CyclopsRock
Member
Tbf I found 3% of Greece's GDP down the back of my sofa earlier tonight.
And the US actually spends like 4 or 5% right? For the country with the overwhelmingly largest GDP in the world that's mental. Absolutely monstrous force.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
And the US actually spends like 4 or 5% right? For the country with the overwhelmingly largest GDP in the world that's mental. Absolutely monstrous force.
The US spends more on defense that the next 10 nations combined. Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India, Israel - it's utterly insane how much they spend.
CyclopsRock
Member
Good job they're the good guys, eh?
WayneMorse
Banned
what the fuck is the point of trident
you might as well just throw money into a furnace.
you might as well just throw money into a furnace.
So the UK can pretend it's still a world power.
benjipwns
Banned
Think of them as a mobile furnace.
They spend Israels too, remember.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, we sort of are. After the United States, China, and Japan, we're probably in at no. 4, although you could make an argument for France instead; it's just only the top 2 really matter.
CyclopsRock
Member
The UK, France and the US are the only militaries in the world with any significant power projection - though ours is diminished at the moment due to a lack of air craft carriers. And the US is miles and away in front of the UK and France. But, put another way, basically no other country except the UK, US or France could have won a war like the Falklands. Though even then we had to piggy back on the US a lot even just to get to Iraq.
As for Trident, I think they're important. The nuclear deterrent isn't just some page out of history imo. Yes, as members of NATO we sit under the US nuclear umbrella but a) that makes it into a purely economic decision, which is fine but also b) shows our hand as basically having our foreign policy in lock-step with the US. And for the most part it is, because we're both western liberal democracies with liberal interventionist streaks in the northern hemisphere, two chief members of NATO and the security council and with similar ideological underpinnings. So it's not unusual that our foreign policy is largely the same, but if we simply relied on the US's nuclear arsenal, there would be things that we couldn't even threaten - and I'm not talking about nuclear war - with any expectation of being taken seriously if the US wasn't also playing ball on. Furthermore, we benefit from the umbrella, I've no qualms about funding. Finally, we'd become the only member of the permanent security council without nuclear weapons, weakening our position.
As for Trident, I think they're important. The nuclear deterrent isn't just some page out of history imo. Yes, as members of NATO we sit under the US nuclear umbrella but a) that makes it into a purely economic decision, which is fine but also b) shows our hand as basically having our foreign policy in lock-step with the US. And for the most part it is, because we're both western liberal democracies with liberal interventionist streaks in the northern hemisphere, two chief members of NATO and the security council and with similar ideological underpinnings. So it's not unusual that our foreign policy is largely the same, but if we simply relied on the US's nuclear arsenal, there would be things that we couldn't even threaten - and I'm not talking about nuclear war - with any expectation of being taken seriously if the US wasn't also playing ball on. Furthermore, we benefit from the umbrella, I've no qualms about funding. Finally, we'd become the only member of the permanent security council without nuclear weapons, weakening our position.
I don't believe our global influence warrants an arsenal like Trident. If there has to be nuclear weapons then let the leading powers such as the US bear the financial burden. As members of NATO and the UN, we can play a role more fitting of a small nation. Trident is expensive posturing, a last gasp of a time when Britian was a leading power.
List the countries you think can attack the UK's territories and have a chance of winning. People need to stop believing the press and the bollocks that get written about our forces.
I'm not sure in this age of Russian bombers constantly buzzing our East coast and a ever so slightly mad Russian bear running things in the Kremlin that we can consider going backwards on this stuff.
Jezbollah
Member
What is the point of your missile shield in Eastern Europe?
What exactly are the threats you want to make with nukes, and who do you want to threaten?
The only way I can see to use nukes as a threat is to be able to threaten to turn huge amounts of land into radioactive wasteland. Well, if we just want to join in if the world has a half hour long nuclear world war 3 then if it makes people feel better about adding to the end of the world I suppose I can't argue. But since we would be living in Threads I don't think it would make much difference to me.
So who are you going to threaten with nuclear holocaust?
CyclopsRock
Member
I literally said "and I'm not talking about nuclear war" immediately after the "threats" line. I wasn't talking about threats involving nukes.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - my point was that as long as you rely on the military of another country for your over all protection (In this case the US's nuclear arsenal) then you're locked, to some degree, to their foreign policy. The threats I'm talking about, then, are anything we may wish to do that the US wouldn't want us to do. There's only so long you can have opposing foreign policy goals.
We should seek to keep our military options as independent as possible.
But the UK doesn't make any part of the Trident missiles it uses.
It relies totally on the US to build and more importantly to maintain the entire system as was stated quite clearly last year.
From the article:
In a most serious report released on Tuesday on an issue crucial to Britain's identity and security but woefully neglected in political debate, one issue stands out the extent to which the UK's nuclear deterrent relies on the US.
Without the cooperation of the US, says the report of the independent all-party Trident Commission, the life expectancy of the UK's nuclear capability could be measured in months.
The commission's high level panel says it agrees that Britain's deterrent is "a hostage to American goodwill".
"If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years".
Not only are Britain's Trident missiles in a common pool shared with the US and maintained in Kings Bay, Georgia, its nuclear warheads are designed and maintained at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston with the help of US know-how, as recently declassified documents on the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement confirmed.
Tuesday's report noted: "The UK is dependent on the United States for many component parts of the guidance and re-entry vehicle, and for the Trident ballistic missile system itself".
If you want to be independent of the USA on defence matters (which I think is a very good idea) then upgrading Trident is definitely not the way to go.
It relies totally on the US to build and more importantly to maintain the entire system as was stated quite clearly last year.
From the article:
In a most serious report released on Tuesday on an issue crucial to Britain's identity and security but woefully neglected in political debate, one issue stands out the extent to which the UK's nuclear deterrent relies on the US.
Without the cooperation of the US, says the report of the independent all-party Trident Commission, the life expectancy of the UK's nuclear capability could be measured in months.
The commission's high level panel says it agrees that Britain's deterrent is "a hostage to American goodwill".
"If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years".
Not only are Britain's Trident missiles in a common pool shared with the US and maintained in Kings Bay, Georgia, its nuclear warheads are designed and maintained at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston with the help of US know-how, as recently declassified documents on the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement confirmed.
Tuesday's report noted: "The UK is dependent on the United States for many component parts of the guidance and re-entry vehicle, and for the Trident ballistic missile system itself".
If you want to be independent of the USA on defence matters (which I think is a very good idea) then upgrading Trident is definitely not the way to go.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
You have got a clue what you're talking about.
'small nation' ??? ..if you think the UK is a 'small nation' in relation to NATO then you really need to wake the fuck up.
Taking America out of the equation, NATO without the UK would have virtually nothing, certainly zero reach outside of the European mainland.
Trident isn't just a UK deterrent, its a NATO deterrent, and I can guarantee none of our fellow NATO members would want the UK to drop its nuclear deterrent.
As the talk in the election news today seems to be about Trident I immediately thought of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJh3qKjSMk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJh3qKjSMk
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
..you're quoting a Guardian article on defence, lol..fuck off. You only have to look at the publishers of that report to see the agenda at work.
What next, a Telegraph article on why Scottish independence is a bad idea.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
It's well known that Fallon is an odious moron. You have to wonder why they keep sending out their stupidest, most unlikeable people to try and convince others that Ed is Satan.
One way I like to give the example of spending disparity is the number of Aircraft carriers. The US has 20 (11 CATOBAR, 9 STOVL) in service, the rest of the world put together has 19 and most of those are helicopter/VTOL only.
As for Trident. It's a monumental waste of money because in practice it's not an independent deterrent. The US could say tomorrow that the UK shouldn't have nuclear weapons and by August our subs would be useless because while we can build warheads (to US designs using US plutonium/uranium) we cannot build and maintain the missiles without the US.
The French manage to have a completely independent air and sea deterrent for the same cost as Trident.
Yeah, it always perplexes me when people go on about us being a 'small country'. We're not. We have one of the largest economies in the world, one of the largest armed forces, a world wide diplomatic service and soft power influence second only to the USA and one of the few operating blue water navies in existance (the USA and possibly France being the others).
The UK is only small in comparison to the USA and China. But *everyone* is small under that comparison.
Wrestlemania
Banned
No, he's quoting a report by an "independent all-party Trident Commission". What is wrong with you?
The other one that amuses me is the worlds largest Air Force is, of course, the United States Air Force.
The second largest is the United States Navy...
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
Guess what, you can find anti Trident politicians on all sides of the political spectrum, including Tories, and that's what this commission was made up of.
CyclopsRock
Member
You're all right that Trident isn't nearly as independent as it should be - and I'd really like us to get a fully independent one - but it still offers us greater manouvrability than literally relying on the US foreign policy use of them.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
Leaving aside the fact that is complete bullshit, do you think any potential aggressor is going to take the monumental risk that the UK can't use the missiles independently?
..its an awfully big fucking risk...and that's the whole point of Trident.
If the UK has no justification for a nuclear deterrent then the exact same arguments apply to France, even more so in its current economically distressed condition.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
...the commission actively advocates for renewing Trident? Did you even read it?
We are a small nation? Our diplomatic clout comes from the organisations we are a part of. The UK singularly is not the power it used to be, despite what people like to think. I understand our current role. Im saying we shouldn't be occupying it.
We should play a global role of a small nation within NATO, UN etc, and if you want to make the argument for nuclear deterrent, let the other members of NATO cover that cost. In the context of the cuts to welfare and public services, renewing Trident when there is zero need to is ridiculous.
I'm obviously bias because I think championing nuclear disarmament by brandishing nuclear weapons is a shitty argument. Especially in a world were economic sanctions have been shown to be much more effective.
As for the "potential aggressor" argument, NATO itself shows this to be horse shit. The majority of members don't have weapons and are not the target for attacks.
YouGov changed to their 'election' weighting this week. Where the likelihood to vote plays more of a factor. In previous elections this has caused a boost for the Tories, it doesnt seem to this time, but regardless of that it makes a direct comparison between this week and last week problematic.
To be fair, that should have had a Guardian Warning on it. So I take it you are of the opinion that the conclusion is completely wrong and that the UK trident fleet operates independent of US support? Could you provide a source for that information please.
In any case I'm still not following how the nuclear deterrent works. I assume the idea is to be able to say that the UK can launch nuclear missiles at another country, outwith the whole world war 3 scenario.
Because if it's ww3 then it doesn't matter what we do, the world is fucked anyway, the UK's missiles won't make any difference if the entire planet is irradiated. Nuclear winter, crops fail, all that.
So the chain of events must be something like:
1. Another country does something the UK government really doesn't like, to the point where a unilateral nuclear strike against this enemy is seen as the only response.
2. The UK launches a nuclear strike against this enemy country, destroying it.
3. Every other country in the world says "Bravo UK government, you certainly have massive balls. Why the rest of us feel all small and insignificant now. No retaliation, no need for sanctions and of course you won't be an international pariah."
Is that how it's supposed to work?
CyclopsRock
Member
The way it's supposed to work is that it never escalates that far when dealing with countries with nuclear weapons. It was a lot easier to drop two nukes on Japan to end a war than it would be to do the same against an opponent who has the capacity to do likewise back to you. Furthermore, if you're an aggressive regional power, perhaps one that rides horses shirtless, you know you can run roughshod over your neighbours safe in the knowledge that your field military can whack the shit out of theirs. Would you be so keen if you knew they had the capacity to vapourise you at the touch of a button?
Again, the idea of MAD revolves around the "M" bit, really - that there are few scenarios in which the rewards for conquest will outweigh the potential risk, and this is a risk that simply doesn't exist when your enemy combatant doesn't possess any sort of WMD.
Edit: This is of course a different discussion to the trident one; This discussion applies equally to all nuclear powers.
Again, the idea of MAD revolves around the "M" bit, really - that there are few scenarios in which the rewards for conquest will outweigh the potential risk, and this is a risk that simply doesn't exist when your enemy combatant doesn't possess any sort of WMD.
Edit: This is of course a different discussion to the trident one; This discussion applies equally to all nuclear powers.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
So assuming no party gets an overall majority, what's people's thinking on whether Miliband will stay as leader? If there is a Lab/SNP coalition or confidences/supply agreement that would put him in No10, would labour even want him leading the party anymore given that he failed to win an election he probably should have sleepwalked?
I understand the idea of MAD.
So who are the potential targets for the UK to launch a unilateral strike on?
I honestly can't think of a scenario where the UK would destroy another country in a unilateral nuclear attack.
Dunno, who would get the job? I don't think there's anybody exactly inspiring for them to choose from.
If it's an Labour/SNP he'll probably be fine short term at least. Miliband isn't the reason the Scottish Labour is so moribund, it's doubtful any UK Labour leader would have made a real difference. It's a combination of poor local performance by their Scottish leadership and MSP's, the Scottish party taking it's electorate for granted and the fall out of the independence debate. You could argue a more personable leader could have improved their Scottish fortunes, but I don't know how valid that is to be honest. Miliband has largely moved Labour in a direction which in theory should be more palatable to Scottish voters than the latter days of the Blair and Brown administrations.
There's also the issue that there's no one else really waiting in the wings on the Labour benches.
Cameron will probably have more of an issue if he manages to scrape back into power.
There are none.
But the idea is that we have the potential, even though we never would unless someone did it first at which point it would be pointless anyway.
I'd be ok with getting rid all together, but then I'm not in the security briefings.
We get far more use out of carriers and such that actually project force worldwide in a visible way and actually allow us to get involved when needed.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
He'd have to stay as leader at least for coalition/supply negotiations; the process of electing a new leader (unless one went uncontested, which will not happen given there is no clear heir apparent) will take some time, certainly longer than most people would find it acceptable to government-less for. It would be very odd for him to have negotiated the terms of a new government, and then find himself unable to lead that government, at least in the short term. I think if he forms the government, he will endure for some time yet.
Miliband also isn't really doing so badly. If Scotland were voting the same as it was in 2005, Ed would be on for around 37.5%, which is really quite good indeed. It's not really his fault that Scottish Labour is doing poorly, the rot set in long before his time.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Personally I do think we need a nuclear deterrent and I am open minded about how we achieve it. I'd prefer a cheaper option that we can entirely manage ourselves.
What a wonderful contribution. Tell us more.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I'm on board with this. I'm also rankled at the idea that France's nuclear deterrent is cheaper and better.
CyclopsRock
Member
1) There isn't, but the fact this is the question makes me think that perhaps you still don't entirely understand the point. The threat of nuclear destruction is implicit in everything when dealing with a nuclear power. You could snub a French diplomat at a embassy party in Malta and they could nuke you. This would be umbelievably unlikely, of course. You could invade France and be bearing down the Champs-Élysées in a
2) We couldn't really destroy any countries - we only have one sub out at a time and they carry, I think, a maximum of 16 warheads. The point isn't destroying your enemy to the point they can no longer fight - it's making the cost of their actions so great that no potential risk is worth it. For example, we couldn't come close to destroying Russia - but what's Russia with a nuclear-decimated St Petersburg, Moscow, Novosibirsk etc. This was the point of Hiroshima and Nagasaki too (though they did also have significant industrial sectors, which is often forgotten).
This was basically what happened to Brown - stuck around for negotiations and pissed off like a mangy bowl of piss down a drain when it was clear they'd not be in government.
The only country that I can possibly see the UK having any kind of military conflict with is perhaps Argentina. Their government is desperate to distract their people from the mess the country is in and a quick "retake our Malvinas" campaign might seem like a good idea.
As you say though it's conventional equipment the UK needs to fight that type of war and I don't see us ending up nuking Buenos Aires no matter what the outcome.
StealthGoblin
Banned
16 Missiles, 48 Warheads.
Theoretically, we could have 3 at sea if called upon. That would require the ones doing training to arm.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
They should literally force Alan Johnson to become pm
Threaten him that if he doesn't, prezza will move in to his house and do nothing but eat pies and play croquet
Interesting. So you don't think a proper labour agenda from london - renationalisation of rail, more devolution of tax powers etc - would have made a difference in scotland? Have labour mp's really been that lazy in scotland since the poll tax?
Exactly. Even though the only one that might directly start something directly with us is Argentina, there are other operations where British forces are used all over the world. We had nukes in '82 and didn't use them and it didn't deter them, instead we used our conventional forces and ability to project power through carriers to resolve the situation.
US having Nukes won't stop a terrorist group setting one off, nor will it stop North Korea from sending one to South Korea or Pakistan from sending one to Israel. The Americans parking a fleet off the coast is what will stop anyone from doing that.
The thing I object to most when it comes to the whole Trident discussion is that money spent on it isn't just a stack of cash that gets thrown into a shredder, it employs high-skilled Brits all over the country. You need engineers, physicists, electricians, designers and a whole host of support functions and logistics to provide support.
If we somehow know exactly what will happen the next 30+ years (who in the mid 90's predicted Russia's resurgence today?) then it's still a pretty sound investment, but since there are so many variables at play it seems like a sound insurance policy to keep a deterrent.
I'm not so sure that we can rely on the US for our (Europe's) defence for eternity, there is always the chance of them turning back to isolationism. The moment we get rid of Trident you lose a massive amount of talent and it'll take a decade to get a program back on track again if we somehow would need it again.
If we somehow know exactly what will happen the next 30+ years (who in the mid 90's predicted Russia's resurgence today?) then it's still a pretty sound investment, but since there are so many variables at play it seems like a sound insurance policy to keep a deterrent.
I'm not so sure that we can rely on the US for our (Europe's) defence for eternity, there is always the chance of them turning back to isolationism. The moment we get rid of Trident you lose a massive amount of talent and it'll take a decade to get a program back on track again if we somehow would need it again.
CyclopsRock
Member
Gotcha, right!
Indeedio, but that'd also require a relatively significant amount of notice, I would assume. This is all theoretical, but I guess it's theoretical power that we're talking about in the first place so... yeah.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked