Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Corbyn does want nuclear submarines - just without any missiles Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So you support Mr Corbyn's proposals then? Top man.


    They just pilot a sub around the ocean with weapons they will never use whilst useful people develop cancer curing drugs. Now they want to pilot around the ocean with nuclear subs with no nukes. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

    Give the money to fusion research or something instead.
    If it wasn't for nuclear weapons, the West would have had WW3 with Soviet Russia. Sometimes having no balls causes more violence than having big shiny steel nuts in your pants.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SonOfTheGun)
    If it wasn't for nuclear weapons, the West would have had WW3 with Soviet Russia. Sometimes having no balls causes more violence than having big shiny steel nuts in your pants.
    Nuclear submarines with no nukes. I repeat. Nuclear submarines with no nukes.


    Also the Soviet Union does not exist anymore. Talk about living in the 70s. You have been watching a bit to much Deutchland83
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Nuclear submarines with no nukes. I repeat. Nuclear submarines with no nukes.


    Also the Soviet Union does not exist anymore. Talk about living in the 70s. You have been watching a bit to much Deutchland83
    The SU doesen't but Russia is still a communist country run by a guy who was part of the KGB. They're still trying to undermine Europe and are as unpredictable as ever.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    The SU doesen't but Russia is still a communist country run by a guy who was part of the KGB. They're still trying to undermine Europe and are as unpredictable as ever.
    NO it isn't. Although you do have to wonder if Russia would have den the whole Ukraine thing if that country had had nukes.

    Germany is ran by someone with a past in Communist Berlin. There is nothing strange about someone from a position of importance in the now deceases soviet regime becoming some kind of manager in the new leadership when the SU fell. After all, the same happened when the soviet union was created with bringing in the old capitalist class as state bureaucrats. The pigs and humans all look the same in the end.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    NO it isn't. Although you do have to wonder if Russia would have den the whole Ukraine thing if that country had had nukes.

    Germany is ran by someone with a past in Communist Berlin. There is nothing strange about someone from a position of importance in the now deceases soviet regime becoming some kind of manager in the new leadership when the SU fell. After all, the same happened when the soviet union was created with bringing in the old capitalist class as state bureaucrats. The pigs and humans all look the same in the end.
    Well, whatever. Bottom line, Putin can't be trusted.

    It will be interesting to see if he steps down after his 3rd term ends in 2018.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Submarines could be used for other things and could still fire conventional warheads, like Tomahawks missiles.
    Which do not need SSBNs, SSNs do that just fine at a much lower cost due to being far smaller given the fact that, you know, they don't have a large number of launch silos needed for SLBMs, sub launched cruise missiles being launched from torpedo tubes.

    I suggest you take a look at the size and price difference between vanguard class and the trafalgar and astute class submarines; ohio class and LA class submarines; Typhoon class and Oscar class submarines. The SSBNs tend to be about double the displacement of their non ballistic counterparts and double the cost too due to the different needs of the platforms.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which do not need SSBNs, SSNs do that just fine at a much lower cost due to being far smaller given the fact that, you know, they don't have a large number of launch silos needed for SLBMs, sub launched cruise missiles being launched from torpedo tubes.

    I suggest you take a look at the size and price difference between vanguard class and the trafalgar and astute class submarines; ohio class and LA class submarines; Typhoon class and Oscar class submarines. The SSBNs tend to be about double the displacement of their non ballistic counterparts and double the cost too due to the different needs of the platforms.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I already mentioned this on a different thread, prior to writing the other piece. It was a simple observation, I know we don't need the submarines and could just get 4 astute classes instead
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    I already mentioned this on a different thread, prior to writing the other piece. It was a simple observation, I know we don't need the submarines and could just get 4 astute classes instead
    Actually, based on the direct costs of the successor, could get about 30, but as I have said in another thread, pretty much no matter what he does he loses. Backing successor, and he has lost on the principles front, if he opposes it he's soft, and if he back it without nuclear weapons, he's both mad and soft.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Actually, based on the direct costs of the successor, could get about 30, but as I have said in another thread, pretty much no matter what he does he loses. Backing successor, and he has lost on the principles front, if he opposes it he's soft, and if he back it without nuclear weapons, he's both mad and soft.
    What principles?

    Admitting you're wrong, comprimising or accepting other people have different views to you is a thing you know.

    There is no wrong or right in this situation but id consider him less stupid if he got over the whole thing.

    As it stands he's made himself unelectable based on what he has said previously. Might as well have a leadership vote and replace him.
    Offline

    3
    I'm going to hold my hands up as a Corbynite and say I'm not quite sure where his head was at with this.

    He has things he needs to work on, I will admit.

    (Original post by Arbolus)
    I doubt any of his supporters will be happy about this. The most common argument I hear against Trident or its replacement is the cost, and it's the submarines, not the warheads, which make up the vast majority of that expense.
    Personally, I'm against Trident for both reasons - but yes, him proposing we still spend the money, even sans nuclear weapons, does irk me.

    Mostly, I'm confused as to what he imagines these submaries would achieve ...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by acupofgreentea)
    I'm going to hold my hands up as a Corbynite and say I'm not quite sure where his head was at with this.

    He has things he needs to work on, I will admit.



    Personally, I'm against Trident for both reasons - but yes, him proposing we still spend the money, even sans nuclear weapons, does irk me.

    Mostly, I'm confused as to what he imagines these submaries would achieve ...
    Not that the cost is even that much at 1.1 bil a year (40bil over 35 years). The foreign aid budget is double that.

    It's also equal to ~1% of what is spent on healthcare a year.

    So cost isn't even an argument for protecting yourself from nuclear and conventional attack, political bullying, political blackmail and the ability to be taken seriously. Whilst simultaniously employing quite a few people, keeping BAE busy and in business and delevoping new tech.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Not that the cost is even that much at 1.1 bil a year (40bil over 35 years). The foreign aid budget is double that.

    It's also equal to ~1% of what is spent on healthcare a year.

    So cost isn't even an argument for protecting yourself from nuclear and conventional attack, political bullying, political blackmail and the ability to be taken seriously. Whilst simultaniously employing quite a few people, keeping BAE busy and in business and delevoping new tech.
    Well, the actual figure needed is much debated, anyway, but regardless - note how I said I'm against Trident for financial reasons and because I'm anti-nuclear weapons. If you agree with the use of nuclear weapons, you are - obviously - much more likely to see the price as worth it. As someone who doesn't, I don't - and I can't quite understand what non-nuclear submarines would achieve, in which case how can you justify spending the money on them?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by acupofgreentea)
    Well, the actual figure needed is much debated, anyway, but regardless - note how I said I'm against Trident for financial reasons and because I'm anti-nuclear weapons. If you agree with the use of nuclear weapons, you are - obviously - much more likely to see the price as worth it. As someone who doesn't, I don't - and I can't quite understand what non-nuclear submarines would achieve, in which case how can you justify spending the money on them?
    Yes it is debated and was being reasonable with the figure. It is not the highest, nor the lowest estimate. Still, remember we spend 100 billion on healthcare every year. Another 50 billion goes on medical supplies. So even if it was 100bil over 40 years to replace Trident, at 4 bil a year, that's still a pretty good deal.

    Why are you against nuclear weapons?

    Also, please define 'use', just curious to see what you put forward.

    Yes, I think everyone is of the consensus that SSBN's without nukes is a bit silly, except Corbyn of course. This takes us back to the original question of why is he so die-hard against nuclear weapons, to the point that he's said keep the subs as long as they don't have nukes?

    Why is the nuke thing so important? Beyond anything else, its like his no.1 objective. The cynic in me says is starting to grow suspicious that there could be an alternate agenda here.

    Just going to put it forward that far more people have died as a result of conventional weapons than nukes. By keeping them, you keep the MAD status quo, which is currently, reasonably safe and stable. By getting rid of them, you make the situation worse as you unbalance that MAD situation. Just because you get rid of them doesn't mean anyone else will, that's pixie and unicorn territory.

    So, I can't really see any reason, at all, to get rid of them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    At leasr this way there's no risk of us accidentally starting a nuclear war...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    At leasr this way there's no risk of us accidentally starting a nuclear war...
    That's pretty unlikely anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    That's pretty unlikely anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It almost happened several times so far...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    It almost happened several times so far...
    Usually thanks to lousy russian systems or paranoia on the Soviet side. I don't believe Britain has ever almost caused a nuclear war. One of the main advantages of a second strike deterrent like trident is we can risk being hit by a nuclear strike before hitting back. There is more time to confirm if a launch warning is genuine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Usually thanks to lousy russian systems or paranoia on the Soviet side. I don't believe Britain has ever almost caused a nuclear war.
    Maybe not but it's not something I'm willing to bet the future of humanity on.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Maybe not but it's not something I'm willing to bet the future of humanity on.
    So what are you willing to bet the future of humanity on?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So what are you willing to bet the future of humanity on?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Er... nothing.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.