Join the Labour Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Maybe he just can't remember. It's 30 years ago.

I know you'd love the story to be true, but I'm surprised this guy didn't claim that Elvis was at the meeting, too.

Let's wait and see what Corbyn has to say then. Until then, there is political capital to be made out of this

It must be a relief that there's a distraction from the Cabinet's attempts to come up with a plan they can agree on

Maybe Corbyn has some very clever people in the background. McDonnell and Thornberry both saying in a CU not the CU whilst cabinet meets at Chequers. The Brexiteers will have to back off or risk being left on the sidelines.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Maybe he just can't remember. It's 30 years ago.

I know you'd love the story to be true, but I'm surprised this guy didn't claim that Elvis was at the meeting, too.

Let's wait and see what Corbyn has to say then. Until then, there is political capital to be made out of this

It must be a relief that there's a distraction from the Cabinet's attempts to come up with a plan they can agree on

Ah, the irony of a centre leftie trying to divert from a good Corbyn story by trying to claim that the tories are trying to divert using the Corbyn story

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Read a fantastic suggestion that Corbyn is not a leftie spy. He is an Mi5 sleeper who is desperately looking for a way out.

Now that would be fantastic

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

then get rid of Trident, HS2, reverse IHT and CorpT reductions, revalue council tax, reassess foreign aid...there are options to start reducing this debt and or spend it on the services we rely on.
the GFC was a result of corp greed, not socialism and the bail out of private industry wasn't something any gov would want to do however, they had no choice.....a banking collapse would have been worse.

at the end of the day we are supposed to be a civilised society, being able to operate a decent health service, road network, education and prison systems is a sign of that.

Mamba/ Looky
I agree re HS2, not value for money. But we should keep and renew Trident.
I assume you are content to shelter under the US nuclear umbrella?

We can’t launch Trident without US approval so it amounts to the same thing. It is £200bn to “punch above our weigh to” we should grow up and accept our place in the new pecking order.

Sorry wrong Acct

operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any
decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not
involve anybody else. I have read talk in the press about the Americans having
some technical golden key. That is just not right; they do not. […] the only
engagement with the United States that we have now, and which we have had for
a very long time, relates to the design authority for the missile and supporting
launcher, fire control and navigational sub-systems that are housed in the
Vanguard-class submarines. […]
The best analogy I can give is that if Ford went bust tomorrow all the Ford
Focuses in the country would not suddenly come to a grinding halt. Certainly, it
would be difficult if the United States withdrew its design authority and logistics
support for the missiles, fire control launcher and navigational sub-systems.
Eventually, it would cause some difficulty, but I argue that that would take quite a
long time.35

In terms of the current system, as we have made clear on many occasions, the
UK Trident system is fully operationally independent of the US or any other state.
Decision-making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK.
Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, even
if the missiles are to be fired as part of a NATO response. The instruction to fire
would be transmitted to the submarine using entirely UK codes and UK
equipment. All the command and control procedures are totally independent. The
Vanguard-class submarines can readily operate without the Global Positioning by
Satellite (GPS) system and the Trident D5 missile does not use GPS at all: it has
an inertial guidance system. We would require no lesser degree of operational
independence for any successor system should the Government decide to
replace Trident.39

http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/19_9.pdf?_=1316627913


Perhaps not as reliant as you think.

Not interested in punching above our weight. As these weapons proliferate, I just think it wise to keep ours.

rjsterry

Veering off topic a bit, but it was interesting to see that A US Defence Department report had concluded that some of their Europe-based (and Turkey) nuclear weapons were more of a risk (from accidents or terrorist incident) than strategic benefit. Zero chance of DT following that advice of course, but interesting to note that they're not necessarily the trump card they are always professed to be.

mamba80

your back bally... that was a short goodbye! good man! i was missing you already!

if you can come up with a plausible scenario where we independently use nukes or threaten their use, then fair enough.

do you really think the powers that be would tell us that the weapons can only be launched with US approval? thye d be an outcry for them to be decommissioned.

on the trump thread, folk say how stupid it is to put more weapons in schools, yet that is exactly your argument... even if we were over run by Russia, it might last a 100 years or so but eventually, like all empires, russia would collapse and humanity would resume, using nukes ends everything, their existence means they can be used, either accidentally, all out war or in a so called limited strike that goes horribly wrong.

We cant afford them and they are not needed.

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

your back bally... that was a short goodbye! good man! i was missing you already!

if you can come up with a plausible scenario where we independently use nukes or threaten their use, then fair enough.

do you really think the powers that be would tell us that the weapons can only be launched with US approval? thye d be an outcry for them to be decommissioned.

on the trump thread, folk say how stupid it is to put more weapons in schools, yet that is exactly your argument... even if we were over run by Russia, it might last a 100 years or so but eventually, like all empires, russia would collapse and humanity would resume, using nukes ends everything, their existence means they can be used, either accidentally, all out war or in a so called limited strike that goes horribly wrong.

We cant afford them and they are not needed.

Well, continuing the theme from another thread, it's good to see that on this at least you're not in 2 minds about it Mamba

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Maybe he just can't remember. It's 30 years ago.

I know you'd love the story to be true, but I'm surprised this guy didn't claim that Elvis was at the meeting, too.

Let's wait and see what Corbyn has to say then. Until then, there is political capital to be made out of this

It must be a relief that there's a distraction from the Cabinet's attempts to come up with a plan they can agree on

Ah, the irony of a centre leftie trying to divert from a good Corbyn story by trying to claim that the tories are trying to divert using the Corbyn story

Or a centre rightie trying to divert from good Tory story by trying to use a lame Corbyn story. Clutched enough straws yet?

Did your know that Thatcher spoke to the former leader of the KGB? Not once, twice or ten times. Perhaps we need to consider that she was a spy?

BTW with Corbyn I.believe the various agencies that would vet and investigate any dodgy meetings with spies hasn't got anything on.Corbyn. Just like Thatcher's conversations auth Gorbachev do you not think that if Corbyn had conversations with a spy of a sensitive nature they'd not have spoken to him about it? Do you not think there would be a record somewhere? Do you not think our intelligence agencies would know if a Muppet like Corbyn was a traitor?

Still, let's keep diverting from the interesting question as to what was agreed arty Checquers. It seems there's way too many versions of what went on to get the story straight. I hate to say this, but it seems the top MPs in the Tory party can't agree on what was agreed. It seems more and more like they can't even lie straight in bed!

I'm a true blue Tory, always have been, but I do not have a party to get behind! There is no party representing my viewpoint anymore.

Does anyone know how to set up a randomizer i candidates? I'm thinking that in the absence of any good candidates I might exercise my vote in a totally random way come next GE. Is there some site you can list the options and the random number generator spits out a random candidate selection? Serious question. I need.an answer because I'm starting to get the feeling a government could collapse. I'd rather be prepared!

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Maybe he just can't remember. It's 30 years ago.

I know you'd love the story to be true, but I'm surprised this guy didn't claim that Elvis was at the meeting, too.

Let's wait and see what Corbyn has to say then. Until then, there is political capital to be made out of this

It must be a relief that there's a distraction from the Cabinet's attempts to come up with a plan they can agree on

Ah, the irony of a centre leftie trying to divert from a good Corbyn story by trying to claim that the tories are trying to divert using the Corbyn story

Or a centre rightie trying to divert from good Tory story by trying to use a lame Corbyn story. Clutched enough straws yet?

Did your know that Thatcher spoke to the former leader of the KGB? Not once, twice or ten times. Perhaps we need to consider that she was a spy?

BTW with Corbyn I.believe the various agencies that would vet and investigate any dodgy meetings with spies hasn't got anything on.Corbyn. Just like Thatcher's conversations auth Gorbachev do you not think that if Corbyn had conversations with a spy of a sensitive nature they'd not have spoken to him about it? Do you not think there would be a record somewhere? Do you not think our intelligence agencies would know if a Muppet like Corbyn was a traitor?

Still, let's keep diverting from the interesting question as to what was agreed arty Checquers. It seems there's way too many versions of what went on to get the story straight. I hate to say this, but it seems the top MPs in the Tory party can't agree on what was agreed. It seems more and more like they can't even lie straight in bed!

I'm a true blue Tory, always have been, but I do not have a party to get behind! There is no party representing my viewpoint anymore.

Does anyone know how to set up a randomizer i candidates? I'm thinking that in the absence of any good candidates I might exercise my vote in a totally random way come next GE. Is there some site you can list the options and the random number generator spits out a random candidate selection? Serious question. I need.an answer because I'm starting to get the feeling a government could collapse. I'd rather be prepared!

Read my post above, repeated here for clarity.
"Let's wait and see what Corbyn has to say then. Until then, there is political capital to be made out of this "

It's up to Jezza...

pblakeney

The engine has blown, the brakes have seized and the wheels fallen off but hey, lets moan about a squeaky seatbelt.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

your back bally... that was a short goodbye! good man! i was missing you already!

if you can come up with a plausible scenario where we independently use nukes or threaten their use, then fair enough.

do you really think the powers that be would tell us that the weapons can only be launched with US approval? thye d be an outcry for them to be decommissioned.

on the trump thread, folk say how stupid it is to put more weapons in schools, yet that is exactly your argument... even if we were over run by Russia, it might last a 100 years or so but eventually, like all empires, russia would collapse and humanity would resume, using nukes ends everything, their existence means they can be used, either accidentally, all out war or in a so called limited strike that goes horribly wrong.

We cant afford them and they are not needed.

The aptly named MAD principle has worked for the last 70 years so lets assume it would continue to do so. The mistake made by people who advocate we disarm is looking at the world today, ignoring how the world may look decades hence. 30 years ago was it thought that N Korea would be a nuclear power?

As regards your Russia argument, which btw seems to indicate that you have come up with a scenario when their use may be threatened, why not then disband our armed forces altogether and save billions. After all, we would only be occupied for a century wouldn't we?
Nonsense eh?

Edit

do you really think the powers that be would tell us that the weapons can only be launched with US approval? thye d be an outcry for them to be decommissioned.

Get the tin foil out.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

then get rid of Trident, HS2, reverse IHT and CorpT reductions, revalue council tax, reassess foreign aid...there are options to start reducing this debt and or spend it on the services we rely on.
the GFC was a result of corp greed, not socialism and the bail out of private industry wasn't something any gov would want to do however, they had no choice.....a banking collapse would have been worse.

at the end of the day we are supposed to be a civilised society, being able to operate a decent health service, road network, education and prison systems is a sign of that.

Mamba/ Looky
I agree re HS2, not value for money. But we should keep and renew Trident.
I assume you are content to shelter under the US nuclear umbrella?

We can’t launch Trident without US approval so it amounts to the same thing. It is £200bn to “punch above our weigh to” we should grow up and accept our place in the new pecking order.

Sorry wrong Acct

operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any
decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not
involve anybody else. I have read talk in the press about the Americans having
some technical golden key. That is just not right; they do not. […] the only
engagement with the United States that we have now, and which we have had for
a very long time, relates to the design authority for the missile and supporting
launcher, fire control and navigational sub-systems that are housed in the
Vanguard-class submarines. […]
The best analogy I can give is that if Ford went bust tomorrow all the Ford
Focuses in the country would not suddenly come to a grinding halt. Certainly, it
would be difficult if the United States withdrew its design authority and logistics
support for the missiles, fire control launcher and navigational sub-systems.
Eventually, it would cause some difficulty, but I argue that that would take quite a
long time.35

In terms of the current system, as we have made clear on many occasions, the
UK Trident system is fully operationally independent of the US or any other state.
Decision-making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK.
Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, even
if the missiles are to be fired as part of a NATO response. The instruction to fire
would be transmitted to the submarine using entirely UK codes and UK
equipment. All the command and control procedures are totally independent. The
Vanguard-class submarines can readily operate without the Global Positioning by
Satellite (GPS) system and the Trident D5 missile does not use GPS at all: it has
an inertial guidance system. We would require no lesser degree of operational
independence for any successor system should the Government decide to
replace Trident.39

http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/19_9.pdf?_=1316627913


Perhaps not as reliant as you think.

Not interested in punching above our weight. As these weapons proliferate, I just think it wise to keep ours.

Bizarrely I come here for debate rather than point scoring. In that context why did you selectively quote a document that you then linked to?

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

then get rid of Trident, HS2, reverse IHT and CorpT reductions, revalue council tax, reassess foreign aid...there are options to start reducing this debt and or spend it on the services we rely on.
the GFC was a result of corp greed, not socialism and the bail out of private industry wasn't something any gov would want to do however, they had no choice.....a banking collapse would have been worse.

at the end of the day we are supposed to be a civilised society, being able to operate a decent health service, road network, education and prison systems is a sign of that.

Mamba/ Looky
I agree re HS2, not value for money. But we should keep and renew Trident.
I assume you are content to shelter under the US nuclear umbrella?

We can’t launch Trident without US approval so it amounts to the same thing. It is £200bn to “punch above our weigh to” we should grow up and accept our place in the new pecking order.

Sorry wrong Acct

operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any
decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not
involve anybody else. I have read talk in the press about the Americans having
some technical golden key. That is just not right; they do not. […] the only
engagement with the United States that we have now, and which we have had for
a very long time, relates to the design authority for the missile and supporting
launcher, fire control and navigational sub-systems that are housed in the
Vanguard-class submarines. […]
The best analogy I can give is that if Ford went bust tomorrow all the Ford
Focuses in the country would not suddenly come to a grinding halt. Certainly, it
would be difficult if the United States withdrew its design authority and logistics
support for the missiles, fire control launcher and navigational sub-systems.
Eventually, it would cause some difficulty, but I argue that that would take quite a
long time.35

In terms of the current system, as we have made clear on many occasions, the
UK Trident system is fully operationally independent of the US or any other state.
Decision-making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK.
Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, even
if the missiles are to be fired as part of a NATO response. The instruction to fire
would be transmitted to the submarine using entirely UK codes and UK
equipment. All the command and control procedures are totally independent. The
Vanguard-class submarines can readily operate without the Global Positioning by
Satellite (GPS) system and the Trident D5 missile does not use GPS at all: it has
an inertial guidance system. We would require no lesser degree of operational
independence for any successor system should the Government decide to
replace Trident.39

http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/19_9.pdf?_=1316627913


Perhaps not as reliant as you think.

Not interested in punching above our weight. As these weapons proliferate, I just think it wise to keep ours.

Bizarrely I come here for debate rather than point scoring. In that context why did you selectively quote a document that you then linked to?

:?
Not trying to score points either. You said that we needed US approval to launch. I posted quotes from a House of Commons research paper which seemed to indicate otherwise, giving the link in case anyone wanted to read the original document.

The quotes would be meaningless without the link and vice versa.

In future, do you want the link or the quotes as giving both you seem to find irksome.

Bizarre indeed. :?

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

then get rid of Trident, HS2, reverse IHT and CorpT reductions, revalue council tax, reassess foreign aid...there are options to start reducing this debt and or spend it on the services we rely on.
the GFC was a result of corp greed, not socialism and the bail out of private industry wasn't something any gov would want to do however, they had no choice.....a banking collapse would have been worse.

at the end of the day we are supposed to be a civilised society, being able to operate a decent health service, road network, education and prison systems is a sign of that.

Mamba/ Looky
I agree re HS2, not value for money. But we should keep and renew Trident.
I assume you are content to shelter under the US nuclear umbrella?

We can’t launch Trident without US approval so it amounts to the same thing. It is £200bn to “punch above our weigh to” we should grow up and accept our place in the new pecking order.

Sorry wrong Acct

operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any
decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not
involve anybody else. I have read talk in the press about the Americans having
some technical golden key. That is just not right; they do not. […] the only
engagement with the United States that we have now, and which we have had for
a very long time, relates to the design authority for the missile and supporting
launcher, fire control and navigational sub-systems that are housed in the
Vanguard-class submarines. […]
The best analogy I can give is that if Ford went bust tomorrow all the Ford
Focuses in the country would not suddenly come to a grinding halt. Certainly, it
would be difficult if the United States withdrew its design authority and logistics
support for the missiles, fire control launcher and navigational sub-systems.
Eventually, it would cause some difficulty, but I argue that that would take quite a
long time.35

In terms of the current system, as we have made clear on many occasions, the
UK Trident system is fully operationally independent of the US or any other state.
Decision-making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK.
Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, even
if the missiles are to be fired as part of a NATO response. The instruction to fire
would be transmitted to the submarine using entirely UK codes and UK
equipment. All the command and control procedures are totally independent. The
Vanguard-class submarines can readily operate without the Global Positioning by
Satellite (GPS) system and the Trident D5 missile does not use GPS at all: it has
an inertial guidance system. We would require no lesser degree of operational
independence for any successor system should the Government decide to
replace Trident.39

http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/19_9.pdf?_=1316627913


Perhaps not as reliant as you think.

Not interested in punching above our weight. As these weapons proliferate, I just think it wise to keep ours.

Bizarrely I come here for debate rather than point scoring. In that context why did you selectively quote a document that you then linked to?

:?
Not trying to score points either. You said that we needed US approval to launch. I posted quotes from a House of Commons research paper which seemed to indicate otherwise, giving the link in case anyone wanted to read the original document.

The quotes would be meaningless without the link and vice versa.

In future, do you want the link or the quotes as giving both you seem to find irksome.

Bizarre indeed. :?

read the relevant part of the link and you will see that it is not as cut and dried as your quotes suggest plus it is from 2006.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ah, the irony of a centre leftie trying to divert from a good Corbyn story by trying to claim that the tories are trying to divert using the Corbyn story

Well it's a good read, I'll grant you; not quite le Carré but diverting enough. I didn't claim that the Tories were trying to divert; I just said it was fortunate that the story came along at such an opportune moment. Are you suggesting some sort of conspiracy??

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

The engine has blown, the brakes have seized and the wheels fallen off but hey, lets moan about a squeaky seatbelt.

That's New Old Labour for you.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ah, the irony of a centre leftie trying to divert from a good Corbyn story by trying to claim that the tories are trying to divert using the Corbyn story

Well it's a good read, I'll grant you; not quite le Carré but diverting enough. I didn't claim that the Tories were trying to divert; I just said it was fortunate that the story came along at such an opportune moment. Are you suggesting some sort of conspiracy??

Don't know. Maybe someone should Czech it out since Corbyn is not telling us :P

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

read the relevant part of the link and you will see that it is not as cut and dried as your quotes suggest plus it is from 2006.

There are a few points to consider.

Firstly, does it matter if it is not 100% independent...what scenario do we have where we would be firing against the wishes of the USA.

Also what level of independence do we require. Ultimately, we're going to be dependant on the US for servicing some of the weaponry, but if that's it, then in any situation where we did fire against the [wishes of the] USA, getting the parts service would be a moot point.

If we need their physical permission to fire, through protocols, then that's another issue.

Ultimately the history of mankind since WW2 would suggest that the MAD principle holds true against out and out war between global powers. Our position as a mere 26th in GDP per person may suggest we would be better placed tying our protection to one of the global powers, than trying to keep up appearances of being a power ourselves.

Additionally, the I generally think the risks presented by cyber war are going to be far more relevant in the next decades.

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

then get rid of Trident, HS2, reverse IHT and CorpT reductions, revalue council tax, reassess foreign aid...there are options to start reducing this debt and or spend it on the services we rely on.
the GFC was a result of corp greed, not socialism and the bail out of private industry wasn't something any gov would want to do however, they had no choice.....a banking collapse would have been worse.

at the end of the day we are supposed to be a civilised society, being able to operate a decent health service, road network, education and prison systems is a sign of that.

Mamba/ Looky
I agree re HS2, not value for money. But we should keep and renew Trident.
I assume you are content to shelter under the US nuclear umbrella?

We can’t launch Trident without US approval so it amounts to the same thing. It is £200bn to “punch above our weigh to” we should grow up and accept our place in the new pecking order.

Sorry wrong Acct

operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any
decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not
involve anybody else. I have read talk in the press about the Americans having
some technical golden key. That is just not right; they do not. […] the only
engagement with the United States that we have now, and which we have had for
a very long time, relates to the design authority for the missile and supporting
launcher, fire control and navigational sub-systems that are housed in the
Vanguard-class submarines. […]
The best analogy I can give is that if Ford went bust tomorrow all the Ford
Focuses in the country would not suddenly come to a grinding halt. Certainly, it
would be difficult if the United States withdrew its design authority and logistics
support for the missiles, fire control launcher and navigational sub-systems.
Eventually, it would cause some difficulty, but I argue that that would take quite a
long time.35

In terms of the current system, as we have made clear on many occasions, the
UK Trident system is fully operationally independent of the US or any other state.
Decision-making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK.
Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, even
if the missiles are to be fired as part of a NATO response. The instruction to fire
would be transmitted to the submarine using entirely UK codes and UK
equipment. All the command and control procedures are totally independent. The
Vanguard-class submarines can readily operate without the Global Positioning by
Satellite (GPS) system and the Trident D5 missile does not use GPS at all: it has
an inertial guidance system. We would require no lesser degree of operational
independence for any successor system should the Government decide to
replace Trident.39

http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/19_9.pdf?_=1316627913


Perhaps not as reliant as you think.

Not interested in punching above our weight. As these weapons proliferate, I just think it wise to keep ours.

Bizarrely I come here for debate rather than point scoring. In that context why did you selectively quote a document that you then linked to?

:?
Not trying to score points either. You said that we needed US approval to launch. I posted quotes from a House of Commons research paper which seemed to indicate otherwise, giving the link in case anyone wanted to read the original document.

The quotes would be meaningless without the link and vice versa.

In future, do you want the link or the quotes as giving both you seem to find irksome.

Bizarre indeed. :?

read the relevant part of the link and you will see that it is not as cut and dried as your quotes suggest plus it is from 2006.

Did we not operate Trident in 2006 and is it not the same system now?
Have the Americans bought it back off us?

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

then get rid of Trident, HS2, reverse IHT and CorpT reductions, revalue council tax, reassess foreign aid...there are options to start reducing this debt and or spend it on the services we rely on.
the GFC was a result of corp greed, not socialism and the bail out of private industry wasn't something any gov would want to do however, they had no choice.....a banking collapse would have been worse.

at the end of the day we are supposed to be a civilised society, being able to operate a decent health service, road network, education and prison systems is a sign of that.

Mamba/ Looky
I agree re HS2, not value for money. But we should keep and renew Trident.
I assume you are content to shelter under the US nuclear umbrella?

We can’t launch Trident without US approval so it amounts to the same thing. It is £200bn to “punch above our weigh to” we should grow up and accept our place in the new pecking order.

Sorry wrong Acct

operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any
decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not
involve anybody else. I have read talk in the press about the Americans having
some technical golden key. That is just not right; they do not. […] the only
engagement with the United States that we have now, and which we have had for
a very long time, relates to the design authority for the missile and supporting
launcher, fire control and navigational sub-systems that are housed in the
Vanguard-class submarines. […]
The best analogy I can give is that if Ford went bust tomorrow all the Ford
Focuses in the country would not suddenly come to a grinding halt. Certainly, it
would be difficult if the United States withdrew its design authority and logistics
support for the missiles, fire control launcher and navigational sub-systems.
Eventually, it would cause some difficulty, but I argue that that would take quite a
long time.35

In terms of the current system, as we have made clear on many occasions, the
UK Trident system is fully operationally independent of the US or any other state.
Decision-making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK.
Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, even
if the missiles are to be fired as part of a NATO response. The instruction to fire
would be transmitted to the submarine using entirely UK codes and UK
equipment. All the command and control procedures are totally independent. The
Vanguard-class submarines can readily operate without the Global Positioning by
Satellite (GPS) system and the Trident D5 missile does not use GPS at all: it has
an inertial guidance system. We would require no lesser degree of operational
independence for any successor system should the Government decide to
replace Trident.39

http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/19_9.pdf?_=1316627913


Perhaps not as reliant as you think.

Not interested in punching above our weight. As these weapons proliferate, I just think it wise to keep ours.

Bizarrely I come here for debate rather than point scoring. In that context why did you selectively quote a document that you then linked to?

:?
Not trying to score points either. You said that we needed US approval to launch. I posted quotes from a House of Commons research paper which seemed to indicate otherwise, giving the link in case anyone wanted to read the original document.

The quotes would be meaningless without the link and vice versa.

In future, do you want the link or the quotes as giving both you seem to find irksome.

Bizarre indeed. :?

read the relevant part of the link and you will see that it is not as cut and dried as your quotes suggest plus it is from 2006.

Did we not operate Trident in 2006 and is it not the same system now?
Have the Americans bought it back off us?

OK I believe that you did not read up on this subject.

They can not buy them back because we lease them. There are numerous sources I could quote but chose this one as it seems beyond reproach
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 86we13.htm

ballysmate

The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House Para 34 of your link

Your post

We can’t launch Trident without US approval

Is it likely that the UK would act unilaterally? No
Would it p1ss the US off big style if we did? Undoubtedly., I agree with all that.

But it isn't what you posted is it?

PS My remark about the US buying them back was facetious btw.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House Para 34 of your link

Your post

We can’t launch Trident without US approval

Is it likely that the UK would act unilaterally? No
Would it p1ss the US off big style if we did? Undoubtedly., I agree with all that.

But it isn't what you posted is it?

PS My remark about the US buying them back was facetious btw.

Debating anything with you is like a pencil with no lead. I will leave you to quibble on your own.

Stevo_666

It just won't go away...former head of MI6 goes on record stating that Corbyn has a case to answer about his meeting with the Czech spy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/23/jeremy-corbyn-has-questions-answer-contact-communist-spy-says/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-czech-spy-richard-dearlove_uk_5a9113a5e4b03b55731c65d7

rjsterry

I was reading (what I thought was) quite a good critique of this story, this morning. The gist of it was that the particular Sarkocy/Corbyn story doesn't add up to much - what information would JC have been able to pass on that wasn't widely available? But of more concern is the very rose-tinted point of view that a number of Labour members had with regard to the Eastern Bloc at the time and how this colours their approach to issues relating to Russia today such as Ukraine, Syria and cyber attacks.

In other words, the spy story is a distraction from more serious issues with Corbyn and McDonald's world view, and how they might be expressed in policy if they were to gain power.

With a story so obviously aimed at discrediting Corbyn and so easy to dismiss, there is a possibility that it might have the opposite effect to that intended, and actually increase support for him.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

I was reading (what I thought was) quite a good critique of this story, this morning. The gist of it was that the particular Sarkocy/Corbyn story doesn't add up to much - what information would JC have been able to pass on that wasn't widely available? But of more concern is the very rose-tinted point of view that a number of Labour members had with regard to the Eastern Bloc at the time and how this colours their approach to issues relating to Russia today such as Ukraine, Syria and cyber attacks.

In other words, the spy story is a distraction from more serious issues with Corbyn and McDonald's world view, and how they might be expressed in policy if they were to gain power.

With a story so obviously aimed at discrediting Corbyn and so easy to dismiss, there is a possibility that it might have the opposite effect to that intended, and actually increase support for him.

I think it will bolster his image as the wronged leftie messiah amongst Momentum types. I think it will not make him look better in the eyes of most people - Leopard and spots etc. If it was that easy to discredit, why doesn't he give a detailed account rather than this general dismissiveness?

sungod

corbyn is a disaster waiting to happen

blair with his imaginary friend wasn't exactly ideal, but at least he was a tory, corbyn simply wants to smash capitalism, which is why he's so pro-brexit, then he'll be free to impose his stalinist ideas unhindered, not that the eu/ecj etc. are doing much to stem the rise of tyrants in poland and hungary, but at least there's always a hope

finchy

Jez mon wrote:

Ultimately the history of mankind since WW2 would suggest that the MAD principle holds true against out and out war between global powers.

The world came perilously close to nuclear conflict (due to misunderstandings rather than malice) several times during the Cold War, and once during the 1990s. How many times can you come close to war before the missiles start flying?

sgt.pepper

sungod wrote:

corbyn is a disaster waiting to happen

blair with his imaginary friend wasn't exactly ideal, but at least he was a tory, corbyn simply wants to smash capitalism, which is why he's so pro-brexit, then he'll be free to impose his stalinist ideas unhindered, not that the eu/ecj etc. are doing much to stem the rise of tyrants in poland and hungary, but at least there's always a hope

I think you vastly overestimate his capacity for effectiveness. He's a well-meaning ideologue but a wet blanket who wouldn't stand a chance against the immovability of the British civil service or international leaders. He couldn't even beat the worst Tory leader since IDS fgs.

tailwindhome

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I was reading (what I thought was) quite a good critique of this story, this morning. The gist of it was that the particular Sarkocy/Corbyn story doesn't add up to much - what information would JC have been able to pass on that wasn't widely available? But of more concern is the very rose-tinted point of view that a number of Labour members had with regard to the Eastern Bloc at the time and how this colours their approach to issues relating to Russia today such as Ukraine, Syria and cyber attacks.

In other words, the spy story is a distraction from more serious issues with Corbyn and McDonald's world view, and how they might be expressed in policy if they were to gain power.

With a story so obviously aimed at discrediting Corbyn and so easy to dismiss, there is a possibility that it might have the opposite effect to that intended, and actually increase support for him.

I think it will bolster his image as the wronged leftie messiah amongst Momentum types. I think it will not make him look better in the eyes of most people - Leopard and spots etc. If it was that easy to discredit, why doesn't he give a detailed account rather than this general dismissiveness?

Indeed.
"Make the bastard deny it" would seem to be the strategy.

rick_chasey

The real question is timing.

Why have they brought this out now? It's not a time sensitive story.