UKC

... just what we need.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-live-boris-johns...

F*CK this non-proliferation nonsense. That's for the bad guys, we're the good guys so we should have as many WMDs as we want.

🤦🤦‍♀️

Our Fate is in Their Tiny Plastic Hands

The Air and Missile War in Nagorno-Karabakh: Lessons for the Future of Strike and Defense | Center for Strategic and International Studies (csis.org) (why can't I post urls anymore?)

when a nation can be comprehensively whipped by a fleet of drones costing only 1M$ each, and composed of off-the-shelf parts I think its quite prudent to have a Thor like hammer in our back pocket.

Plus of course, 70 years of massive nuclear arsenals have not yet lead to anyone using them.

Come _on_! there is a pretty massive asterisk here!

The last 70 years is littered with not-so-near to extremely close misses in this regard.

Also, it's axiomatic that "just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can't happen". Firsts are happening every day in our modern world and the length of time without something happening is no guide to the probability of it happening or not in the future.

I imagine you'll feel that it would be "prudent" for a great many other countries to have such a hammer in their back pocket too then?

Say the 100 largest countries?

At an estimated cost of £200Bn to renew trident, that would make it "prudent" for humanity to spend Twenty trillion, not on global warming avoidance, or pandemic preparation, or exploring the universe, but on stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

Or do you live in some la-la land where is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction has no consequence beyond our shores, therefore doesn't trigger an arms race?

Yet. I think the greatest risk  is accidental nuclear war. Personally I think we need to work harder on getting rid of nuclear weapons, there seems to be more apathy towards them than there used to be.

The problem with the argument against nuclear weapons is that there is no way we can get with any certainty, International agreement to stop developing them and having them.  Thus the only logical answer from a defence perspective is to be in the "have" club rather than "doesn't have" club.  

So build lots of '$1M drones' to 'comprehensively whip' anyone tempted, not a doomsday weapon that kills anyone and everything that needs sunlight.

Their continued existence makes their use, in error or malice, ultimately inevitable.

The more we have as a species the sooner we die.

jk

There's no way to get criminals to agree not to have guns either. Should we all adopt American gun laws so we can all join the gun club and our children can do active shooter drills at school?

Only if/while you view the biggest threat to be malicious use, not accidental total war.

In just 75 years we've been perilously close to exterminating ourselves by accident several times. That needs a moment to sink in. We're averaging a potentially civilisation ending event less than every 20 years, essentially by accident. We're playing Russian roulette and we know what happens when we keep pulling the trigger, our luck will run out.

jk

I can partly see the argument for being in the club (although I'm far from convinced). If only for the top table negotiating position it buys us in a world where our economic, soft and military powers are declining.

What I don't understand is why we need more warheads to achieve this. Has there been a point in the last 50 years where our strategic options have been limited by the number of warheads we own?

The point I was trying to make really is that nuclear weapons don't exist in isolation. The certainties of the cold war were comforting and the case for nuclear warheads was obvious. The other side has them so therefore, if we wish to defend ourselves then so should we. 

the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh has convinced many people far better placed to know than me that the cost of all out war has dropped dramatically. so to those who are still thinking that only nuclear weapons create arms races, it is now a race to create drone proof air defences and provide autonomous loitering  offensive drone fleets. 

these devices are already here, and existing air defences are not fit for purpose, for instance the lauded S300 air defence system capable of downing all fighter jets is incapable of destroying drones. So, we are now at the point where small states can compete militarily. Whilst drone air defense is being addressed I think nuclear is our only option to deter physical attack. Of course many states are routinely attacking us in cyber space. if it were possible to attack us in the physical world then they would be doing that too. Its the cost of doing so that stops nations mounting physical attacks that stops it happening. The cost of acquiring military technology has dropped massively. 1m$ to destroy a T72 tank or a S3000 is peanuts. So all we can do is raise the cost of rebuilding their own country after we smite it with a nuclear weapon. 

It seems like you're making an implicit assumption that war is an inevitability unless one or both sides will be devastated by nuclear weapons if it were to happen. That if we were to throw away our nukes, and our allies did not have nuclear weapons to retaliate on our behalf, countries would be lining up to invade us. This was true 100 years ago (less than, even) but I don't think it holds up in the modern global economic system.

Almost all countries in the world have extremely interlinked economies to the extent that it simply isn't worth going to war for resources or ideological reasons because you get far less out of it than you can get through peaceful trade. It still sucks to be a weaker country economically or militarily, but so long as you don't impede free trade there is by and large no incentive for anyone to invade you.

Cyber attacks, industrial espionage and sabotage and IP theft are real threats and our defense budget would be far better spent improving that. The main reason we aren't focusing so much on these is because the people in charge are mostly from an older generation which doesn't understand technology, or at least places more worth on missiles, guns and bombs which will never see use.

WMDs only "work" as a deterrent if you are prepared to commit crimes against humanity.

Are you going to be happy to press the button and kill untold numbers of innocent civilians by "smiting" them with a WMD because their leaders found a way of making war with our leaders less asymmetric?

the majority of the world doesn't participate in the modern global economic system, they are the actual threats to the 'modern' economically empowered states.  And these are states that have every reason to find us offensive. ISIS for instance were financed enough for loitering UAVs had they not been completely overwhelmed by the combined airpower of Nato. In years past we needn't have concerned ourselves with  distant tribal matters, but we did intervene for the obvious reason that ISIS hate us and are more than  capable of bringing violence to our home.

Climate change is going to make this so much worse. the Sahara desert is growing and large parts of northern Africa are going to become unlivable. There is every  reason to believe that climate instability will mean massive migration and that causes conflict. ITs entirely conceivable that the worlds economic system that only benefits the global north will become the target of this violence.

So a few nukes should go hand-in-hand with reparations , global relief funds, rapid decarbonisiing of our 'modern economies'. None of this finance will be forthcoming if we cannot secure our economic system. And before anyone suggests we should divert the money form Nukes to pay for those I suggest looking at HS2 first.   

Tell that to the people of Crimea.

Yes, I was wondering if Russia would have acted the way it has if Ukraine had kept its share of the Soviet arsenal? Of course - the West and the NATO cavalry would have come riding to the rescue.

military might is a necessary part of a functioning economy. like it or not you are part of that system. 

The deterrent sure as hell doesn't work unless your enemy really believes you will do just that if he attacks you.

I agree that with the world as it is now, I would rather we remained in Route Adjuster's  "Haves club" than join the "Haven'ts club" because it tends to level the playing field if a potential aggressor is bigger than you.

well I've heard of HaveQuick but this is belonging to the "HaveMore" club

So you'd be happy, if a small nation launched a drone attack on our forces, for us to respond by wiping out their civilian population?

So you'd be happy, if a small nation launched a drone attack on our forces, for us to respond by wiping out their civilian population?

The discussion on this thread seems to be about whether we should have a deterrent rather than whether we should have more warheads or not.

The news today is that we are planning to increase our number of warheads, it's not a decision about whether we keep the deterrent.

Despite the fact that I spent the first decade of my career working on the deterrent programme (designing submarines) I don't actually know the pros and cons (except cost, obviously) of having more warheads, if we already have the minimum amount needed to maintain CASD. Is it just political messaging and posturing, or is there more to it? Does anyone have a link to an authoritive discussion or source of information on this?

(To expand: the previous approach always seemed to be that we would keep enough warheads to maintain our deterrent whilst gradually reducing the total number in such a way that we could preach disarmament to others despite not weakening our own capability. I don't understand why this has changed.)

It's nowt to do with position in the world, defence or ideology. 

It's purely there as a trap for Labour.

I'm not sure if this pathetic political campaigning bollocks is morally more reprehensible than sincerely believing vaporising millions of people is a good idea or not.  Either way, it's a dangerous, useless and expensive gesture of contempt for humanity.

So you’re saying we should nuke ISIS?

I always liked this Yes Prime Minister episode -  youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4&

The vast majority of the world's countries do, which is enough, because an individual does not have an army. Even dictators in third world countries have no incentive to take military action against their neighbors, let alone western nations, because it is much easier for them to skim money off the top of westerners investing in their countries and extracting resources from them. War means sanctions and loss of lucrative aid and investment money. Before someone accuses me, I am not condoning exploitation of developing countries. But it does mean that these backwater states have no incentive to invade others.

ISIS were never a military threat to western states. They were barely a threat to the middle eastern states. They represented a terrorist threat which investing in nuclear weapons does nothing to counter. If we actually cared about stopping terrorism in our own countries we would disengage from conflicts in the middle east.

They may be equally expensive but at least one of those is an infrastructure project with actual tangible benefits to us. Just because HS2 has been a shit show doesn't mean that we're better off building yet more Nukes over investing in our own country.
And again, nuclear weapons will do absolutely nothing to stop refugees and migrants coming to the north if the worst happens in Africa. So what are you suggesting we do, nuke the migrant columns? Nuke their cities, make them more unlivable than they already are? People won't care that the country they're trying to flee to has nuclear weapons.

I've really had enough of this country's mid-life crisis. 

That seems to be more an argument for spending on our conventional forces and in particular on the foot soldiers as opposed to expensive prestige projects such as expanding the nuclear arsenal and (although already spent) rather expensive but still limited aircraft carriers and the entire F-35 project.

For drone defence its more stuff like the Israeli Iron Dome, phalanx and similar close defence weapons which would be useful as opposed to going "sod it launch let drops a bucket of instant sunshine on their capital".

It's about the UK seat on the Security Council.  Brexit f*cked our economy and means we are no longer a proxy for the EU, when Ireland reunites and Scotland gets independent the UK will be even smaller.  The only argument for the UK having a permanent seat at the UN is it has a lot of nukes.

They want the UN seat is so they can feel important and look after the financial industry in London.  Bet you they won't keep the nukes in London though.

I think you may have this wrong. AFAIK most of the people of Crimea were perfectly happy to see Russia invade. They had just voted for this outcome, they considered themselves Russian, and the Russian military forces were stationed in Crimea already - so "invasion" was not really necessary. The people in the Ukrainian parts of Ukraine were very upset of course. 

I don't suppose the German speakers in the South Tyrol would be too miffed if Austria "invaded" the South Tyrol. But fortunately Austria and Italy play by different rules, and people on both sides of that border are generally happy with their shared EU citizenship. But I have climbing guidebooks that warn about closed huts and armed border patrols on that border - not terribly long ago.

Martin

Far too many unknowns to give a reasoned answer to that hypothesis, but yes, the world needs to know that we have the means and the will to respond as we see fit, and that would include the use of conventional or nuclear weapons if we deem either necessary. 

Well my personal position is that stockpiling WMDs and threatening to use them on civilian populations in *any* circumstance is morally untenable, therefore any action (or inaction) that goes against the principle of global disarmament is simply wrong.

We should be working to replace CASD with a non-WMD deterrent, and wishing to create a fairer world where we don't need a deterrent.

I find the suggestion that the West, with our drones bombing the shit out of the middle East as we speak, must keep hold of (or expand) our WMD program in case smaller countries want to attack us with drones insane.

Many years ago, my father caused great consternation amongst a civic meeting with regards to the nuclear "deterrent", when he stood up and said he would rather the Russians killed his children, than he pressed a button to drop a nuclear bomb on theirs.

Despite being one of the children he was ready to risk, I'm with him on this.

Anyone who is prepared to drop WMDs on innocent children has lost all shred of basic humanity IMO. So the deterrent is either an empty threat, or we are a stain on humanity.

I’m not a fan of this move, but one reason for the increase is because we want the US warhead upgrade programme to go ahead. 
I think after spending $1.6tn on the F35, the US are keen on spreading the costs around where they can. 

I suspect that sort of attitude would have played out very badly in WWII. Hitler would have bitten you hand off I think. A price has to be paid by those who are willing to wage war. It doesn't matter how the price is doled out, and personally I'd be much happier if the price were paid only be the combatants but is that ever the case?

An empty threat is not a deterrent.

I am with you that humanity should be striving to rid the whole world of these terrible weapons, but until we achieve that ideal, I would still rather Britain was in the "Haves" club. If it ever becomes possible for the whole world to join the "Have not's" club simultaneously it would be wonderful, but sadly I suspect that we humans are a long way from achieving that, which is an awful situation. Unilateral disarmament wouldn't give the world the peace we all crave, but would merely leave the "Have nots"  vulnerable to countries, groups or individuals with ill intent towards other countries. And as we all know from history, the world is and has always been full of such evil people.

They will be kept just down the road though. However lets not let minor details get in the way of your tedious hatred of anything English.

Hmmm, I would be hesitant to support that statement. Whilst there are strong, or even stronger, cultural links to Russia than that of Ukraine for many Crimean residents it's still a leap to say they were happy to be invaded. An occupying force by a country happy to silence political opponents at will isn't the best environment to openly proclaim your displeasure.

Russia does what it wants physically because no one can really contain it. Crimea, South Ossetia, eastern Ukraine and to a lesser extent Abkhazia and Moldova. This is partly due to its processing a nuclear arsenal.

Large parts of eastern Latvia, north eastern Estonia and a small pocket of Lithuania all have ethnic russian populations which could easily be taken by conventional military forces. They aren't because they fall under the protection of NATO forces. Without the nuclear insurance policy I would bet there would be some form of conflict in these areas. 

I've no idea why the UK warhead numbers need to increase, perhaps the update to trident can handle more warheads per missile? Whatever the reason it's not a cheap choice. The world would be a better place without nuclear weapons but it's not realistic to abolish them entirely, merely limit their proliferation.

Exactly, no money for nurses but we can waste this sort of amount on stuff to kill and maim people.

Some were some weren't would Crimea having nukes, have stopped it?

Had your father been a generation older, maybe sat in a Japanese prisoner of war camp in 1945 his viewpoint might have differed. 

My Headmaster lost one of his two brothers to Japanese captivity.  He found the idea of mutual destruction abhorrent.  I remember coming into a lesson where he was sat alone at his desk the morning of the Paris Air crash (DC10) and after a pause he just expressed his utter incomprehension of the magnitude of the disaster and we had a chat about it.   (He was an artillery officer in the Far East during WWII) and spent time in Japanese captivity.)  After retiring from teaching he took Holy Orders.  I can't think of a more positive example of a male role model, a true humanitarian.

But that's the point, it is the worst of all cases, so nobody starts the war in the first place, even the supposed winner loses. 

I think you've nailed it. The US have multiple types of nuclear deterrent (ground, air and sea based). If they decide not to replace their submarine warheads it totally derails the UK nuclear capability. I think UK gov's decision to increase the number of warheads is an attempt to make the replacement for cost effective for the US government, and has nothing to do with a strategic desire to have more warheads.

Why not just bung them a few billion extra and keep the same number of nukes?

Ah, that makes some sense - thanks

what we did in the past was to threaten to cut our costs by closing down Cyprus - The Americans gave us cut price nukes if we bore the cost of a key strategic asset as well as a very useful listening post.

We could try that again

Why? I would think, and my Grandad was one of them, that being involved in war exposes someone to the realities of it, i.e. the people clamouring for it rarely get involved, and it shows who really suffered and to what extent.

Not everyone one wants retribution. You seem to judges everyone by your own, somewhat poor standards.

Why would you ever want thousands of innocent people killed, for whatever reason?

Although we buy trident missiles from the US, we make our own warheads. How would the costs of the US programme be shared? Or would there be some aspect of joint research/design/production etc? Don't know the details of it, so happy to be educated. 

Why not take a bold step and get rid altogether? Then encourage everyone else to do the same. Spend the money on the NHS or god forbid, environmental issues.

What's the point of having nukes when the greatest threat we're likely to face is global warming?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/01/uk-tri...
I think there is huge crossover between the U.K. and US warheads. 
this was the quote from the U.K. defence minister in a letter to congress - “Your support to the W93 program in this budget cycle is critical to the success of our replacement warhead programme and to the long-term viability of the UK’s nuclear deterrent and therefore, the future of Nato as a nuclear alliance.”

Exactly. That's what happens in conventional war. What if the cost of war was so immense, no one started it?  

My grandfather never fought in the war, as he was a train driver, but my great uncles who did were very much a part of forming my dad's moral compass. 

My great uncle Jim had far more respect for the soldiers he fought against than he did for the leaders on either side, or their decisions.

Yeah, world war two was great. We detonated a WMD above a city, with the height calculated to maximise civilian casualties. We knew some of the buildings were made of wood so we could detonate it higher than we would in Tokyo or a German city, and if we killed enough people those who were left would be unable to put out the firestorm we would create.

We thought about going for a lower height, which would reduce the area of total destruction and increase the area of partial destruction, but we knew from the partial destruction of our cities by German bombers, that cities could be put back together again if you left enough people alive. So we went for the height that would maximise civilian death.

And then we did it again. 

Yay us.

The thing with modern nukes is that the fall out will stay exactly within the borders of any small state. It’s an incredible advance. 

...> And then we did it again. 

Germany had surrendered by then, so that's why no German city was nuked.

Tokyo had already been flattened by conventional bombs, so that's why it wasn't nuked.

The reasons FOR the nuclear option;

Any invasion of Japan would have meant 10's or 100's of 1000's of allied casualties.

Any invasion of Japan would have meant 100's of 1000's, probably millions of Japanese civilian casualties.

Any invasion of Japan would have meant the immediate execution of ALL allied POW's, not just in Japan, but everywhere else as well, and who knows what other retaliations may have been brought against the many occupied peoples across Asia.

And as a side issue, it was also a deterrent against the Soviets, who were about to move into Japan (and who knows where else) with the intention of occupying as much of the world as possible in no different a manner as the Nazis - just as they'd already done with Poland etc..

And the reason for the second bomb - the Japanese Generals still wanted everyone else in Japan to fight on after the first one. Thank God the second one meant they could no longer retain control over the government.

And before you make another inaccurate claim - I am NOT in favour of the Nuclear Option in the modern era, because quite simply it could (would) mean the end of humanity, and most other life on this planet. When there were only a handful of bombs, with a (comparatively) low yield, and only one side had them, it wasn't the "life as we know it ending" matter that it is today.

Edited to add the last paragraph.

This wasn't a side issue, this was one of the main reasons we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war was practically over, the Japanese were stuffed, we could have waited for the Russians to finish them off. But we didn't want that, so we choose to murder a couple of hundred innocent Japanese civilians instead.

The generals wanted to carry on, but the government were ready to surrender. If we didn't want to wait for the Russians to end it, we could have negotiated surrender terms without dropping any WMDs.

Us deciding that using a nuclear weapon on a civilian population was a legitimate war tactic was what put the world into the nuclear arms race that lead us to the point of MAD. You can't neatly separate the two.

We were considering those options previously though. There's a good article on our decision as to what heights to detonate bombs for what effect in each location  here:

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/08/08/the-height-of-the-bomb/

Yes. The use of nuclear weapons is a last resort to be used by a country facing imminent destruction. If Crimea was an independent state with nuclear weapons, the invasion and occupation could feasibly result in a nuclear war. 

Why do you think no Israel has survived so long? India and Pakistan take potshots at one another over a glacier but take it no further. India and China agree not to arm their border troops to avoid escalation. North Korea and Iran have expended huge resources at the detriment of their populations to gain nukes, why? Because the deterrent against invasion is real.

It’s a fair point though that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not significantly worse than the conventional attacks on Tokyo, Dresden etc.

they were all part of a campaign to terrorise the population of our enemies - that tactic may be reprehensible, but I struggle to see much difference in the means.

For what it’s worth I’ve visited the peace museum in Hiroshima, it’s incredibly well done and emotive - but my overall impression was that given the terrain of Japan and the heroism of its people the nuclear attack could be justified if it was a critical factor in breaking the leaderships resolve.

The basis of right wing philosophy is self first.Thats why they believe in having the most lethal weapons to get what they want.

It is a morally bankrupt position but they have managed to convince themselves otherwise. 

When the soviet union broke up, the Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world. In return for security guarantees from the west and Russia it gave them up, then look what happened, Russia took land and no one dared react because they were nuclear armed. 

Because there haven't  been any wars since  WW2 has there?

What nuclear weapons give countries is the ability to destroy thousands of peoples lives remotely, without getting their hands dirty, if you like.

The greatest likelihood of nuclear weapons use is going to be an accident, since it's SO costly that no one would start one, so what's the point?

Remove them all, spend the money elsewhere and it's win win, for all of us.

It also, removes the hypocrisy of us telling Iran, or anyone that is busy building bombs, that they shouldn't have them.

By your reckoning, everyone should have one, and then there'd be no wars, should you be encouraging Iran's endeavours?

Remove them all? you can't uninvent something!

Edit. You think if the west got rid of theirs, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea would do the same ? 

I saw an interesting speculation that this may not be so clear. We are about to renew the warhead stockpile with a new design to replace obsolescent ones that are increasingly hard to maintain. The suggestion is that the increased number might just be to create enough headroom in the total to manage that changeover without dropping below some credible minimum. 

I also wouldn't dismiss that it is just to set some political trap to divide the UK opposition.

A real, sustained (and expensive) increase in the UK's nuclear arsenal seems a poor third in terms of likelihood to me.

I believe the USA military uses or has the second largest computer in the world purely to run calculations on how its now ageing ballistic missile collection might still perform. It is offline, stand alone though!! 

My grandfather did spend several years as a Japanese POW returning home in 1946- and he wouldn't support nuclear weapons.

He was a professional solider before the war from a military family - became a pacifist to the point of refusing his medals

I never claimed that

It may also be the case that as ABM defences get better you may ‘need’ a greater number of warheads to give a credible deterrent effect.

The Russians could only have "finished them off" (just assuming Stalin had been willing for the USSR to pay the butcher's bill, again) if the US and British navies had transported them to the Japanese home islands and, if that happened, how many Russians and Japanese do you think would have died in the process? How many Germans and Russians died whilst the Red Army subdued half of Germany? Still, I'm sure it would have been much easier and less costly to fight their way through four times as many Japanese. 

I don't believe there were any good, easy options by autumn 1945.

Yes, that's a good point.

The way forward is for nations to gradually reduce there arsenals.This will be slow and difficult with much opposition.

Eventually the United Nations should resolve internation disputes.It would be against International law for nations to use military force.

Those who say this is a fantasy that could never happen are usually the ones that are trying to block such progress.

Impossible.

Yeah because all nations respect the UN and China or Russia never veto everything the security counsel suggests. 

Realist, not fantasy. What's in it for Russia, China, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran... to disarm, what's the incentive?

Not a lot while we are willy waving our expanded nuclear arsenal, and continuing to use our military might to ensure we control access to the world's strategic resources, that's for sure.

There might not have been any great options, but deliberately burning well over a hundred thousand civilians to death was pretty rough.

If anyone else did that, would we be finding excuses for them?

I'd suggest India/Pakistan and Israel/ Iran, plus North Korea will continue with their agenda even if the uk, USA and France were only armed with catapults. 

Except the good old USA

How many would have died if Japan was defeated by taking the country inch by inch on the ground. They'd already tried just bombing the capital and there was no surrender. 

Predictions of Japanese casualties both military and civilian If Operation Downfall or its Russian equivalent had taken place were awful.

As horrific as the death toll from the nuclear bombs actually was it was far, far lower than it could have been.

Japanese casualties on Okinawa were 80% of its military defenders dead as well as half of the civilian population also dead.

Errrr.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 don't count then?

A different perspective on the Japanese surrender story...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-atomic-bomb/20...

I’ve no strong attachment to these versus the conventional view, merely thought they were relevant given the discussion...

It's not a hammer though. It's a suicide vest. For all of us.

In the 1970s opinion was that Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war against them, persuading the rulers that there was no hope.  I do not know whether this view has changed but I have read it in several places.

I'm sure that more human evaporation and irradiation would have ended the war eventually.

Henry Stimson was of the belief that due to the Russian entry making their position impossible, Japan would surrender if it was clarified that the emperor would not be held accountable for the war under the terms of surrender. We decided not to do so, and to instead drop WMDs on civilians.

Whether he was right or not is obviously unknowable, but we didn't even try.

Amazing how when English politicians store their nukes and ancient submarines they can't afford to decommission (even though they seem to have plenty of money to buy new ones and more bombs) in Scotland and think that because England voted for them they can tell Scotland it can't have an independence referendum no matter how many times it votes in the SNP people start to dislike them.

Scotland has not voted Tory since 1955.

When the Tories are passing laws to ban peaceful protest, breaking treaty commitments they only signed up to a couple of months ago, cutting the aid budget and increasing the nuclear bomb budget the Scottish Government are signing up to the UN Convention on the rights of the child.

I think this Yes PM clip sums up today’s announcement to a tee.

youtube.com/watch?v=9KId-GgDcGk&

Wonder how many might have died with stalin ruling over them instead of the freedom Japan enjoyed after ? 

I think it's easy to pick holes, those making the decisions then lived in very different times. Most had physical experience of ww1 etc.  The stomach for anymore war likely didn't exist. A big bomb probably seemed an appealing alternative. 

Japan's position had been hopeless as soon as it became apparent that the US and British wouldn't negotiate a favourable settlement after their early setbacks. If more evidence was needed then Midway in June 42; commissioning of the USS Essex in December 42; Leyte Gulf October 44, first B29 raids on Japan November 44, US and British fleets shelling the home islands with impunity from July 45...

I'm not at all convinced by the argument that THE reason that this island nation surrendered was because the Soviet Union (with almost no navy, amphibious capability or strategic bomber force) declared war on them.

That's the thing, they're not defensive or offensive, they're suicide weapons. Weapons we'll launch accidentally given enough time. The safest thing to do is have fewer of them pretty much whatever the alternative. I can learn Russian if I have to, I can't rebuild myself from dust.

jk

Are you sure? They use funny letters and the pronunciation is quite odd

British politicians - unless you have some new information on Gordon Brown, for example.  As far as I know, England doesn't have any nuclear weapons, any more than Scotland has.

Decommissioned submarines are also stored in England (Devonport). And the warheads, submarine reactors and submarines are built in England. 

Gotta be easier than reorganising billions of hot atoms even with the funny letters 

jk

Change to UK policy of using missiles only in response to nuclear, chemical or biological threats:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/16/defence-review-uk-could-us...

I read this as a clear and unambiguous statement of intent concerning the appalling bloc voting tactics that have been employed against the UK at the Eurovision Song Contest for a number of years now.

Perhaps this is what Brexit and taking back control is really all about?... Boom Bang-a-Bang, indeed!

"Not lead to anyone using them"?? They're using them all the time, 24 hours a day. If someone points a shotgun at you they're using it, to threaten, warn or scare you. Nuclear missiles are on a hair trigger, they take only a few minutes to launch and 30 minutes to reach their targets 

Or maybe you meant "not lead to anyone FIRING them"

Surely, that'll make us all safer, wont it?

да

Exactly, people seem to miss this, or think it would be awful, living under some other regime, but you can always opt yourself out, without getting thousands of other killed too.

The German band Trio released their hit as да да да for the Russian market... True story.

Scotland doesn't want them.  English Tories want them.  Yet they are based in Scotland.

Whatever one's views on a nuclear deterrent they have absolutely no business spending money building more submarines or making more bombs until they find money to decommission the ones from 20 years ago that are still sitting in Rosyth.  

Naturally the high value work is in England.   Scotland just gets to be a target for a Russian first strike and take the risk of a nuclear accident.

They thought about basing Trident in Devonport and concluded it was too risky.  

As the articles I linked to noted, it sounded like they had enough capability to remove all the - at that point untouched by USA? - colonial holdings in Manchuria etc, remove a potential peace broker to replace with another enemy, and threaten the north of Japan. If you look at what they actually did, it did include amphibious assaults in Korea and they were obviously able to cross water in the assaults on the Kurils and Sakhalin - not on American scale, but they didn't need to.

In fairness the pro / anti nuclear weapon fault line isn't purely nation based and certainly not political party based. 

I would say it's two separate issues. Decommissioning of old sub reactors is tricky, you need somewhere to store them. The first few to decommission will always take the longest as it's a new challenge. Once the nuclear components are removed the rest of the sub is relatively straightforward.

Last time I drove up past Faslane rather than Loch Lomond there seemed to be plenty of facilities (I.e. money being spent). Plenty of high value work went on at Dounreay supporting the nuclear deterrent.

From what I read I thought Devonport was usable subject to heavy investment. Faslane has better geography and the support facilities (underground missile storage etc) have been built over decades. That can't be replicated overnight, regardless of cost.

I do love how when proved wrong you just double down and turn it into a new attack.

Because of course there is no risk of accidents elsewhere. What about England taking the risk of biological and chemical weapons near Salisbury or nuclear weapons at Aldermaston.

As for first strike. Have you ever looked at the predicted target list from the 1970s at the height of the cold war? If those evil English politicans were trying to dodge England being destroyed they did a pretty poor job. Most of East Anglia and SE England would be a glowing ruin.

Isn't that the point, what good is a glowing ruin, surely it's better to be under new management, than be dead or radioactive?

Without nukes on UK soil we'd have to go pretty far down the line to be a target, especially one that was an accident, which most people seem to think is the most likely scenario.

Not really. If you are lobbing nukes around then chances are you would be wanting to wipe out the conventional forces as well. You would definitely want all the airbases to be nuked beyond repair.

The opinion polls aren't that clear that Scotland doesn't want the UK to have nuclear weapons and it isn't only the Tories in England (or Wales or Northern Ireland) that want to keep them.

I agree about the importance of decommissioning the old ones but it isn't just money - time and a storage location for the reactors are needed too. It seems the reactors need to be stored for a good long time before dismantling and reprocessing - the USA does this above ground in the desert. 

This fantasy of English persecution blinds you to reality. How about the closure of English and NI shipyards to keep those in Scotland working? In some Cold War first strike out of the blue by the Soviets, there were plenty of targets in England too. If it was an exchange later in a war, the empty warhead bunkers at Coulport would be pretty low on the priority list compared to, say, Whitehall, Northwood, Portsmouth and Devonport. 

Basing the submarines in Devonport was fine - nuclear submarines were based there for years and all the necessary facilities are there, including those for refuelling. The problem was loading missiles in and out of a submarine in the middle of a city in case a rocket caught fire or exploded. Coulport is a lot further from Glasgow than Devonport is from the rest of Plymouth. 

By the way, I wouldn't be so confident that independence and removing Trident takes Scotland off the Russian targets list or that keeping it put Scotland on the list. The Soviet cold war plan that we know most about featured massive nuclear strikes against European NATO members apart from the UK and France, apparently because they had the means to retaliate in kind. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

But a nuke to wipe out an airbase, is surely overkill.

That "plan" being based on, "if we get attacked". The cold war was based on fear, and that's been perpetuated for 80 years now. So much money pissed away on boogeymen and fear.

Ha ha. Yes, the Soviets spent the cold war in fear of surprise attack by the far smaller armies of Western Europe. That's why they invested so heavily in offensive land systems rather than defence in depth and all their exercises - like this one - were based on a fast moving attack, with massive use of tactical nuclear weapons, to overrun most of Western Europe before the US could react and reinforcements could arrive from North America.

The opening scenario just sets the scene for a surprise attack by the Warsaw Pact with the forces in place along the border, as would be needed to avoid NATO having any prior warning.

They did seem to be concerned about it.

Able Archer 83 for example got us worryingly close to a war.

So China and Russia/former Soviet Union are RIGHT WING ???

Serious question. Do you see any signs of left wing wealth redistribution in either? I don't see it it Russia, not sure about China. 

Russia is a kleptocracy with a billionaire ruling class. That's pretty clear.

China is communist with a billionaire ruling class? Not sure on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princelings 

If China* is left wing, does this mean we have to accept the world's most successful economic theory is communist? That would be an unpalatable but amusing conclusion.

*fast growing and perhaps soon to be the biggest economy

those scenarios are based on a time when the NATO doctrine was "Flexible Response".  At a time when the survival span/equipment scale of BAOR was measured in days and a breakthrough to the Channel might have taken 10 days.

That didn't matter though as it was thought that fighting would escalate by stages.  It depended on the nations of NATO  having a credible conventional force capable of advertising its ability to make any Soviet invasion so costly that launching it would be almost unthinkable.  During the war of attrition on the ground, with NATO using technological and troop superiority they would hope to destroy soviet troop concentrations from prepared positions.

The breathing space this provided would mean that a war would not begin with a nuclear exchange, giving time for negotiation.

I fear that the time when Britain could contribute a credible force to take a sustained part in a large scale war against Russia at high intensity has gone or is going rapidly and for that reason our Nuclear capability is a lot more dangerous when it becomes something we might have to resort to earlier, having lost flexible response capability.

Ha ha to what effect, surely blasting most of Europe away with nuclear weapons, doesn't exactly win you much more than a dangerous radioactive neighbour with the possibility of lots of radiation blowing over yourself.

Just a small amount of thought, show how stupid an idea this is. Doesn't it?

I don't know what the thinking is now, but back in the cold war the thinking was that NATO would be first to reach for the tactical nuke because of being overrun by the Soviet superiority in conventional troops.

There's a great little Asimov short story (like a 1 page one) about this alien record-keeping official who's just added humanity to the list of sufficiently advanced galactic species because they've met the criteria of nuclear fission. So he/it/she/? asks the news-bearer how soon till we'll be meeting Earthmen, to which the response is "some time, they've not got into space yet". "What? where did they conduct the fission?" "On the planet's surface" "ON THE PLANET'S SURFACE !!! SILLY BUGGERS" and crosses out the new entry on the list.

Edit: Just searched for it - Silly Asses https://www.sffaudio.com/silly-asses-by-isaac-asimov/

Who's thinking though? You have to have the Soviets attempting an overrun first. Looking from the Soviets side, if you're not thinking of overrunning anyone, then why do you need nuclear weapons.

Which is why it's all bollocks, and why we really don't need them in the UK.

I'd read the Asimov thing ages ago, and was thinking about it recently, thanks for the reminder.

Russian forces did not divide battlefield weapons between conventional and NBC except for technical requirements.  Tactical nuclear weapons were part of the force inventory available.

I recommend "The Third World War: A Future History 1st by General Sir John Hackett and others " for a picture of thinking at this time.  The American sector in this scenario gave rise to the well known computer game and the grim book "Team Yankee".

"Chieftains" is another contemporary grim account rather expensive now as it is much sought after.

I managed to track this training scenario down - gut wrenching feel of NATO contact with the Russians showing the beginning of the attrition process

youtube.com/watch?v=jcYTM_PJ4rY&

It's all based on the Russian wanting to invade, in the first place.

I'm pretty sure the Russians were of the same mind thinking they might be invaded.

Being serious, I regard the ruling class (yes, CLASS) in both to be on the far right of right wing "governments". In both cases the mass of the population would have been better off if the Tsar/Emperor had remained in power.

And in both cases the only reason they can make money (for the ruling class !) is by effectively having a "slave" class of those they can control, whether that be racially , religiously, or politically motivated.

Ever wondered about the acronym MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction ?

After WW2 the Western nations returned to the previous national boundaries. The Soviets did not.

What does that say about intentions ??

(And no, a few soldiers in a FREE and independent Germany is NOT an occupying army, unlike the situation with the Red Army in all points east of there).

Not at all. They do it in one go. Just like they would to an aircraft carrier, or any military headquarters, or port, or any large concentration of enemy troops or weapons

Again, for what reason? and there's always the chance you'll contaminate yourself.

it said that they did not intend to suffer deep penetrative invasion of their own country from the West for a 4th time in modern history.

You aren't really basing today's situation with the end of the war are you?

For a start lest look at what Russia lost during the war, and what they might want in compensation? Then look at why they might want a buffer around them to hold off any future invasion.

Then look at what happened after WWI and what happened to German territories after that, and who they went to ( clue: the winners)

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but you seem to have assumed I already have something in mind, which you're already contradicting, well done!

That’ll be the Russia who quite happily invaded Poland without a formal declaration of war, massacred a load of Polish officers, blamed the Germans for said atrocity, etc, etc?

They appeared to want the previously independent countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and so forth in "compensation" - and what about part of Finland !

Remember that under their pact with the Nazi regime the Soviet Union "shared" some of that ground in the first place.

After WW1 a number of the Tsar's colonies - including Georgia, Stalin's birthplace - gained independence, they were not taken as colonies by "the west". Then Stalin came along and the rest is (Soviet colonial) history.

Well said baron. Unusual for us to agree, but we do here.

It's about time certain people actually admitted the TRUTH regarding Soviet colonisation and general barbarism.

I think you've created a fiction there.

still, you can think yourself the only virtuous ones.  FYI I read about Katyn in the very early 70s at school.  I've never had any illusions about Russia and the Soviets.  Why do you delude yourself about what other people think?

Still does not weaken the case that Russia had suffered 3 serious invasions and 2 catastrophicallly destructive wars originating from the West.  Of course they wanted security!

My big questions is... why? Why go from 180 to 240 or whatever it is that they are talking about?

We only need enough to put in one Trident sub at any given time for CASD (and a fully stocked Vanguard could wipe out most of the population of basically any country on the planet). More than that just means you are going to have more warheads sat in facilities being unusable. Not like we have more submarines to put them in, or need them (those subs basically being CASD patrol vessels and that is it). If they had said "we are going to put them back under UK control for maintenance and such" fine, sure, probably a good idea tbh, but that doesn't appear to be it.

I think we need a good, properly funded military and we could stand to be upgrading facilities and such, filling staffing and equipment shortages, developing ourselves for modern warfare, getting conventional capability which is vaguely useful, combining all the services into one Expeditionary and Defence service with a fleet, land, air and cyberwarfare element etc etc etc. These would be reasonable.

But increasing warhead numbers? Why? What does that actually bring? 

Electoral advantage?

Does it though? I find that very debatable. 

I don't know but I'm struggling to think of a rationale. 

Sends a message of UK resolve for a couple of years? Then forgotten.

Nebulous stuff like "resolve" because 25% more warheads to destroy 25% more targets in a country is too nuanced to make a difference to how scared/uncertain/deterred a potential adversary is.

A quick google indicates that a fully stocked Vanguard can carry 128 warheads on 16 ICMBs, so the increase to 240 warheads won't fully arm two submarines.

Just having enough to put on one sub doesn't sound a particularly credible deterrent, if you have to take your entire nuclear arsenal off one boat and load it onto another, at a known location, every couple of months.

I'd have thought you'd need at least 2 armed submarines to maintain even a minimum capability, and that's before you factor in maintenance of the warheads.

My real worry is that given that the current government are doing Putin's will, following the Trump line of weakening European cohesion by removing the UK from the EU is that long term I have no faith that they intend to keep us in NATO.  I am a staunch supporter of being in NATO but of course I have to concede that the membership is a constraint on the overrriding consideration of UK sovereignty, a very necessary one.  I would not be surprised (but would still be horrified) at this development.

Why would the UK want to leave NATO?

The UK has form for going to the aid of other European countries even when it inevitably means going to war.

I’d be more concerned about other European countries’ commitment to NATO.

5 years ago I wouldn't have asked the question.  What has happened since has shaken, nay destroyed, my faith in the UK as a reliable participant in any treaty organisation.  That will persist until we have the same kind of good riddance to bad rubbish in government that the US has managed

My guess is that the changes proposed in 2010 have not taken place or will be reversed.

The deterrence is based on what the UK (or an adversary) knows will almost certainly be available to launch which is one sub, 8-12 missiles and 40-48 warheads. I think Trident deterrent has always been a single sub guaranteed to be at sea. It's enough to destroy the biggest 25-50 cities of a nation? Perhaps the biggest 100 cities of a nation if all 16 missiles carried the full 8 warheads (eg during Cold War?) or three subs at sea with current missile loads. 

Two other subs similarly armed, might not be at sea and would be a priority target in port. One sub undergoing maintenance or refit and cannot launch - missiles offloaded, being loaded or unloaded, might be in dry dock.

I don't know how much of the time there are second & third subs at sea, but anybody with access to satellite images would know.

The Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010

"As a result of our value for money review, we will reduce the number of operational launch tubes on the submarines from 12 to eight, and the number of warheads from 48 to 40"

"reduce our requirement for operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120"

"reduce our overall nuclear weapon stockpile to no more than 180"

"We will also reduce the number of operational missiles on the Vanguard class Part Three: The Deterrent 39 submarines to no more than eight. These changes will start to take effect over the next few years. This will enable us to reduce our overall nuclear warhead stockpile ceiling from not more than 225 to not more than 180 by the mid 2020"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

Has the government given any indication that they wish to leave NATO?

If there's a few quid in it for them and their cronies we'll be out of NATO to form our own 'world beating' English Channel Treaty Organisation

They are never at max capacity though, usually I think they are at about half, or 60ish. For obvious reasons the gov tends not to comment. If they had say, 64 MIRVs on board however they could still grant every major city in say, Russia it's own personal fireball though so it's not like sticking half the load on makes them underpowered.

The Royal Navy has four Vanguard Submarines and one is always at sea, one is getting retrofitted, one is in training and one is getting ready to go out and replace the one coming in. Or at least that is the official line. Again, the gov tends not to comment for obvious reasons.

Then there would only be 10 countries out of the 29 that make up NATO that were actually meeting their commitments.

You do realise at the time the sun never set on the British Empire!! You do make me laugh how you choose what suits your argument but ignore multiple facts that don't mesh with you picture.

Both wars were due to Germany - and therefore there's no chance of a repeat as both the Kaiser and Hitler's regimes are now illegal let alone unwanted. That covers 2 invasions. Was the third the Crimea ? In which case that was due to Russia's attempted invasion of other lands.

As for wanting security - why the need for Poland (which they invaded first after their pact with the Nazis before their "friend" Hitler shafted them). Then there's Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc.. That isn't wanting security, that invasion and colonisation.

The sun set on the British Empire by the time WW2 ended. Maybe not in title, but certainly in practice.

Anyway, just because Britain acted in a particular manner in the 19th century in Africa/Asia (like so many other nations I might add), that does not give carte blanche for ANY country to act in such a manner nowadays. Nor indeed does it make such actions "right" or provide any justification.

Maybe you should also look at the aftermath of British colonisation - the Commonwealth, an organisation that has indeed had countries that were never part of the Empire wanting to join. Compare that with the attitude of former Soviet "colonies" to their former masters. That rather indicates the way the two acted toward their conquests. I know which one was (and still is) by far the more evil.

no, what has been described as the 1st world war - The Napoleonic era - that is why I used the term deeply penetrative.

Russia has a long memory, like us (1066 and all that)

This current set of idiots seem to think the UK should ignore the fact it is in Europe and self-identify an Asia-Pacific power. 

People who are crazy enough to ignore geography and pretend they are in Asia for trade purposes may well be crazy enough to pretend they are in Asia for military alliances as well.  The Tories are already talking about bases in the area and sending their silly aircraft carrier to pester China, a country that constructs entire artificial islands as air bases.

The way the Tories are heading in ten or twenty years the UK will be a satellite state of India.    They are currently doing their best to p*ss off the EU, US and China.  If you look around the world for a state with sufficient population to have the potential to become a global power the UK could still be friends with, India is what is left. 

Well that's OK then.   Go ahead and do the dangerous stuff in Scotland,  maybe not too many people will die if a rocket goes off and spreads radioactive material about.

If the decommissioning problem is that nobody wants to have the reactors near them on land while they cool off enough to be reprocessed it is hard to think of a worse place to keep them than a half dismantled ancient submarine tied up in a dock just across the Forth from Edinburgh.   They need to build a f*cking huge bunker where it is at least halfway safe to store them.

The way it looks to me, especially with them putting up the number of warheads post Brexit, is the Tories are doing a calculation about how many nukes are needed for a small country which has no other good reason to be there to keep its place on the UN security council.

How many people have died in Scotland from nuclear accidents compared to say driving, drugs, drink, horse riding, etc...? Do the figures stack up to suggest it's not worth the employment benefits because too many are killed? 

It good that you think that the Conservatives will still be in power in ten or twenty years.

 But no need to worry because by then the People’s Republic of Scotland will be back in the EU as a fully paid up, fully contributing member state, won’t it?

After a few more years of Tory austerity Scotland will be so poor it would probably be a net beneficiary of EU funds!

Funds from England or the EU.

tom in Edinburgh  doesn’t care as long as someone supports Scotland.

If you think Scotland's hard done by now, maybe it should try managing on the funds per capita English authorities receive. 

No it has form for supporting other European countries in order to try and maintain a balance of power in Europe where no single country is overly dominant.

I was referring to WW1 and WW2 in order to show the UK’s commitment to NATO. A commitment sadly lacking in many other European countries both in military and economic terms.

Yeah, that way you don't get the big players like Germany and France having huge influence over monetary policy, CAP, vaccine procurement... to the detriment of smaller nations. 

both of which were following that aim.

Agreed.

So you're saying it's OK for Russia to invade Ukraine because they're worried that Napoleon Bonaparte will invade Russia - how many years after.

That logic gives most of Europe - but NOT Russia I should add - a good reason to invade every country between themselves and Rome !

which invasion of Ukraine?  If you mean the one this century you will have to go a very long way to find a post from me condoning it.    Plus you referred to Soviet thinking - are you talking about the Red army invading Ukraine during WW2?  The current century is Putin's doing and you might find that I've already referred to Tory Brexiteers as traitors for undermining our relations with Putin to the detriment of the West.  Where do you find me either a Soviet or a Putin apologist?

Look to Trump, Boris, the ERG and the Brexit-Asia Axis for that crap.  What are you on?

It's the fucken Tories who are destabilising the UK/Europe and Putin benefits

Sorry wercat, but how is "the Red army invading Ukraine during WW2" possible? - the Soviet Union was retaking the Ukraine from the Germans, not invading it. The Ukraine was part of the USSR when the Germans invaded it. Thanks, correct me if I'm wrong

If  you think having <disease A> is bad you should try having <disease B>..

Actually, you shouldn't, your goal should be not having either <disease A> or <disease B>

Tom in Edinburgh just wants England to f*ck off and leave Scotland alone.  We don't need any support, you can tell who is robbing who by looking at where the f*cking money is i.e. London.

As a brexiteer you won’t find me arguing against a Scottish independence referendum.

I just wish you’d stop whining about it and get on with it.

How many people died in Bhopal or Chernobyl or Fukushima before the year the accident happened?

It is f*cking Boris Johnson refusing to provide a path to a referendum within UK law.  If he'd signed an s30 when he was asked indyref2 would already have happened and Scotland would already be well on its way back to the EU.

Then it would appear that you’re part of the UK for the foreseeable future.

If England telling countries they couldn't leave actually worked they'd still have an empire.

Like I said before, get on with it then.

What's the odds of an 8.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami hitting Scotland? 

Provide us all with a link to a single nuclear incident in Scotland over the last 100 years which was detrimental to a single person's health.

Twitter links not allowed.

I think you'll find that there is ample evidence that it's Putin who is destabilising both the EU and NATO with his spy services using modern tech to subvert democracy and provide encouragement to both the idiots who believe in all these conspiracy theories, and the grubby power/money grabbers who don't care who helps them - or why they do !

Of course, there IS a conspiracy, orchestrated by Putin, and they're part of it.

Whilst there will have been some editing the Oliver Stone interview showed just how clever, shrewd and calculating Putin is. I doubt he does anything that isn't measured, deliberate and thoroughly thought out.

However low it will still be the fault of the English.

Possibly it did happen with one or more of the Storegga slides.

Yeah, it's not impossible in the future either, just extreme odds. Deep trench collapses, or a small chance of a landslide on the Canaries, but I don't think Tom of former Northumbria had that in mind. 

well we're in agreement then

Clever enough to know nuclear weapons aren't a great weapon to use if you want to expand your empire.

If nothing else Covid has amply demonstrated, we should ditch nukes and use the money to fund our own virus intelligence and vaccine manufacturing infrastructure. This has been the closest we've come to being wiped out in the last hundred years, and there's more around the corner. When we're reliant on other countries for vaccines we're always going to be at the mercy of someone else.

Heard of Boscombe Down?

Wonder why the Oxford vaccine has that place in part of it's name?

Is 50% of global virus genetic sequencing done in the uk? 

Ps. The human race was never in any danger of being wiped out. Even if the virus had a 50% mortality rate, we'd obviously have survived as a species. 

Boscombe Down is a military aircraft test facility. Perhaps you mean Porton Down? 

Yes I've worked there.

Is it 'cos it was made from old Vauxhall Astras?

 Possibly, where was the Covid genome sequenced?

How much vaccine was produced in the UK?

Think how much better we could be with more money, even if we didn't spend it there, think about how much better prepared with PPE we'd be if we'd spend the money on keeping our stocks up to date.

Much. Because whilst the finished product comes from a factory elsewhere, the uk sends a component of it there. That's why the eu export ban won't work, as the uk could block the export of the component and the eu still won't receive any additional vaccines. 

Oops yeah. One of the Downs!! 

It good to know that our wise and glorious government doesn’t use the same market orientated approach as used for buying PPE and vaccines when it comes to buying military kit, such as uniforms, for our armed forces. Imagine the outcry if that was made in China!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328537/Just-6-British-army-unifor...

Oh sh*t!

I can't see that changing any time soon... Boris really won't want to be last PM of the UK, and the Tories will be hard to unseat with the SNP winning so many Westminster seats.

what's new?  Harris make the radios and the khaki dyes for BEF uniforms were imported from Germany before WW1

but at least we are going to have the Hawker Tempest back in 2035!

ha ha just found out our magnificent "Free ports" and nearly all going to be foreign owned. WTAF?

In reality then, NONE!

So if they choose not to let us have any we're f*cked, obviously they need us, but that's not autonomy is it?

You really do try and twist the facts to make your posts seem like you've posted the truth when in reality it's just any old bollocks, init?

Do you work for the government?

Ah yes! Our great new zappy autonomous wonder weapons will make our enemies quake with fear!

Now where have I heard that sort of thing before?