Brown And Disarmament

[Chinahand]

So now Gordon Brown's off to the UN trying to be a world statesman touting disarmament.

 

Erm - nothing to do with not having the cash to carry on!

 

I'm conflicted by nuclear weapons - I think prolifertion would be disasterous, but big powers probably have been less belligerent because of their existance.

 

Getting the balance right is one huge challenge - I don't believe a nuclear free world is possible and it would open up the risk of tyrants engaging in nuclear blackmail, but having a proliferation of nuclear states runs the risks of catastrophic conflicts.

 

The status quo isn't too far out as far as I'm concerned - we aren't totally dependent on a US umbrella, the US can't just do what it wants, and the existence of Russian and Chinese nukes are a reminder that national sovereignty is important (but not inviolate!).

 

I definitely don't want Iran or Taiwan getting the bomb, but always hanging over this is Israel.

 

Would 3 subs do? What about none? Or are 4 needed no matter what.

 

A while ago I worked out they cost about the same amount as the BBC - I think that is cheap - and you get alot of bang for your buck!! But do we need it?

 

And will Vladimir and Barak go all multilateral just because Gordon's run out of cash?

[bluemonday]

As you say - little to do with world peace, more to do with Gordons piggy bank.

 

Brown won't spend money to adequately equip troops in Afghanistan, he's most unlikely to pay to keep an independant nuclear deterent.

 

The UK needs a big stick in case.

Relying on the US shouldn't be an option.

The world is becoming more dangerous.

Not a good time to be defenceless.

 

IF GB reduces the UK deterent as part of a multilateral deal great, if not; it'll just be penny pinching bollocks that serves no purpose other than to weaken the UKs position.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Getting the balance right is one huge challenge - I don't believe a nuclear free world is possible and it would open up the risk of tyrants engaging in nuclear blackmail, but having a proliferation of nuclear states runs the risks of catastrophic conflicts.

Well it really is a case of having the nuclear states believing that they have a right to nuclear weapons and such protection from 'rogue' states when they have no protection themselves.

 

The status quo isn't too far out as far as I'm concerned - we aren't totally dependent on a US umbrella, the US can't just do what it wants, and the existence of Russian and Chinese nukes are a reminder that national sovereignty is important (but not inviolate!).

We aren't dependent at all on extended deterrence. Do you really think the USA would threaten a nuclear state with weapons on behalf of Europe? I don't. It is largely why Britain, and especially France, have their own weapons. Even though Britain's deterrent is really independent.

 

I definitely don't want Iran or Taiwan getting the bomb, but always hanging over this is Israel.

No, but if Israel has them, why can't Iran? If China has them, why can't Taiwan?

 

Would 3 subs do? What about none? Or are 4 needed no matter what.

I think 4 subs would do. It isn't the Cold War. I don't believe the 'quanitity' of deterrence that would come from an extra boat would be necessary.

 

The UK needs a big stick in case.

Relying on the US shouldn't be an option.

The world is becoming more dangerous.

Not a good time to be defenceless.

The world is becoming more dangerous? Well yes, but in lots of different ways that don't necessary mean that nuclear deterrence is relevant or useful. But if other states do press ahead with nuclear weapon development then it is difficult for the UK to sit back and upgrade its abilities.

 

But then the UK and other nuclear weapons states are the biggest hypocrits. They aren't going to get rid of these weapons, which they are required to. France and the UK, especially know that they are becoming relatively weaker and nuclear weapons give them a greater say in international relations and diplomacy. But considered they use the weapons as items that afford prestige, other countries will think they are necessary for those reasons too.

[P.K.]

As you say - little to do with world peace, more to do with Gordons piggy bank.

 

Brown won't spend money to adequately equip troops in Afghanistan, he's most unlikely to pay to keep an independant nuclear deterent.

I think you're talking nonsense.

 

Firstly the biggest threat is surely Iran because of the fruitcake running it. Although one of the reasons for taking on the Taliban in Afghanistan is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

 

Secondly if we can get away with the absolute minimum then we should. If we can't then we shouldn't.

 

The politicians will equip the nods in theatre as well as they can to carry out the mission otherwise the likes of the Daily Wail, Excess, Torygraph etc etc would climb all over them. Sure the military are always asking for more resources - because that's what they do! Besides, can you name me a politician who wants top be written into history as the one who lost a war? Didn't think so...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Firstly the biggest threat is surely Iran because of the fruitcake running it.

I don't agree. North Korea has a fruitcake for a leader, but the country isn't much of threat. Nor would Iran be. It is quite possible that nuclear weapons would bring more stability to the Middle East as a balance to Israel dominance. It's possible. Besides, the United States and Britain have had aggressive foreign policies and had nuclear weapons. The problem is if we really believe that such governments take irrational action. I would be more concerned about weapons finding their way into the hands of terrorists, which nuclear deterrence cannot protect us from.

 

I would be very interested to know what France's position is in all of this. The force de frappe is far more expensive given that it is independent, unlike Britains. I don't think they will have a problem reducing stocks but they will find it far more difficult to upgrade.

[bluemonday]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

With 4 subs, you have 1 on patrol, 1 undergoing maintenance, the remaining 2 being in port or on training exercise.

That was the cold war rationale I believe.

 

BBC this morning pointed out reducing to 3 will save 2.5 billion from a projected 20 billion.

 

As for Iran - Israel is itching to do something.

And it probably will if it has to with covert or open support from interested parties.

 

Afghanistan?

Todays Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6845001.ece

 

The scarcity of troops and helicopters restricts most operations to those of foot patrols in the immediate area of the town, where they can quickly become snarled in minefields planted by the Taleban. There is a direct correlation between the draw-down in numbers of the Sangin battle group over the past three years and the rise in British casualties. The paucity of British assets favours the insurgents, who know that they can plant their roadside bombs and move around the district more or less as they wish, leaving the British to control little more than what they can see down the barrel of a gun.

 

What was that comment a couple of months ago?

More helicopters in Hampshire than Helmand IIRC

 

eta

No disrespect to the troops.

As always they're giving their best.

And being let down back in cosy offices in the UK by bean counters.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The scarcity of troops and helicopters restricts most operations to those of foot patrols in the immediate area of the town, where they can quickly become snarled in minefields planted by the Taleban. There is a direct correlation between the draw-down in numbers of the Sangin battle group over the past three years and the rise in British casualties. The paucity of British assets favours the insurgents, who know that they can plant their roadside bombs and move around the district more or less as they wish, leaving the British to control little more than what they can see down the barrel of a gun.

 

No disrespect to the troops.

As always they're giving their best.

And being let down back in cosy offices in the UK by bean counters.

 

Well let's face it, Britain has bitten off more than it can chew. It is a nation with far too many commitments and too little economic clout. It has maintained a continued presence in a far-off nation CONTRIBUTING to an counter-insurgency campaign that has little grand strategic purpose and where it cannot summon the necessary resources that effective counter-insurgency requires. I don't want a penny more going to the war in Afghanistan, I'd rather the troops were withdrawn.

[P.K.]

Afghanistan?

Todays Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6845001.ece

 

The scarcity of troops and helicopters restricts most operations to those of foot patrols in the immediate area of the town, where they can quickly become snarled in minefields planted by the Taleban. There is a direct correlation between the draw-down in numbers of the Sangin battle group over the past three years and the rise in British casualties. The paucity of British assets favours the insurgents, who know that they can plant their roadside bombs and move around the district more or less as they wish, leaving the British to control little more than what they can see down the barrel of a gun.

What was that comment a couple of months ago?

More helicopters in Hampshire than Helmand IIRC

Nice choice of bold type, you don't do flyers for the tory party do you? Sure the scarcity of troops and air transport restricts their missions - because it's NOT an occupation. It does amuse me when the airmchair warriors start banging on about how there has never been a military success in Afghanistan. Because the current is so different from the past. Previously it has all been about occupation - this isn't. Sure casualties could probably be reduced if all troop transport was done by air - but that's NOT the mission. To support stability in Afghanistan you have to be seen to be doing it i.e. boots on the ground. Tooling around in air transport just doesn't give the right visibility to the local populace. In any event there's no room for a Kilgore assault on Tube City. You either let the Taliban concentrate as in Swat or you draw them out to kill them. There's no other way.

 

More helicopters in Hampshire than Helmand then. You don't suppose that's because the Army Air Corps is based in Hampshire? Surely not...

[Night Sky]

Afghanistan?

Todays Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6845001.ece

 

The scarcity of troops and helicopters restricts most operations to those of foot patrols in the immediate area of the town, where they can quickly become snarled in minefields planted by the Taleban. There is a direct correlation between the draw-down in numbers of the Sangin battle group over the past three years and the rise in British casualties. The paucity of British assets favours the insurgents, who know that they can plant their roadside bombs and move around the district more or less as they wish, leaving the British to control little more than what they can see down the barrel of a gun.

What was that comment a couple of months ago?

More helicopters in Hampshire than Helmand IIRC

Nice choice of bold type, you don't do flyers for the tory party do you? Sure the scarcity of troops and air transport restricts their missions - because it's NOT an occupation. It does amuse me when the airmchair warriors start banging on about how there has never been a military success in Afghanistan. Because the current is so different from the past. Previously it has all been about occupation - this isn't. Sure casualties could probably be reduced if all troop transport was done by air - but that's NOT the mission. To support stability in Afghanistan you have to be seen to be doing it i.e. boots on the ground. Tooling around in air transport just doesn't give the right visibility to the local populace. In any event there's no room for a Kilgore assault on Tube City. You either let the Taliban concentrate as in Swat or you draw them out to kill them. There's no other way.

 

More helicopters in Hampshire than Helmand then. You don't suppose that's because the Army Air Corps is based in Hampshire? Surely not...

 

Priceless!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

...but that's NOT the mission. To support stability in Afghanistan you have to be seen to be doing it i.e. boots on the ground. Tooling around in air transport just doesn't give the right visibility to the local populace.

Really they are to create stability from a bad foundation. And frankly I don't think the NATO force is cut out for it for effective counter-insurgency. There aren't the number of troops,, there isn't the willingness to apply the necessary resources, there is no sound strategy, and the Americans especially are still learning how to conduct counter-insurgency.

[manxy]

Do they really need nuclear weapons or is it just a big bluffing game?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It's a bluffing game that requires nuclear weapons. But who do you mean in particular? They afford power to any country that has them and power means prestige. Their adoption in military defence also affords some countries a last defence against an attacker. In the case of the United States and the USSR, it offered their countries protection from a first strike after they already had a huge arsenal of such weapons.

[manxy]

It just seems so pointless to have them.

If one gets fired off at 'us' for instance, what's the point?

Wouldn't the ground be a no go zone anyway due to the radiation?

 

I just don't get war and never liked it.

[Vulgarian]

The world is becoming more dangerous.

 

The world is getting more dangerous and that is precisely why we need global nuclear disarmament now.

 

The scenario that proponents of nuclear weapons argue we need to retain them for, a rogue state using them threateningly in a post-disarmament world, is quite unlikely. If it were to happen, there are means of countering their threats without nuclear weapons, such as trade embargoes, blockades, and financial sanctions, which could be far more damaging than nuclear weapons, and of course conventional warfare.

[bluemonday]

Priceless!

 

Yes I'm sure some crippled servicemen fell out of their wheelchairs laughing at that one.