LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSomeone else could have it on your behalf. For example, if Scotland were independent they might reasonably expect that they could form an agreement with the rest of the UK to come under the protection of their deterrent.Originally Posted by Saracen
Yes
No
Someone else could have it on your behalf. For example, if Scotland were independent they might reasonably expect that they could form an agreement with the rest of the UK to come under the protection of their deterrent.
Finally get something in return for the so-called 'special relationship'!
Reduce the number of subs/missiles or pressure arms companies to find ways to reduce costs of said vehicles and missiles. Cancel the replacement program and look towards extending the life/further upgrading existing systems.... I mean I don't know how many options are truely available in between not having nuclear arms and keeping the status quo of continuing to throw vast amounts of money at it despite the relatively low nuclear threat the UK is seriously under, but there HAS to be more than yes and no. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Point of order: Blair was MP for Sedgefield, County Durham. In England. He may have been born in Scotland but his constituency wasn't. Carry on.
Well, I'd expect that the US will act in the interests of the US, just like normal. The UK certainly shouldn't assume the automatic support of the US in military situations. For example, to name but two, Suez and the Falklands.
Also, just how special the special relationship is (or, indeed, arguably ever was) is both dubious, and very much dependent on the sitting President. With Reagan, Bush etc, sure, but Obama is much less interested, and some US military chiefs have recently opined tgat with reductions in UK military strengths, both headcount and equipment, the 'special relationship' is at risk.
No, voting should not be compulsory, as much as I would like everyone to vote. However, I firmly believe people who choose not to vote should lose the right to whine about politicians, the government, the state of the health service, education, roads etc..
Just turn up and fill in the bloody card. Spoil it in protest if you like, but please make the effort to turn up.
Okay, I see the bait, and will pretend not to see the line and hook.
Might it "reasonably" expect that?
Isn't that the equivalent of you refusing to buy a burglar alarm, but expecting your neignbour to install sensors in your home/property, and connect them to his alarm, which you won't help pay for. If you were my neighbour and "reasonably expected" that, I suggest you could also "reasonably expect" the tone and semantic content of my undoubtedly Anglo-Saxon response.
Besides, as I understand it, the SNP is against a deterrent on principle, not just for Scotland. And fair enough. It's a viewpoint. Personally, I think it's wrong-headed, but then, that's just a viewpoint to which I subscribe.
That said, the SNP do recently seem to have been downright evasive and more than a tad hypocritical in relation to how their pro-EU, anti-nuclear and NATO positions all fit together, because it does rather amount to exactly what you suggest - they want to be under a nuclear shield, but just not to sully their own hands, or dip into their wallets, to provide it.
Do you know who your MP is by any chance? Ever got in contact with him/her to encourage attendance at a vote you want to be represented in? There are other ways to engage in the system, arguably more influential ways...
Claiming that those that don't vote don't deserve to complain is nonsensical, I can claim that having voted is grounds for you having no right to complain because you voted for the mess you are complaining about and thus should take responsibility for it. See it is easy to make nonsensical arguments sound vaguely logical, doesn't make them right or worth repeating. For clarity voting does not entitle you to complain, nor does it mean voters are responsible for who they voted in. Similarly non-voters aren't exempted from complaining about what we have.
We are all affected by politics whether we engage in the system or not. Just because voting is the headline means of engaging in the system does not make it the criteria for having the right to complain about, or discuss, what happens in the country.
I agree with your points, but there's also rather more pragmatic expectation of protection - a neighbouring country like, say England, would not be happy with an H- going off in, say Edinburgh. Not the least because they couldn't be sure it was heading exactly for Edinburgh and not a northern industrial city only 100km away.
Good points, Nox.
Participation should, arguably at least, be a civic responsibility but is voting a good way to participate?
And if so, is just voting sufficient to discharge that responsibility?
I'd say not. In fact, if merely voting is enough to entitle, or unentitle, the right to to moan, complain or criticise, then I'd say it's dangerous to argue that line, because it allows the apathetic to show up, once every five years, tick a box on a bit of paper, and feel like they've fully discharged any and all responsibilities owed in a democracy. To which my response is .... shoemakers. Utter, unadulterated shoemakers.
If we vote, then ignore politics for five years, then frankly, we get the politicians, and politics, we deserve.
If we all want better government, better politics, then we ALL ought to take a much stronger interest. And it cluld start with supporting Zak Goldsmith's fight for a proper right of recall, not the farcical con-job the coalition delivered, labelled as recall.
Step 1) Get, FOR US, the right, and mechanisms, for US to recall, and remove, our constituency MP if he or she isn't representing US to our satisfaction.
Step 2) Use it a few times. Give a few lax MPs a redundancy notice and a P45 and I guarantee they'll ALL be FAR more attentive to us more than once in every five years.
True enough. Though by that logic, the concern would be over the northern 100km city, not Edinburgh.
But that's part of the deterrent, is it not? We, as in a nuclear rest-of-UK, would be entitled to react or not react over our perception of threat to us, not to threats to a non-nuclear independent Scotland, just as we'd be entitled to ignore a (hypothetical) Russian invasion of Scotland, beyond reinforcing borders, and tut-tutting at Moscow.
Don't worry, I was being whimsical; I'm of the opinion that there is not, and never was, any special relationship.
But realistically, all this talk of deterrents for Trident is simply a smokescreen. Leaving aside the issue that a deterrent is only a deterrent on the basis that you are willing to use it, and that the deterrents in this instance are indiscriminate missiles able to wipe out entire cities and all the moral dilemma's that firing them would, even in retaliation, entail, and leaving aside the absurd, hypocritical & self-defeating stance the UK takes in pontificating to the world that they shouldn't have them whilst the UK, no stranger to actually invading countries in recent years, talks about spending billions on maintaining them, does anyone honestly feel safer having them? Does your average person in say Ireland, or Australia, feel any less safe because they live in a country that doesn't have them? Of course they don't. The notion that Britain needs a nuclear deterrent is a hangover from the Empire and a time when Britain was genuinely a, or the, world superpower. If Britain was ever to be targeted with nuclear weapons by another state, it will be a footnote in a much larger, grander and encompassing issue because, whilst we like to believe that we are still that relevant, we're not, and if that time comes nuclear weapons won't be a deterrent but merely another weapon. And we're definitely not relevant enough to spend 50 odd Billion* on maintaining it (insert your own figure here). On top of that, they're not really ours anyway – they are simply an extension of America's own arsenal, with the UK used because of it's location. Anyone who thinks that a British PM can authorise their use without the say so from Mr President is living in dreamland. Airstrip one anyone?
Agreed Saracen, especially about the right of recall. Having that would make sure politicians think more carefully about how they vote in parliament, but it is dependant on us using it which gets back to the issue of involvement in the democracy. Current involvement would probably not make the right to recall effective, assuming people don't get encouraged by being able to hold their MPs accountable. In order to use the right to recall you need to know what your MP is doing, I know few people who do and am skeptical people would be encouraged to start because of the right to recall. I still support it though because any chance of improving things is better than nothing.
Found this today which could be helpful for those deciding who to vote for: http://www.voterpower.org.uk/
Also this has some interesting polling info: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...nstituency-map
I'm not so much worried about whether people feel safer, with or without, as whether they are safer. Which, of course, is very hard to tell.
As for moral dilemmas, I can only speak for myself, but personally, I struggle to see any circumstances in which I, were it my decision, would authorise a first strike. I would say there aren't any circumstances, but I put a little wriggle room in there, just in case someone comes up with a qualifying hypothetical.
However .... as for retaliation, personally, that gives me NO moral problems at all. If a state has seen fit to use nukes on us, I'd have no qualms, not a one, about authorising a return of the consideration. No doubt, that means some people are heartily glad (including, to be honest, me) that it'll never be my decision. Others no doubt think it's a prerequisite for the job.
A couple of things. Tne 'state' that used a nuke wouldn't necessarily need to be a conventional nuclear state. It's not hard to conceive of a few lesser powers perhaps managing it, or even conceivably Al Qaeda or IS.
Second, the attack would not, under conventional doctrines, need to be nuclear, merely WMD, i.e. bacteriological or chemical, too. Then, my persobal willingness to launch would depend on the nature of the attack. Three people getting a cold is different from 95% of the population succumbing to an Andtoneda Strain.
As for whether a British PM would, or could, launch independently, who really knows, other than a handful at the very top of government. Neither of us know, for sure.
Taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of human beings are irrational, it would be reasonable to surmise that "forcing" people to vote is likely to have negative consequences. That's before you even get into discussing the logistics of enforcing such a policy, not to mention the fallout into the legal system. It would be open season for human rights lawyers...
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
Why?
The same irrational people might vote anyway, regardless of being forced too or not.
Without compulsory voting then you could argue you're only getting the views of those who feel they have a statement to make - no matter how rational or otherwise - when it's precisely the views of the 'normal' majority you want to capture. Low turnouts are more likely to disproportionally increase the effect of vocal minorities.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
