BBC: "MPs 'Concerned' Over Defence Cuts"

#1
"The crisis in Crimea shows that the UK must maintain both nuclear weapons and armed forces capable of providing a "credible deterrent", MPs have said.

The Commons Defence Committee said it was "concerned" former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates recently warned cuts would leave the UK without the "ability to be a full partner".

The UK should consider more the effect on allies of military cuts, MPs said."


BBC News - MPs 'concerned' over defence cuts
 
#2
A bit late to wake up. Anyway, all Putin needs to do is leave sufficient time between pushes for the voting and tax paying public and their Parliament to lose interest (about 6 weeks with present day goldfishlike attention spans). Leave Moldova until the May Bank Holiday and he's probably home and dry.
 
#4
How can it be said that a nuclear deterrent is failing in it's objective? How many nuclear wars have there been? Or are they playing on the argument that it's a waste of money as it's never been used or ignoring the argument that it's totally successful as it's deterred a nuclear war (possibly, who knows?)
 
#5
The full report. It also says that nuclear deterrence is increasingly unable to deter its objective.
No. It doesn't. What it actually says is :

We conclude that deterrence, both nuclear and conventional, has an important place in the defence philosophy of the UK but will increasingly form part of a more complex security strategy alongside greater need for resilience and recovery as the world becomes more multi-polar and less stable and where the certainties of identifying an aggressor may be reduced.


which is neither news, nor rocket science.

Importantly, it also says.....



However, it would be naive of us to assume that a decision not to invest in the nuclear deterrent would release substantial funds for investment in other forms of security. We believe that the decision on the retention of the nuclear deterrent, and whether its retention is still merited as a means of deterring existential threats to the UK, should be made on its own merits,
rather than on the basis of what else could be bought with the money saved.
 
Last edited:
#7
No. The underlying message is that deterrence via buckets of sunshine is not a once size fits all solution, almost entirely down to the potential for non-state or proxy actors where proof of liability (for subsequent glass car-parking) is difficult.

In fact, they're even explicit about it....

We note, however, that while the potential range of emergent threats is significant, they do not preclude either the re-emergence of tensions with an existing nuclear power, nor the emergence of a new power whose interests are inimical to those of the United Kingdom with the capacity to deliver a CBRN attack on the UK or its interests. (Paragraph 57)​
17.​
The fourth of the deterrent roles identified in the White Paper is to provide potential retaliation against threats that may emerge over the next 50 years. Nuclear proliferation is not under control and many of the sources of future insecurity could in themselves contribute to state-on-state conflict , creating an ever more unstable, and increasingly nuclear-armed, future strategic context. The assessment of future threats is as important as the assessment of current threats in considering the case for the nuclear deterrent (Paragraph 58)
 
Last edited:
#13
You clearly have no idea of the concept and philosophy behind a deterrent have you.
we should get rid of it and stop pretending were something that we are not,the only country in the free world that should posses nukes are the yanks,......there is no doubt if WE started firing ours then they would also be firing theirs,so we should save some cash or write of the MOD's debts,then perhaps we could sort out the god forsaken mess that is this country..imo


as for Mcnab,no it was my line
 
#14
we should get rid of it and stop pretending were something that we are not,the only country in the free world that should posses nukes are the yanks,......there is no doubt if WE started firing ours then they would also be firing theirs,so we should save some cash or write of the MOD's debts,then perhaps we could sort out the god forsaken mess that is this country..imo


as for Mcnab,no it was my line
Why should the septics be the only ones allowed nukes and if we fired ours, theirs would already be in the air and not coming in our direction either, nor ours in theirs.
 
#15
Why should the septics be the only ones allowed nukes and if we fired ours, theirs would already be in the air and not coming in our direction either, nor ours in theirs.
clearly i'am not suggesting we would be firing at each other,...but if we dont have them its quite likely we wont end up a target in the process,and the reason they imo are the only ones that should have them is they are the only ones in the free world who can a]afford them and b]be trusted to only ever use them in dire circumstance....nukes are making the world an unsafer place imho.
 
#16
clearly i'am not suggesting we would be firing at each other,...but if we dont have them its quite likely we wont end up a target in the process,and the reason they imo are the only ones that should have them is they are the only ones in the free world who can a]afford them and b]be trusted to only ever use them in dire circumstance....nukes are making the world an unsafer place imho.
Correct, so if we have them, there's less chance one will come our way. In an uncertain world, it's best to be one of those who have a big stick.

The nicest option is for no-one to have them but they're here to stay unfortunately and even if every nuclear armed country agreed to dispose of them, how would you know they have?
 
#18
clearly i'am not suggesting we would be firing at each other,...but if we dont have them its quite likely we wont end up a target in the process,and the reason they imo are the only ones that should have them is they are the only ones in the free world who can a]afford them and b]be trusted to only ever use them in dire circumstance....nukes are making the world an unsafer place imho.
UUUMMM let me think did the local council give power and wifi to camp out side Fazzers? They were always talking about getting rid of Nukes? But give them to that trusted nation across the pond, I DO NOT THINK SO?
 
#19
clearly i'am not suggesting we would be firing at each other,...but if we dont have them its quite likely we wont end up a target in the process,and the reason they imo are the only ones that should have them is they are the only ones in the free world who can a]afford them and b]be trusted to only ever use them in dire circumstance....nukes are making the world an unsafer place imho.
You really should watch the news
a] Its not that long ago that most of their civil servants got sent home as they could not pay them until they had raised their borrowing limit. The states are in a financial mess.
b] Why should they be trusted any more than any of the other nuclear powers? The closest we have ever come to nuclear holocaust was when JFK decided it was OK for the US of A to have nukes in the USSRs back yard, but there was no way he would allow them to have theirs in his, not to mention plans to drop 10 - 15 bombs on china in the late 50s
 
#20
britain having Trident is absolutely absurd it is akin to the pope being blessed with a gigantic COCK it will never be used
Everyday it is not used is a success, if there was ever a need to use it it would mean we were in bigggg trouble. America probably shouldn't be described as the most responsible, how insulting to the rest of us- and they are skinto too.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts