In North Cornwall Labour only got 5% of the vote.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
We have four built vanguard class submarines between 1986 and 1998. These are due to be replaced. Every year they remain in operation costs money to extend their lives (some are slightly newer than others).
Each Vanguard Submarine can take up to 16 US made Lockheed Trident II missile (although actual operating number might be less). Each missile can take up to 12 warheads and each warhead can strike a separate target, possibly hundreds or thousands of miles apart.
16 missiles, 12 warheads is 192 separate targets. Each warhead I believe has around 4 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb (from memory). The warheads and missiles are 100% maintained by the United States, although they do not require US codes to be detonated.
Clearly each Submarine has the power to totally annihilate an enemy state, and that is the point.
Trident is by design, a "second strike" weapon. If you wipe us out, we will wipe you out. The UK Prime Minister gives each submarine commander a letter telling them what to do in the event the UK is wiped out; nothing, join an allied state, if there is one, or retaliate. The UK does not have tactical nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons to be used on the battlefield), so Piers Morgan's suggested that we should Nuke ISIS is stupid (if we needed to, we would ask the US to do it).
In general I believe that Trident makes the use of Nuclear Weapons less likely, just as it is designed to do as Nuclear Deterrent. Deterrent. Noun. a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.
However there are problems with Trident:
Trident costs around 0.1% of GDP. Our Foreign Aid budget is 0.7% and NATO minimum Defense budget is 2%
- Are our enemies able to track our submarines?
- Have they hacked them or installed some sort of secret kill-switch?
- All our submarines need to birth every few years. Taking them out whilst docked would be trivial.
- The lack of Nuclear Launch codes makes a warhead going off whilst being maintained, or in another situation, more likely.
- Our missiles and warheads are made by the US. Maybe they too have installed a kill switch, or maybe there is a flaw in the design (see firing the wrong way recently).
- If we elected a Trump/Nixon type figure, would he authorize their use unnecessarily (Deference Secretary Michael Fallon recently spoke about using them).
- Arguably, the biggest threat from Nuclear Weapons isn't from Iran, North Korea or Russian strike... but from a "sum of all fears" scenario where terrorists of rogue national agents simply walk a nuclear weapon into one of our cities. Indeed, realistically, it would actually be stupid for a foreign country to fire nuclear weapons at another country these days. Just walk them in on a lorry....
To add to this, Australia are not part of NATO, have no official protection from the Nuclear Umbrella (unofficially maybe they do), they often supply troops to fight wars in the middle east... And they have not been nuked. Does trident really provide useful protection in the 21st century?
Good post, although I'd say your final question is only asked because allies of ours (and of Australia) maintain their nuclear arsenals. Any nuclear attack on a western-aligned state results in nuclear retaliation, we certainly wouldn't sit back and watch Australia turned from a sun baked wasteland into a radioactive wasteland. I think in the face of a newly aggressive Russia this is exactly the wrong time to be considering getting rid of our nuclear deterrant. In an ideal world there are many, MANY things we would rather spend the money on, but this isn't the time. Things are getting hot again, and nuclear isn't something you can just quickly make again if you suddenly need it.
Of course, it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Corbyn is known to be an Arsenal fan...
'We Are Not Afraid' 'Face of Fear' 
North London actually, although i'm keeping my eye out for an apartment which could be elsewhere in the capital. An aunt did used to be a very diligent Labour councillor, although i've not seen her in some months so don't know her position this time. There are some Lib Dems and UKIP most likely, just not much in the way of Labour.
Two of defining policy areas for my parents are transport and healthcare. The causes of which haven't necessarily originated with Corbyn himself, rather the wider party.
If i ultimately vote Tory it'll be down to three things in particular: Brexit, the economy, local politics.
Indeed. I think our Nuclear Deterrent treads the line of being barely adequate though (although so barely adequate it's difficult to cut). Its not hard to envision a scenario where we lose access to it.
And that's where the argument falls flat. We dont live in a bubble. We aren't North Korea. Our Nuclear Deterrent forms protection only when combined with that of our NATO colleagues, primarily the USA. Our Generals and Commanders arent sitting around a table going "right, imagine the US dont exist for a moment"....
What the Nuclear Detterent does or should do, is make global Nuclear Warfare less likely. It pushes the Nuclear balance towards the "no-win" scenario in a safe way. But sadly the public never debate the merits of that. It's all "would you nuke ISIS or not?!"
There are arguments to be made for and against renewing Trident, but I'm not sure "Australia hasn't been nuked and they don't even have nuclear weapons" is the most compelling.
Where abouts do you live Nick?
The Conservative incumbent got around 50% of vote share as i recall. I didn't vote for him on that occasion, but Heidi Allen seems to like him and i respect her above many current MPs.
Indeed. There's also a real conversation that needs to be had about Britain's position in the world. It's fashionable for people to say 'We're a small country, we should accept that', but our oversized diplomatic prestige and place on the security council provides a lot of benefits for the country both economic and political. Getting rid of our nukes almost certainly means losing a lot of influence and in the long term, money. If that's what people decide we should do then fine, but it should be discussed as a whole package and the consequences clearly put forward.
The biggest argument against it is that it is highly likely that by the time our subs are actually built, underwater drone tech will be at the point they can be tracked and destroyed at will.
"Highly likely" is a huge exaggeration.
Just don't say that to any military/trident/submarine experts as they'll laugh in your face.It's funny watching each side exploit what happened over the weekend and then be outraged at the other side exploiting what happened over the weekend.
Social media full of lefties and right-wingers complaining that exploiting the attack is outrageous and instead insist the real issue is cuts in police numbers/the other side being soft on terrorism.
Social media full of lefties and right-wingers complaining that exploiting the attack is outrageous and instead insist the real issue is cuts in police numbers/the other side being soft on terrorism.
I dont know. Everyone is building and developing marine and submarine drones.
That's not something ive thought about, but there is probably the real prospect of thousands of these drones looking for nuclear submarines.
Not sure highly likely is thay far off
I'm all for tearing Theresa May to shreds in whatever form it takes.
http://www.alphr.com/the-future/1003587/the-submarine-drones-that-could-depower-tridentErm, do you know about some underwater tech development that we dont?
https://www.rt.com/news/359648-underwater-drone-nuclear-subs/
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-adv-underwater-drones-20160722-snap-story.html
Last one is least relevant
I dont know. Everyone is building and developing marine and submarine drones.
That's not something ive thought about, but there is probably the real prospect of thousands of these drones looking for nuclear submarines.
Not sure highly likely is thay far off
But we'd have to assume that the technology of keeping these subs off the radar would also at least try to keep pace? So I don't fully understand the point.
I don't know a single Tory voter outside this forum. Everybody I know votes Labour or the greens. Guess it just comes down to which part of the country you are from. Manchester is very much a Labour city.
Or people who say they vote Labour but lie as they dont want a political debate.
Or to be attacked. I've never voted Tory but the way I've witnessed people who say they do be treated like they're committing a crime isn't very nice. It isn't just disagreement either, it's real anger. I would imagine it's the same the other way around where people who were brought up with a certain set of political values with absolutely no exposure to anyone outside people who agree with them, have very little tolerance of the views of other people or even of their right to hold different views.
'Never kissed a Tory' t-shirts being a frivolous yet symptomatic example. I think it's generational too. Unless part of the student movement young people tend not to be terribly tribal. Left leaning generally but not tribal in a way that those who were around in the 70s and 80s seem to be and seem to have a bizarre mistrust of anyone not equally as tribal as they are.
Most of my friends (25-40ish age group) vote for a rainbow of different parties and none seem to view the other as the 'enemy' for voting a different way. I prefer this and find it much more conducive to constructive conversation than people who's loyalty to a party is matched only by loyalty to their football club where everything quickly descends into a shouting match based on "How dare you disagree with me"
Last edited:
Leafy Enfield.
I thought that said Lefty Enfield for a second there.
Just think about the scale. I could imagine them being a threat to attack subs that are likely to be within a relatively small area. Vanguards (and eventually Dreadnaughts) can be nailed down to "probably somewhere in the atlantic", lurking for months at a time. And if there are multiple thousands of these anti-sub drones quietly plodding around the sea for months at a time, happily giving away their position with sonar pings, I'd imagine they'd be a fair sight more vulnerable to passive anti-anti-sub drones than the subs themselves. And so on.I dont know. Everyone is building and developing marine and submarine drones.
That's not something ive thought about, but there is probably the real prospect of thousands of these drones looking for nuclear submarines.
Not sure highly likely is thay far off
My mate I was best man for just moved to Enfield - if I introduce you to him you'll at least have one.
I was slapped (hard) by a girl in 2010 for saying the Lib Dems did the right thing democratically by forming a coalition with the party who had the most seats.
Maybe you are right.
But lets say small water based drones were perfected, capable of locating nuclear submarines in a decent distance, each costing $100,000. Building ten thousand of them would only cost $1bn. There a are lots of passive techniques that could be used (measuring Infared, accoustics, etc). They could even conduct active measurements just very infrequently.
Hmm. Not sure. Dont know enough about the subject
May also opposed a lot of anti-terrorism legislation. Corbyn even referred to it in a debate, not that anyone would know as the quote was left off the news coverage of the debate.
100%
@Oscie
About you saying & not appreciating why us non-Tories are angry.
The Tories represent the haves. The haves have too fecking much and always want more (most of them). They have a large tendency to believe that the have-nots deserve to be the have-nots & deserve to to be where they are. There is constant 'politicking' in this regard as a way of retaining power at the very least.
The Left represent the disenfranchised of various types - they tend to get a bit pissed off with being treated like shit & with the selfish attitudes of those people who are considerably better off than they will ever be.
Conservative policy seems consistently about taking from the poor & giving to the rich rather than the other way around or operating to benefit everybody. Money flows naturally to those who already have it anyway**, it hardly needs political encouragement from a bunch of jaundiced cnuts who think they are better than everybody else.
(I'm not even a proper Lefty btw - there's some strange stuff goes on on that side too. They over-adhere to principles & don't like any mention of reality sometimes, that's for sure, and a fair few are incredibly bad tempered) <--- that would include me too atm, tbf.
**Thank feck for Hayekian trickledown that's what I always say,.
About you saying & not appreciating why us non-Tories are angry.
The Tories represent the haves. The haves have too fecking much and always want more (most of them). They have a large tendency to believe that the have-nots deserve to be the have-nots & deserve to to be where they are. There is constant 'politicking' in this regard as a way of retaining power at the very least.
The Left represent the disenfranchised of various types - they tend to get a bit pissed off with being treated like shit & with the selfish attitudes of those people who are considerably better off than they will ever be.
Conservative policy seems consistently about taking from the poor & giving to the rich rather than the other way around or operating to benefit everybody. Money flows naturally to those who already have it anyway**, it hardly needs political encouragement from a bunch of jaundiced cnuts who think they are better than everybody else.
(I'm not even a proper Lefty btw - there's some strange stuff goes on on that side too. They over-adhere to principles & don't like any mention of reality sometimes, that's for sure, and a fair few are incredibly bad tempered) <--- that would include me too atm, tbf.
**Thank feck for Hayekian trickledown that's what I always say,
.This is a good bit of analysis
https://marriott-stats.com/nigels-b...-5-steps-to-making-sense-of-the-latest-polls/
Does dampen my spirits though. But actually, I wouldn't read too much into it. His part 4 analysis had a huge Tory win, but didn't factor into whether turnout would be different at all.
People who bring up the anti-terrorism legislation angle either ignore the Tories' voting record on it or can't cite one piece of legislation they're particularly in favour of. It's a complete dead cat.
May saying the minimum she can to defend Khan and not criticise Trump
"Trump is Trump"?
For comparison - the actual number of voter registration applications logged was over 4.5m in 2017 up to the deadline, so it goes to show how many are duplicates.
Strong and stable leadership™