UK Trident vote today

[Aeson]

there's too much to lose, the major economies are intertwined, there are no serious territorial claims being advanced (notwithstanding some man made islands in the south china sea) by any major power, etc.

And if history has anything to teach us it's that the situation will never, ever change going forward ... and people always act rationally in their own (and the world's) best interests ...

[Aeson]

I will leave aside the fact that it's probably the most failed *defense* alliance ever (never seen a defense, attack - don't quote the known phrase) and just go to what I think is the gist of the matter.

To avoid being attacked is the ultimate purpose of a defence alliance.

[Bereta_Eder]

To avoid being attacked is the ultimate purpose of a defence alliance.

It's a question of wether the chicken made the egg or vice versa.

some countries want to get in because if they don't they will be attacked or destabilized by some NATO members.
So it's like a pimp.

It has also suffered because of things like turkey (and also other countries with extremely less but present problems of democratic accountability)

in short NATO to exist, wants an enemy. I think it manufactures them

*I used to think that the creation of a unifyied european force would mean the emancipation of europe from the US but turns out the same dumbasses that are over there exit over here too, so I'm not in favor of that anymore)

[Giancarlo]

(whoops, nothing left).

unfortunately, you've not improved as a poster since you arrived here. but at least you're not a fascist any more, so that's something.

And alas... he has refused to answer my questions and requests of providing evidence.

So yeah, you've failed miserably at this. You've made several bald headed claims about Spain and you got caught. Now you're just making excuses.

There were no insults there. There were only several requests, including for you to back up your argument.

You're a total failure at debating.

[Giancarlo]

You are lying about what you asked, and too stupid to understand even simple concepts.

I think he's too lazy to even provide actual evidence for any of his arguments.

I think he's on a tablet. He never capitalizes any of his sentences and never provides any sources.

He thinks he knows more than everyone, including more about Spain than someone who is actually from Spain. He's a fool.

[Aeson]

It's a question of wether the chicken made the egg or vice versa.

You can question the ethics/morality of it (especially the offensive wars it's been used for), but the effectiveness of it as a defence alliance is unquestionable.

[Bereta_Eder]

You can question the ethics/morality of it (especially the offensive wars it's been used for), but the effectiveness of it as a defence alliance is unquestionable.

it is. for its members only and against an outside conventional enemy. that's unfortuantely its allure to a lot of people

[OneFootInTheGrave]

This discussion "nuclear on non-nuclear" is not really what is at stake with Trident, this particular nuke delivery mechanism has two serious objections.

#1 - cost, and the other one is full dependence on the US - even for navigation - thus basically the "right" for UK to utilize it without US supervision is pure posturing. (French have independent capacity for their nuclear arsenal, thus being the only "genuine" nuclear power in Europe).

This is a different discussion other than "nukes" or "no nukes" - the correct answer IMO is in the middle, ie keep nukes for posturing purposes, since UK is already the member of the club, but cut the costs to minimum.

(not to mention that as a side benefit this would increase independence of the delivery platform).

Will never be done due to vassalage status, ie "special relationship is very special".

[C0ckney]

No.

No.

No. Even if the above wasn't a false claim, there would still likely be war. Less risk != no risk

You didn't ask, "how every country having potentially world destroying weapons makes us all safer?" ... you asked "why should we spend billions of pounds to counter a threat that may have existed 30 years ago but no longer does?"

To put this as simply as possible in hopes that your feeble mind can grasp why conflating the two questions is so ridiculous ... Have nukes: +safety to owner, -safety to everyone else ...

You are lying about what you asked, and too stupid to understand even simple concepts.

yup, just as i thought; but at least you managed to keep it brief. thank heavens for small mercies!

[C0ckney]

Because direct war has been the norm for basically all of human history?



This would make sense if human beings were consistently rational actors. The very existence of war proves that we are not. WWI happened because of a network of secret agreements pulling completely uninvolved powers into fights where they had nothing at stake. WWII happened because several large and powerful countries were taken over by borderline lunatics. My country got bogged down in Vietnam for about twenty years, with increasing escalation, basically because we inherited a colonial struggle against the French which had nothing to do with us. We invaded Iraq for a whole set of incoherent, false, and/or contradictory reasons. War is seldom a rational response to our problems. It happens anyway.

lots of things have been the norm for basically all of human history that are not today. on its own that isn't a strong argument in my view.

one can point to lots of reasons why world war I and world war II happened; indeed, many people and countries at the time saw both coming. if you can't point to any specific circumstances that might spark a major war between the world powers, then that should at least give you pause for thought. of course wars still happen, but vietnam and iraq, etc. are not the kind of wars we're talking about here.

that's not to say that such a war couldn't happen in theory of course. in theory, i might win the lottery tomorrow, but it would be foolish to base my financial planning on that rather than the real circumstances of my life.

[C0ckney]

It's not knotty. Premise: every country that gets nukes is safer than a country without nukes. every additional country that has nukes reduces the effectiveness of nukes for those that have them and places those without them at a greater disadvantage . Consequence: Every country will want nukes and as they acquire them any benefits of having them are greatly diminished and the negatives can be very bad. The idea that if no one has nukes you have increased risk of war but decreased risk of very bad things for everyone still holds.

It's a classic example of individual choice being at odds with global best choice, just like withdrawing money in a bank run or wealth destroying advertising.

yes, that was rather my point. the acquisition of nuclear weapons in the name of security and safety actually makes the world considerably less safe when taken to its logical conclusion.

moreover, my argument in this thread is that that premise, which may have been true in the past, is not true today due to the circumstances that obtain in the world, and, therefore, the arguments in favour of nuclear weapons based upon it cannot be sustained.

[kentonio]

if you can't point to any specific circumstances that might spark a major war between the world powers, then that should at least give you pause for thought.

Except of course that we can point to very specific circumstances that could spark such a conflict including the Chinese escalation of their claims in the South China Sea and Russian belligerence in the former Soviet states. Not to mention of course the ever present boiling pot of the middle east, that has provided a potential flashpoint for global conflict for well over half a century now.

If there was a major war, people would look back and point at these kind of events and ask how the people of the time could be so stupid as to let them spill over. Most people look back now on Chamberlain (extremely unfairly) as a coward, fool and appeaser. I wonder what choice words they'd have for Corbyn, the guy who in the face of not one but two powerful and aggressive superstates (hell, three if you count America) decided to unilaterally dismantle our insurance policy of last resort.

[C0ckney]

i don't see why either of those would spark a major war between the world powers any more than the west invading afghanistan or iraq or bombing libya. these wars have been disastrous mistakes but they're not the prelude to world war 3.

[kentonio]

yes, that was rather my point. the acquisition of nuclear weapons in the name of security and safety actually makes the world considerably less safe when taken to its logical conclusion.

Which is probably (although there's definitely an argument against it) true. However as at least 8 countries already have them and the majority have zero intention of giving them up again, what does that matter exactly outside of intellectual theory?

moreover, my argument in this thread is that that premise, which may have been true in the past, is not true today due to the circumstances that obtain in the world, and, therefore, the arguments in favour of nuclear weapons based upon it cannot be sustained.

You keep talking about these 'circumstances' that supposedly mean the world is no longer (and presumably never again will be) at risk of global conflict. Can you specify exactly what you think these circumstances are please?

[kentonio]

i don't see why either of those would spark a major war between the world powers any more than the west invading afghanistan or iraq or bombing libya.

Really? The situation with Russia basically relies on Russia not overplaying its hand with regards to the Baltic states. As history very clearly shows us, we can in no way rely on state leaders to always understand their limitations and to not overplay their hand. Any invasion of the Baltics could very easily and most importantly very quickly, trigger a shooting war between Russia and NATO. If that happens, things could spiral out of control incredibly quickly.

The China situation is probably less at risk of a sudden spark, but is more a gradual buildup of tension that at some point is going to require either a Chinese backdown (extremely unlikely as its their backyard) or an American backdown (again very unlikely). Without either of those things, the US and China are going to be banging heads regularly and hard and it doesn't require much imagination to see how that could spiral out of control.