, India would use it as an excuse to nuke them back to the Stone Age.

Falkland Islands...
Yeah, under my scheme Argentina would've had its major towns and cities turned to radioactive craters before their invasion fleet got to the Falklands.

A guy on the radio just said we shouldn't renew Trident because 'it's dangerous'. :p

And here was me thinking that's the point of weapons...

1. How are talk and actions connected? Losely.
Freedom, as applied to Iraq, will have to mean one thing: Zero Sharia Tolerance.
And that is a good thing indeed!
( That does not stop me from decrying the Iraq War as a mistake ab ovo. )
Iraq was already secular... what we may have caused is the creation of a Sharia state by accident.
2. The main thing ( from my POV ) is that the LibDems are the only serious party that will take action in favour of proportional representation.
Aye, and they want the Euro and closer ties with the EU, rather than the US, which can only be a good thing. That's why they'd get my vote.

On the other hand, they seem a bit confused as to whether they're on the left or right at the moment, which isn't too good.
3. Because the same obsolence applies to many systems within the system.
Not just the drive-train, not just the computers, not just the fire-detection, the list goes on.
When a car is growing too old, you buy a new one.
Repairing it bit by bit is an emergency-option only.
When a weapon-system is growing to old, you buy a new one.
Sound practise.
I have a question (this may seem like I'm just ignoring you, but it's relevant) - do we not have silos with nuclear armaments in?

Why do we really need submarines?

As I said, get new reactors for them (or better yet, decommision them) at the most.

If we are genuinely going to use missiles for deterrent purposes only, then the ones launched from our silos should be enough to keep people from attacking us.
4. Veto Powers never go too mental at eachother. *shrug* not since 1945.
And if everyone else is poorly armed, why, therefore, do we need nuclear weapons?
As for the children of a lesser god, such as Nigeria...
I guess they'll have to learn to OBEY.
That's rather callous, no?
5. Do you propose nuking the USA?
I really must council against that.
Why would I propose that? Millions of innocents will die... I have no idea how you read that into it.

It was more just that the system is flawed.
6. They'll learn to obey - or die.
Yeah, well threatening a new nuclear power is slightly foolish, especially if you've been pretty poor to them in the past. Firing missiles at them'll just bring about nuclear tennis.

heheh true but it is still better than a Tory goverment. So there!
I'm no Tory, but even I can see that Blair has gone much, much too far. He knows that he's losing his grasp upon his country and seemingly wants to get himself into the history books.

Cameron, on the other hand has not yet lost his marbles, and has pushed his party to the left of Labour on many issues.

Of the main parties, the Lib Dems are the most palatible, but since they're in a total shambles, there's no chance they'll win.

Yeah, under my scheme Argentina would've had its major towns and cities turned to radioactive craters before their invasion fleet got to the Falklands.
That would be a bit unfair, seeing as we'd be killing off their civilian population over some strategically placed sheep farmers.

Yootopia: I have a question (this may seem like I'm just ignoring you, but it's relevant) - do we not have silos with nuclear armaments in?

No, we don't. Neither do the French. For sound tactical reasons, which are too long to get into.

We rely on SLBMs, and it behooves us to keep those in fine shape.



PS: I'm not getting annoyed or snappy, but... workload is picking up, and I can't give your questions the lengthier answers they deserve.

... Iraq was already secular... what we may have caused is the creation of a Sharia state by accident.



I know... and predicted it. *sighs*




Callousness. I know it is very callous. It is also very sensible. Pax Romana is preferable over barbarianism. I wholeheartedly support the system in which a few states lay down the Law, and all others have no choice but to either obey, or be eliminated.

Yootopia: I have a question (this may seem like I'm just ignoring you, but it's relevant) - do we not have silos with nuclear armaments in?

No, we don't. Neither do the French. For sound tactical reasons, which are too long to get into.

We rely on SLBMs, and it behooves us to keep those in fine shape.



PS: I'm not getting annoyed or snappy, but... workload is picking up, and I can't give your questions the lengthier answers they deserve.

... Iraq was already secular... what we may have caused is the creation of a Sharia state by accident.



I know... and predicted it. *sighs*




Callousness. I know it is very callous. It is also very sensible. Pax Romana is preferable over barbarianism. I wholeheartedly support the system in which a few states lay down the Law, and all others have no choice but to either obey, or be eliminated.
OK, fair enough.

I should probably be revising "The Changing Status of Women in the 20th Century" and "The Vietnam War" about now, so I'd best be off.

Can you really say with absolute certainty that Britain will never be threatened by war again? A 100% guarantee that it will never happen?

Conventional war - no, but I'll go with 'probably not'. Threatened with nuclear annihilation? Again, I ask by who and add another point. If any other country gains ICBMs, who will they be looking to fire them at? The countries that are messing with them for their resources. So, if the only reason for having nukes is to have carte blanche in plundering another nation's economy, then fine - whatever. Have them. But we'll have to make a pretty big condom for ourselves while we're raping those third world states. They've got all kinds of STD's, you know.

It's strange. Americans, British and French talk about the nuclear deterrent, but China and Russia aren't sabre-rattling like they used to in the bad ol' eighties. Maybe it's because they're pursuing a policy of diplomacy to gain energy and industrial supplies rather than empire-building. Just a thought.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before as I only scanned through the thread so sorry if it has.

Everyone is talking about the 25bn figureas if it were the only one. According to a Newsnight report last night only 10bn would be requires to overhaul the trident system and extend its life, around 17bn would allow us to buy the new system the US is working on the replace its own ageing trident systems and 25bn would buy us not only a new missile system but a brand new shiney combined attack/nuclear missile platform submarine system.

I don't think the question is whether or not the UK will upgrade (it's going to), btu how much we should spend and the pros and cons of each system.