UK General Election thread

[Hauldren Collider]

Is there a possible scenario in which the UK would use its nuclear weapons in a war that doesn't involve the UK and US being on the same side...?

Not at present, no, but the UK might be willing to use nukes in a situation when the US is not. Were I them, I wouldn't count on us being willing to nuke Russia in retaliation for an attack on the UK.

[spambot]

could you explain how a Russian attack on the UK might come about?

[regexcellent]

Also it brings up the number of sub-based nukes available to NATO pretty substantially. We have 14 nuclear-armed Ohio class subs (the other 4 have cruise missiles). Britain has 4 Vanguard-class subs, and France has 4 Triomphant-class subs. So we have slightly over 2/3 of the ballistic missile submarines in service (besides Russia and China of course).

[Hauldren Collider]

could you explain how a Russian attack on the UK might come about?

It wouldn't, thanks to the nukes. That's kind of the point.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Yes. Absolutely. It'd be a pretty bad idea, but yes.

Incidentally the missiles use GPS guidance but also use many other navigation systems which are sufficiently accurate. The US military considered the possibility that GPS would be unavailable in the event we need to launch nukes when designing the Trident missiles. The missiles themselves are actually guided inertially--the launch location can (but does not have to) use GPS.

EDIT: They also use astrogation. There's a little camera onboard that looks at the stars to figure out where the missile is.

You need to read this- http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/986we13.htm

It's US to the core. Nobody seriously believes the US would give Britain nukes that could be used against them.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't think the US believes the UK would ever have a good reason to nuke us, not in the least because we also have nukes. Any scenario under which the UK actually fires nukes, what the US thinks is irrelevant, since presumably they would not do so unless retaliating for a nuclear strike or as a last ditch effort to defend themselves or avenge their destruction. So the US withholding maintenance is not a particularly important detail since at that point who cares?

[Hauldren Collider]

I should note I don't particularly care if Britain has nukes or not, just that if I were British I'd be pretty upset at the loss of nukes.

[spambot]

It wouldn't, thanks to the nukes. That's kind of the point.

How would it happen if the UK didn't have nukes?

[kentonio]

I bet if we decided to use them against the US, we wouldn't be able to, for example

Trident is a US made system. We are wholly beholden to the US for its continued upkeep, and that's just the obvious reasons why Bugs is right about our cosy (for them) little deal with the US...

So what? Much as I've grown to despise the balance of that relationship, its also true that our geopolitical interests coincide in most cases.

We need to scrap Trident now.

Well that would be deeply ****ing stupid. So inside of having a nuclear deterrent that we rely on America for in many ways, we'd move to a situation where we were COMPLETELY reliant on the US and French nuclear deterrents. That's preferable to you is it?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Silly season continues unabated.

David Cameron has vowed to introduce a law guaranteeing no rise in income tax rates, VAT or national insurance before 2020 if the Tories win the election.
The Conservative leader said workers already paid enough tax and he would focus on other ways of clearing the deficit, such as reducing the welfare bill and tackling tax avoidance.
Labour said it was a "last-minute gimmick" and it expected VAT to rise.
Ed Miliband suggested the Tories have a "secret plan" to cut tax credits.
The Lib Dems said voters would "simply not believe" the pledge unless the Conservatives spelled out where they would cut public spending.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32506490

It's farcical. They're only proposing this stupid law because they u-turned on their pledges not to increase VAT last time round. Plus, of course, a government that can get laws passed can also get them repealed. Or simply tack on an "....unless things get really bad, of course" clause.

So it's all rather like hearing a heroin addict going "I promise not to take heroin again! I realise I broke my promises last time, but this time I've tied my own hands together, so I'll definitely keep my promise! Yes, yes, I know I could wriggle out of the ropes if I wanted too, but it would be annoying for me- so I really mean it!".

Plus, binding the Chancellor's freedom to react to changinng economic climates could screw up Britain's credit rating. Well done, lads. Stupidest suggestion of a stupid campaign.

[Dauphin]

It's getting embarrassing.

Ed t-dropping and h-dropping at Russell's gaff.

[Dauphin]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/29/clegg-farage-sheffield-south-thanet-ashcroft-poll

Nick Clegg is narrowly trailing Labour in his Sheffield Hallam seat and Nigel Farage is slightly behind the Conservatives in his South Thanet target, according to the latest constituency polling from Lord Ashcroft.

The data from the Conservative peer shows both party leaders are facing extremely tight battles to enter parliament on 7 May, although their parties have been quick to point out that Ashcroft does not name the candidates when the research is being conducted.

In the survey, Clegg is one point behind the Labour candidate Oliver Coppard, who is on 37%. The gap between the two has got closer since the last poll in March, which had Labour three points ahead.

Clegg's red-lines on coalition deals may count for (even more) nought.

[C0ckney]

It's getting embarrassing.

Ed t-dropping and h-dropping at Russell's gaff.

yes it was a bit odd for the leader of the opposition to pop round to russell brand's house to spout off 10 minutes of worthless platitudes. i expect it won't do his chances much harm, though.

as an aside i rather casually assumed that russell brand's book would be a load of unreadable wankery and twaddle, but then i read an article in radical philosophy that was surprisingly complimentary about it, so i may actually read it should it appear in any second hand bookshops in rio over the next year or so.

[Dauphin]

If you remove his extreme narcissism (or is it egoism or some other "me" variant?) then I'd imagine he'd actually be interesting to follow.

[regexcellent]

http://blog.squandertwo.net/2014/12/an-open-letter-to-russell-brand.html