4 ms·

It would be nice if we had an effective opposition, but we don't. Not when it comes to security concerns. Corbyn's stance with trident and Stop the War means th

by jkire 11y ago

It would be nice if we had an effective opposition, but we don't. Not when it comes to security concerns. Corbyn's stance with trident and Stop the War means that no one, and I mean no one, can take any argument he puts forward seriously when it comes to security. The result? The government can get away with anything that has a vaguely plausible sounding justification. The only thing that can stop them now is the media, but it really is not their job to be the opposition.

anexprogrammer 11y ago
Apart from the Guardian I think all the media is wanting them to go faster. Because terrorism. What we need is a data disaster. What's the phone number for Anonymous? :)
morsch 11y ago
Cutting down on nuclear armament, which I presume is what you are calling out Corbyn for, is hardly something that no one could reasonably consider. You realize there are entire countries without nuclear weapons, right?
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  There's little point for the UK to have a US-controlled nuclear weapons system on its soil, and to pay for the privilege. The US has nukes anyway.
  - robhu 11y ago
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-br...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      That is a short post and doesn't make a strong argument compared to the UK's House of Commons Defence Committee saying that the UK could not maintain and operate Trident independently. Even if the UK could theoretically launch Trident without US authorisation, they wouldn't in practice.
    - robhu 11y ago
      Yes we can't operate and maintain (mostly maintain) without US assistance because we have made a plan where we share that duty. If we changed our minds and decided to go alone we would could do so. The nukes on the subs can be launched without US approval. As members of NATO we would discuss before firing under most circumstances, but that is a rather different scenario to the "UK requires US authorisation to fire nukes" being implied elsewhere. When it comes down to brass tacks we have complete operational control of our nukes independently. That in most situations we would discuss with our allies before nuking someone does not mean our nukes are not independent, nor does that we reduce costs by sharing maintenance of nukes not in our subs with the US mean we have lost independence. So the argument that we do not have independent control of our nukes fails.
- programmernews3 11y ago
  Like Ukraine?
  - 4426e6 11y ago
    Ukraine isn't a NATO member.
  - chrishawes 11y ago
    … and Germany
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Ukraine is not part of NATO the UK is this makes a difference to our defence requirements. NATO might be stronger if the UK took half the money to be spent on Trident and spent it on fighter jets (and the other half on not cutting junior doctors' salaries or cutting taxes or whatever).
  - vidarh 11y ago
    What would Ukraine do with nukes? Threaten to nuke Moscow? Knowing their country would become radioactive glass in response? Russia would have no reason to assume Ukraine would be insane enough to use them over losing a few regions, and so would have no reason to take them much into account.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      As a side note, Ukraine actually did have nuclear weapons post-USSR. Then, Ukraine agreed to give them up, in exchange for clauses in treaties where Russia guarantees its territorial integrity. So now, after Crimean acquisition, we know that the Russian signature in nuclear treaties is worth nothing.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Exactly, nobody questions whether other European nations (aside from France) don't care about security. Furthermore, if Britain did give up Trident they wouldn't be the first nuclear power to give up on nuclear weapons, South Africa did it first. I'd suggest Japan has the right idea with regards to nuclear weapons... retain the knowledge about how to build nuclear weapons, but don't retain an active stockpile you're not going to use.
stevetrewick 11y ago
What difference would that make? The party in opposition came up with the Interception Modernisation Program [0], tried to introduce ID cards, did introduce control orders [1], pushed through RIPA 'because terrorism' and then used it to surveil all and sundry, introduced the DNA register (and fought tooth and nail when ECHR declared its retention practices illegal) to name just a few of their legislative highlights. If you're looking for pushback against Orwellian government over reach you're unlikely to find it there. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_P... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_order https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_order

by jkire 11y ago

anexprogrammer 11y ago

Apart from the Guardian I think all the media is wanting them to go faster. Because terrorism. What we need is a data disaster. What's the phone number for Anonymous? :)

morsch 11y ago

Cutting down on nuclear armament, which I presume is what you are calling out Corbyn for, is hardly something that no one could reasonably consider. You realize there are entire countries without nuclear weapons, right?

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
There's little point for the UK to have a US-controlled nuclear weapons system on its soil, and to pay for the privilege. The US has nukes anyway.
- robhu 11y ago
  https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-br...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    That is a short post and doesn't make a strong argument compared to the UK's House of Commons Defence Committee saying that the UK could not maintain and operate Trident independently. Even if the UK could theoretically launch Trident without US authorisation, they wouldn't in practice.
  - robhu 11y ago
    Yes we can't operate and maintain (mostly maintain) without US assistance because we have made a plan where we share that duty. If we changed our minds and decided to go alone we would could do so. The nukes on the subs can be launched without US approval. As members of NATO we would discuss before firing under most circumstances, but that is a rather different scenario to the "UK requires US authorisation to fire nukes" being implied elsewhere. When it comes down to brass tacks we have complete operational control of our nukes independently. That in most situations we would discuss with our allies before nuking someone does not mean our nukes are not independent, nor does that we reduce costs by sharing maintenance of nukes not in our subs with the US mean we have lost independence. So the argument that we do not have independent control of our nukes fails.
programmernews3 11y ago
Like Ukraine?
- 4426e6 11y ago
  Ukraine isn't a NATO member.
- chrishawes 11y ago
  … and Germany
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Ukraine is not part of NATO the UK is this makes a difference to our defence requirements. NATO might be stronger if the UK took half the money to be spent on Trident and spent it on fighter jets (and the other half on not cutting junior doctors' salaries or cutting taxes or whatever).
- vidarh 11y ago
  What would Ukraine do with nukes? Threaten to nuke Moscow? Knowing their country would become radioactive glass in response? Russia would have no reason to assume Ukraine would be insane enough to use them over losing a few regions, and so would have no reason to take them much into account.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    As a side note, Ukraine actually did have nuclear weapons post-USSR. Then, Ukraine agreed to give them up, in exchange for clauses in treaties where Russia guarantees its territorial integrity. So now, after Crimean acquisition, we know that the Russian signature in nuclear treaties is worth nothing.
ZenoArrow 11y ago
Exactly, nobody questions whether other European nations (aside from France) don't care about security. Furthermore, if Britain did give up Trident they wouldn't be the first nuclear power to give up on nuclear weapons, South Africa did it first. I'd suggest Japan has the right idea with regards to nuclear weapons... retain the knowledge about how to build nuclear weapons, but don't retain an active stockpile you're not going to use.

stevetrewick 11y ago

What difference would that make? The party in opposition came up with the Interception Modernisation Program [0], tried to introduce ID cards, did introduce control orders [1], pushed through RIPA 'because terrorism' and then used it to surveil all and sundry, introduced the DNA register (and fought tooth and nail when ECHR declared its retention practices illegal) to name just a few of their legislative highlights. If you're looking for pushback against Orwellian government over reach you're unlikely to find it there. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_P... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_order https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_order