Bob Ainsworth, Liam Fox and Nick Harvey: UK Security and Defence

[MrBpeter101]

Will762 - I think maybe you are underestimating the scale of the recession. The Institute of Fiscal Studies states that public spending will have to be cut for 8 years before we fully recover.

The key point is that there are 'necessaries' and 'luxuries' in defence spending, and nuclear is a luxury. If we spend money on nuclear weapons it will have to come from elsewhere, either in the defence budget or from education, health, etc.

[0Pr0b]

I was in HM Armed Forces (RAF) for five years and enjoyed every minute of it.

IMHO, there is not enough up to date equipment - or manpower - for the forces to do the wide range of jobs asked of them. The priority must be to make sure that they have the kit they need to achieve their objectives in a particular operation.

Nuclear capability is not really something the average airman needs to think about very often, suggesting it is not particularly relevant to combat needs.

[Will762]

@0Pr0b I'm afraid that argument just doesn't stand up.

A pilot might not have to think about his ejection seat for his whole career. But then, when it is required, just once, it must work perfectly.

So it is with NWs: because we don't need to think about them either tells us nothing, or, that they are in fact doing their job (i.e. we are not in the middle of a nuclear war).

[Bakerstreetify]

OK then Will - sorry if I've upset you - but you haven't answered my question. Other nations in far more dangerous parts of the world are able to defend themselves and advance their foreign policy goals without nuclear weapons, so why must the UK have them?

[Will762]

@Bakerstreetify No, that's OK, just perturbed by the rapid transformation of my argument.

Nations that don't have NWs don't have foreign policy objectives similar to those of the UK. (i.e. they don't intend to be able to project power and influence across the world in the protection of their interests, on a unilateral basis, to the extent the UK does). All of the developed Western European nations are nuclear-armed, for instance.

[Bakerstreetify]

OK then Adam - apologies if I've upset you - but please can I have an answer to my question. If other nations can defend themselves - in far more dangerous parts of the world than the UK - quite adequately and also achieve their foreign policy goals without nuclear weapons, why does the UK have to have them?

[MrBpeter101]

Will762, you still haven't been able to explain what exactly nuclear weapons would defend against.

At a time when the UK is facing a £35 billion black hole in the defence equipment budget, surely it's a no-brainer to spend money on the threats we know we will face in the near-medium term rather than on the 'don't knows'?

What would you cancel instead of Trident - Astute class subs, joint strike fighters, personal equipment for the boys on the ground ... and how would this help defend the UK?

[Will762]

@MrBpeter101 Of course, short-run adjustments can and must be made to serve our current intersets, and this is a good thing.

However, you commit a fundamental error is pushing together the long-run and the short-run defence requirements and investments. The 'don't know' in the argument here is a short-hand. There is a lengthy discussion to be had about why there is no basis on which to scrap the nuke deterrent, but the conclusion is that there is no obvious pattern that indicates thus.

[Will762]

@MrBpeter101 So how would I protect the UK - well obviously that can't be briefly answered here. Suffice to say that to muddle short-run and long-run forecasts is a mistake.

Furthermore, this is mostly hysteria about a 'black hole'. Of course we have a budget deficit at a time of GDP growth of just 0.4%. When GDP returns to healthy levels the deficit instantly shrinks. To build long-run defence policy on the basis of one exceptional recession is madness! I'm sure you can appreciate that.

[Bakerstreetify]

"They are symbols of force that back all foreign policy and defence ambitions"

So you're telling us that nations that don't have nuclear weapons can't achieve foreign policy goals and are unable to defend themselves?

I think what you mean is that nuclear weapons are a substitute for leadership and vision for lazy, deluded, and inadequate politicians.

Grow up and get real - nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place for everyone and we don't need them.

[Will762]

@Bakerstreetify No, that's not what I said and that's not what I meant.

Please don't resort to caricaturing my position with a logically invalid inversion of my argument. (If 'p' then 'q' does NOT imply if 'q' then 'p'.) And polishing it of with a nice bit of ad hominem indicates that there is only one of us that needs to 'grow up'.

[Will762]

@Bakerstreetify *off

[Bakerstreetify]

"They are symbols of force that back all foreign policy and defence ambitions"

So you're telling us that nations that don't have nuclear weapons can't achieve foreign policy goals and are unable to defend themselves?

I think what you mean is that nuclear weapons are a substitute for leadership and vision for lazy, deluded, and inadequate politicians.

Grow up and get real - nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place for everyone and we don't need them.

[MrBpeter101]

A very disappointing discussion with a distinct lack of flair or originality from any of the Party spokesmen.

Particularly sad was the lack of any debate on the £97 billion whole-life costs of replacing Trident nuclear weapons.

There are more pressing needs for this money in the defence budget, and we should not be wasting money on out-of-date Cold War weapons that bear no relation to modern security threats.

[Will762]

@MrBpeter101 I'm afraid you're committing the fallacy of arguing that nuclear weapons address 'modern security threats'. They don't. They are investments in an inherently unpredictable future.

Furthermore, it is wrong to value NWs for their destructive value alone. They are symbols of force that back all foreign policy and defence ambitions.

Lastly, the world is becoming less, not more, predictable. To build long-run defence strategy on the premise that 'The Cold War is over' is dangerous.

[MrBpeter101]

@Will762

I certainly agree with you that nuclear weapons don't address modern security threats!

Key security threats we will face in future will be from global climate change, increasing dissatisfaction between global 'haves' and 'have-nots', terrorism, and cyberwarfare. I've yet to hear any remotely convincing explanation as to how nuclear weapons can protect us against these threats.

In a resource-scare climate we have to focus security policy on likely threats, not vague uncertainties.

[Will762]

@MrBpeter101 All of the things you highlight are correct. However, the mistake is to say these are the only issues we face.

There is absolutely no clear pattern in the development of defence requirements over the past century that indicates we are moving away from needing NWs. National and nation-state conflict is just as prevalent as it ever was. The things you highlight are today's concerns - but we do not know what tomorrow's will be. And that is not a 'vague uncertainty', but a certainty.