Theresa May calls snap election in June

What's best for the good of the nation ?

educating 15% of our children really well in grammar schools and another 15% in technical schools and 70% who aren't suited to the above in decent comprehensive schools. Allow transfers at age 13 so that late developers can benefit if they choose.

or

provide an education for all in mixed-ability classes in decent comprehensive schools

and in addition to universities...

re-introduce technical colleges to provide vocational training for HND and B Eng.

We seem to have focused on education. And the NHS.

Trident ?  Are we all agreed that £31bn over 10 years is a good investment ?

I bet the guys in Barrow and Aldermaston agree with me !

Don Atkinson posted:

Trident ?  Are we all agreed that £31bn over 10 years is a good investment ?

I bet the guys in Barrow and Aldermaston agree with me !

No.  But I think M.A.D. is a ****cks theory!

I’m not really understanding the argument for grammar schools. Surely selective education based on intelligence is alive and kicking in comprehensive schools. Children are assessed before leaving junior school, on starting secondary school the brightest kids are taught together in the same classrooms.

In the grammar school system, children are assessed before leaving junior school, (11+), the brightest kids are taught together in the same building.

Is there really any difference.

My daughter attended the local primary/junior school, local comprehensive, local A-level College, and then Oxford. A comprehensive education didn’t do her any harm.

Don Atkinson posted:

Trident ?  Are we all agreed that £31bn over 10 years is a good investment ?

With Jeremy as PM,

NO.

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Trident ?  Are we all agreed that £31bn over 10 years is a good investment ?

I bet the guys in Barrow and Aldermaston agree with me !

No.  But I think M.A.D. is a ****cks theory!

I thought Marcus Brigstocke put it well a few years ago on The Now Show - there's no such thing as a draw in a nuclear war.  Just imagine the last words of someone caught in a blast as they say 'Well, although I'm dying in nuclear fire hell, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that there are people on the other side of the planet doing the same'.

Cynicism aside, I think it's worth anyone who has time having a listen to this programme from Radio 4 about a year ago - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b075szsp

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Trident ?  Are we all agreed that £31bn over 10 years is a good investment ?

I bet the guys in Barrow and Aldermaston agree with me !

No.  But I think M.A.D. is a ****cks theory!

Sorry to be a realist among the liberals here, but with Putin, Lavrov and their cronies in the Kremlin cooling superpower relations to the near freezing point of the early eighties, the idea that we should place a financial value for money metric to the only absolute security safeguard this country has is somewhat nonsensical.

SKDriver posted:

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Trident ?  Are we all agreed that £31bn over 10 years is a good investment ?

I bet the guys in Barrow and Aldermaston agree with me !

No.  But I think M.A.D. is a ****cks theory!

Sorry to be a realist among the liberals here, but with Putin, Lavrov and their cronies in the Kremlin cooling superpower relations to the near freezing point of the early eighties, the idea that we should place a financial value for money metric to the only absolute security safeguard this country has is somewhat nonsensical.

You call it a realist view; I call it irrational thinking!

I don't disagree that we should be investing in defence technologies, but Trident is not the answer.  It's a personal view rather than based on any "expert" evidence, but if Putin decided to launch a preemptive nuclear attack, the presence of UK (or USA or French) nuclear weapons won't stop him.  At such a point he wouldn't care about Russian deaths any more than he would care about western deaths.

Realistically, under what circumstances do you see the UK deploying nuclear weapons.

I've always thought that nuclear weapons are just a way of buying/sustaining our place as one of the 'major' International powers. Whether we want to do that is of course a moot point. Post Brexit our place in international affairs will of course be somewhat altered anyway.

Bruce

fatcat posted:

Realistically, under what circumstances do you see the UK deploying nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons have been 'deployed' continuously for over 40 years.  That's the whole point of the continuous at-sea deterrent.  The threat of use has to be realistic; to say one would never use them under any circumstance completely undermines deterrence theory. Similarly there is no need to voice under what circumstances they would be used.

SKDriver posted:

fatcat posted:

Realistically, under what circumstances do you see the UK deploying nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons have been 'deployed' continuously for over 40 years.  That's the whole point of the continuous at-sea deterrent.  The threat of use has to be realistic; to say one would never use them under any circumstance completely undermines deterrence theory. Similarly there is no need to voice under what circumstances they would be used.

Don't worry about the waste .. they have a use!  Fallon said that the current government wouldn't rule out using them as a first strike weapon.  If he's serious ... truly worrying!

SKDriver posted:

fatcat posted:

Realistically, under what circumstances do you see the UK deploying nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons have been 'deployed' continuously for over 40 years.  That's the whole point of the continuous at-sea deterrent.  The threat of use has to be realistic; to say one would never use them under any circumstance completely undermines deterrence theory. Similarly there is no need to voice under what circumstances they would be used.

As someone who is not a devout Jeremy Corbyn supporter, I do admire him for his statement that if he was the Prime Minister, he would never give the order to fire a nuclear missile. He has received quite a bit of flack from the right wing of the Tory party for this, but wasn't he simply being honest.

I would contest that any of the political leaders who says otherwise is almost certainly lying. As fatcat has posted, "just under what circumstances do yo see the UK deploying nuclear weapons"?  Certainly not against Russia. In the unlikely event that Russia were to invade the UK, we would not be able to fend them off using conventional forces. Would we launch a nuclear strike against Russia as our defence? That would mean suicide for the population of the UK when Russia retaliates, not to mention the fact that in the process we would almost certainly kill many thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people on the Russian side. Putin knows that a sane UK Prime Minister, no matter the party he or she represents, will launch a nuclear strike against Russia. Would you order a strike under these circumstances if you were Prime Minister? I certainly wouldn't. How can Trident possibly be a deterrent in respect of Russia.

So, for whom is the presence of UK's Trident system a genuine deterrent?      

The deterrance is MAD - mutually assured destruction. Maybe not as complete a destruction as at the height of the cold war when there were enough warheads to obliterate every so-called civilisation on Earth, but enough, perhaps, to make an aggressor -even Russia given that Russia has been cited in this debate - hopefully unlikely to use its nuclear arsenal to wipe out Britain. But why would Russia want to do that in the first place? It is very different from invading a neighbouring country, or one with rich mineral or oil reserves.

In my view the deterrence is really only against rogue states that might consider annihilation of another, like, just possibly, North Korea. But also Russia if the leader was a lunatic - which Putin isn't, but you never know who could rise to power any time. Unfortunately the deterence doesn't apply against so-called Islamic State, precisely because it isn't a State.

Of course, I meant to say in my post above that"Putin knows that no sane UK Prime Minister, no matter the party he or she represents, will launch a nuclear strike against Russia".

Innocent Bystander posted:

The deterrance is MAD - mutually assured destruction. Maybe not as complete a destruction as at the height of the cold war when there were enough warheads to obliterate every so-called civilisation on Earth, but enough, perhaps, to make an aggressor -even Russia given that Russia has been cited in this debate - hopefully unlikely to use its nuclear arsenal to wipe out Britain. But why would Russia want to do that in the first place? It is very different from invading a neighbouring country, or one with rich mineral or oil reserves.

In my view the deterrence is really only against rogue states that might consider annihilation of another, like, just possibly, North Korea. But also Russia if the leader was a lunatic - which Putin isn't, but you never know who could rise to power any time. Unfortunately the deterence doesn't apply against so-called Islamic State, precisely because it isn't a State.

As far as I was aware, there is still "enough warheads to obliterate every so-called civilisation on Earth" ... only they can only be obliterated one or two times over instead of 8-10 times over.

But the the problem is; if you have a rogue state, are they going to stop launching a nuclear missile because of retaliation.  No I don't think they would.  Thats why MAD is a load of (please excuse my language) BS.  A truly "mad" leader who was intent on striking the UK would not be swayed by the threat of retaliation on his own people.

One of the things mentioned in the programme I linked was the claim - not contested as far as I'm aware - that the payload of even one Trident sub would cause a global nuclear winter.

There are more than enough nuclear weapons still in circulation to totally destroy life on Earth.

It's like a horrific catch 22. Only a madman would actually use nuclear weapons.  The people who are currently in control of nuclear weapons aren't mad (or at least aren't mad enough as far as we can tell) to use them under any foreseeable circumstances.  But it is argued that we have to keep hold of them in case a madman gets hold of them.  But in that case, it's unlikely that the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons would make any difference.

Seems to me that actually using nuclear weapons isn't the motivation.  It's simply having them.  Until we can grasp what just having (and never using) nuclear weapons means strategically, politically and so on, we're missing the point of them.  Talking about using them is just a distraction.  

Strikes me as a game of poker where everyone's holding jokers but bluffing to the skies.  A cataclysmic equivalent of the non-real money that much of the global economy runs on.  A load of BS.

Rogue states and 'mad' leadership conflates the argument with regards to having a deterrent or otherwise. We should be discussing the control of nuclear weapons in this case, which unfortunately can't be uninvented...

As to the UK having the deterrent, the argument should be simple. Are we prepared to spend money for the ultimate insurance policy or not? If not, then scrap the UK military in entirety and accept that we are at the whim of existential pressures from Russia (and maybe N Korea in due course?)

By the way, irrespective of the perceived morality argument, MAD does and has worked. Hence we have not seen a nuclear exchange between the main protagonists, even when at the brink (think Cuban crisis).

Rogue states and 'mad' leadership conflates the argument with regards to having a deterrent or otherwise. We should be discussing the control of nuclear weapons in this case, which unfortunately can't be uninvented...

As to the UK having the deterrent, the argument should be simple. Are we prepared to spend money for the ultimate insurance policy or not? If not, then scrap the UK military in entirety and accept that we are at the whim of existential pressures from Russia (and maybe N Korea in due course?)

By the way, irrespective of the perceived morality argument, MAD does and has worked. Hence we have not seen a nuclear exchange between the main protagonists, even when at the brink (think Cuban crisis).

The nuclear club is an exclusive one, it brings with it some aura of international importance. That is why we do it in my view, and why other nations do as well (N Korea etc).

I think is more ego than deterrent now. We are in NATO. Not all NATO countries have nukes. Do we have to?

Bruce

SKDriver posted:

Rogue states and 'mad' leadership conflates the argument with regards to having a deterrent or otherwise. We should be discussing the control of nuclear weapons in this case, which unfortunately can't be uninvented...

Nuclear weapons can't be uninvented that is true ... but if the UK didn't have nuclear weapons ... should they try to develop them?

As to the UK having the deterrent, the argument should be simple. Are we prepared to spend money for the ultimate insurance policy or not? If not, then scrap the UK military in entirety and accept that we are at the whim of existential pressures from Russia (and maybe N Korea in due course?)

Scrapping the UK nuclear weapons programmes and scrapping the UK military in entirety is not the same thing.  

By the way, irrespective of the perceived morality argument, MAD does and has worked. Hence we have not seen a nuclear exchange between the main protagonists, even when at the brink (think Cuban crisis).

That doesn't prove M.A.D. works.  All it proves is no one has been mad enough to launch a nuclear attack (which in all likelihood would affect the whole world not just the target area anyway).  Back to your first paragraph ... if a leader was mad enough (or the state rogue enough) to launch nuclear missiles, they would likely not care enough for their own people either to worry about retaliation.  (admittedly this is purely my personal opinion and I have no evidence / expert opinion to back this up)

MAD, as a policy, has either worked or has never been tested to the point where it caused the button-pushers to hold-off because AFAIK the world has never reached that point.  In any event, since mankind has possessed such weapons since 1945 and none have been used in anger in over seventy years suggests that something is providing restraint.

Is the UK's nuclear deterrent there to deter the Russians and Chinese? Well, it might have been some decades ago but I'd suggest that has much less credence there days. Haven't those two countries invested very significantly in the UK in recent years, especially the Chinese government?  Would those regimes threaten their own investments in that way?  Moreover, I think it hard to envisage the circumstances in which an all-out conflict with either of those countries would threaten to erupt.  

These days I think the argument is about rogue states N. Korea, maybe Pakistan.  The UK's counter-threat to states such as those is utterly overwhelming so perhaps serves as an effective deterrent.  Is it worth the cost? I suppose a business case exists somewhere in the MoD. It would be interesting to know what it's return-on-investment is, e.g. the cost of Trident replacement presumably being less than the cost of conventional forces sufficient to provide a similar level of deterrence.

Maybe this is one of those things that successive governments have thought 'we've always had one [a nuclear capability], so we might as well keep one, because it would otherwise mean working out a different policy and that would be hard'.  

I think there is more to it than Mutually Assured Destruction, although that is a significant element.

Do we want to let other people  run our lives, our society, or impose their moral standards upon us ?

Or would we prefer to set our own standards, and align ourselves with like-minded people ?

Would we prefer to be in a position to influence others, so that human rights are set and observed, so that limited resources are carefully used..........the list is pretty well endless.

Perhaps we COULD lead by example. And disarm. Totally, not just the nuclear bit.

How much global influence would we have ? My guess is, not a lot.

Just what is our military asset all about, if it isn't to influence others ?

Would thet be the Vito Corleone style of influencing others.

fatcat posted:

Would thet be the Vito Corleone style of influencing others.

Not exactly, but definitely not the Mahatma Gandhi style which I think Jeremy favours, but isn't quite up to delivering !