Should the UK have an independent nuclear deterent?, £20 billion to replace the ageing Trident Options

[Kev]

NATO. I should read up on NATO, but it's my understanding that if one NATO country is attacked then the others have to come to its defense. Hence the USA is obliged to defend the UK if it is attacked. (I believe that the Falklands are not part of NATO.)

The Falkland Islands is a British Oversea Territory: As I understand it, British Overseas Territories are under UK's NATO membership, since the UK is responsible for the the defence of BOTs (part of "good governance"). Either way the reason USA didn't intervene with Falklands, was reputedly because of Regan's pals in South America.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed under the North Atlantic Traty of 1949 which, inter alia, commits the members to defending each other against attack in the North Atlantic area (being Europe, North America, Algeria, islands under control of a member int he NOrth Atlantic defined as being north of the Tropic of Cancer).

The Falklands/Las Malvinas/Bits of rock in South Atlantic fall outside this.

And that's the reason the US didn't get involved in it. Our greatest friend and another ally going to war against each other is not good.

[Roger Mellie]

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed under the North Atlantic Traty of 1949 which, inter alia, commits the members to defending each other against attack in the North Atlantic area (being Europe, North America, Algeria, islands under control of a member int he NOrth Atlantic defined as being north of the Tropic of Cancer).

The Falklands/Las Malvinas/Bits of rock in South Atlantic fall outside this.

Ah right, fair enough. Does what it says on the tin then. Thanks for the info

[Invader Zim]

In her memoirs Margaret Thatcher said the Americans were pressing the UK to negotiate with Argentina.

[deegee178]

And that's the reason the US didn't get involved in it. Our greatest friend and another ally going to war against each other is not good.

The US isn't that supportive of the UK over this. The below is the official line from the US State department - I get that they wish to maintain relations with both countries but I would expect the US (as the UKs greatest ally and all that) to support the UK line that the Islanders should determine their sovereignty. After all they use that line elsewhere in the world so the fact it is missing here is significant.

The United States recognizes de facto U.K. administration of the islands, but takes no position regarding the sovereignty claims of either party.

This post has been edited by deegee178: Jun 17 2012, 20:29

[Parsifal]

NATO. I should read up on NATO, but it's my understanding that if one NATO country is attacked then the others have to come to its defense. Hence the USA is obliged to defend the UK if it is attacked. (I believe that the Falklands are not part of NATO.)

The Falkland Islands is a British Oversea Territory: As I understand it, British Overseas Territories are under UK's NATO membership, since the UK is responsible for the the defence of BOTs (part of "good governance"). Either way the reason USA didn't intervene with Falklands, was reputedly because of Regan's pals in South America.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed under the North Atlantic Traty of 1949 which, inter alia, commits the members to defending each other against attack in the North Atlantic area (being Europe, North America, Algeria, islands under control of a member int he NOrth Atlantic defined as being north of the Tropic of Cancer).

The Falklands/Las Malvinas/Bits of rock in South Atlantic fall outside this.

Thank you. That's very informative.
How did Algeria get into this? Because it was under French control at the time?
From the NATO website it looks like Algeria is no longer included.
It's amazing how many former Soviet satelite countries are members now and even more amazing three former Soviet republics.

The United States recognizes de facto U.K. administration of the islands, but takes no position regarding the sovereignty claims of either party.

Diplomacy trumps justice (and courage) every time.

[CyanIsland]

All this 'best friend' and 'strong allies' talk about the U.K. and U.S. always seems a bit false. I do prefer Obama to Romney but what with the Churchill bust incident, thoughtless exchange of gifts (incompatible region DVDs for the Prime Minister and an iPod with Obama speeches on it for the Queen), comments such as "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment", not to mention refusing to display British flags when Gordon brown visited and that's on top of the unsupportive stance on the Falklands... the overall impression I get is Obama is a President who tries to play nice when it suits him, but really couldn't care less about our so-called 'special relationship'.

[Parsifal]

an iPod with Obama speeches on it for the Queen

(I'm sure those speeches got erased without even watching them. Nice iPod!)
The guy may be a great orator, but he (and his team) has no class.

[CyanIsland]

an iPod with Obama speeches on it for the Queen

(I'm sure those speeches got erased without even watching them. Nice iPod!)
The guy may be a great orator, but he (and his team) has no class.

The Queen already had an iPod, apparently, and never even used that! What's an 86 year old woman going to do with two iPods?

[Mister R]

Defense should be the last thing to be cut, it has already born too much from a woefully inadequate starting position. Some actual cuts to other government spending might be a good place to start.

There's an additional point to be made here beyond protecting military spending – renewal of Trident or more specifically the nuclear fleet invests rather large sums into the private sector. The idea that there's no internal benefit to this spending beyond nuclear arms is wrong.

Yet it has designs to be...

The EU has designs to be all kinds of things but that doesn't mean its ever likely to happen.

The divide between different EU states when it comes to foreign policy ethos is just too great to be overcome any time soon. Particularly when there isn't the perception of any real self interest or upside for the large/more power EU states to do it. Whilst there's obvious upsides of the likes of Germany or France to integrate economically (to some degree) with the rest of Europe it remains completely unclear what benefit either gets from doing the same on foreign policy.

Plus there's a lot of logistical/technical issues to overcome on that front not to mention trying to sell the benefit to citizens.

But does Frau Merkel have a button to push?

Off hand I'm not entirely sure how it works. My understanding is that the shared NATO nukes are provided by the US and that the power to launch (or not) ultimately rests with NATO but I'm not entirely confident on that.

All this 'best friend' and 'strong allies' talk about the U.K. and U.S. always seems a bit false...

Two things here

1 – It is false. What do people imagine that the US actually gets out of the 'relationship' with the UK? The relationship has always been and likely will always remain much more important to the UK than to the US which is perfectly reasonable and understandable. The whole 'special relationship' concept is primarily UK spin to make the whole thing more palatable to UK citizens who don't understand why we'd want to be so closely aligned to what has been since the end of World War II one of the most powerful countries on the planet.

2 – In Obama's defence he's the first President that's had to come to grips with this changing and increasingly complex international landscape. We're entering an age where international relations can't be boiled down to America and then the rest of the world or America vs. the Soviets. Multi-polarity is the future and Obama is the first US President that's really had to recognise and deal with that and deal with the fact that a population that has become conditioned to think of themselves as the leader of the world is going to have to learn to deal with it as well. To make matters worse we're not quite at multi-polarity yet so its even harder to navigate.

[naughtiesrival]

From the NATO website it looks like Algeria is no longer included.
It's amazing how many former Soviet satelite countries are members now and even more amazing three former Soviet republics.

The French lost Algeria in the early 1960s!! NATO is nearly as non exclusive as the Eurovision Song Contest!

This post has been edited by naughtiesrival: Jun 18 2012, 16:55

[Roger Mellie]

It's amazing how many former Soviet satelite countries are members now and even more amazing three former Soviet republics.

It's certainly ironic that former Warsaw Pact countries are now under NATO: However not so amazing, when you consider that Russia has taken to needling its neighbours in recent years-- threatening to cut off gas supplies for instance-- the 2008 Geogia crisis being a salient example. And it's taken to unauthorised flights over Norwegian and British airspace recently, with no official explanation.

And Russia is also a good of why the who would we point the missiles at argument. Who would've though in the late 1940s, in aftermath of WWII, that come the 1950s we'd be spending the next few decades potentially four minutes away from WWIII. And who would've thought in the mid-1980s that onl afew years later, the Soviet Union would collapse and the Cold War would end abruptly?

That's problem with the people who subscribe to the who would we point the missiles at argument, is that the world is not static, it won't stay how it is now. And like Russia, a new superpower could suddenly emerge. Presently we have Brazil is surgence, thankfully a benign country. India is another one; bar tensions with Pakistan, not a direct threat to the UK. But what of N Korea, under its new leader? It may hold countries to ransom, if it attacks South Korea. At least the UK has a bargaining chip with MAD.

To me renewing Trident is akin to insuring your house. It seems like an unnecessary expense; but well worth it, if the unthinkable happens.

The EU has designs to be all kinds of things but that doesn't mean its ever likely to happen. The divide between different EU states when it comes to foreign policy ethos is just too great to be overcome any time soon. Plus there's a lot of logistical/technical issues to overcome on that front not to mention trying to sell the benefit to citizens.

I'd like to think you're right there. However it has not stopped the EU in the past; the EU doesn't not take no for answer easily, and presses on regardless (the Euro crisis the latest example). Alas you have slipped into your habit of confusing your opinion with fact; you think it's unlikely to happen; but the truth is, it is happening, as much you may wish to deny it. As I remarked earlier, the EU already has a high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. Then there's the European External Action Service, plus the EU embassies that are opening across the world.

What you described in your previous thread may not seem plausible now, but the EU always has worked on a boiling frog principle, because that is what Monnet and his acolytes intended (it's gone far beyond an economic bloc, well in effect a customs union, which is what it should've stayed at). That said I think more and more citizens and many politicians alike are seeing this, and the problems you outline; when David Steele and Ken Livingstone start criticising the EU, you know the game's up We don't need the EU for this, it's mere money-wasting replication of NATO does; NATO has been running far longer than the EU after all. We don't need the EU for co-operation between countries of Europe.

As for USA and the 'special relationship', it's at best dubious. I don't always agree with Peter Hitchens, but his analyses of the so-called SR have been right in my view:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/200...lationship.html
...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...tain-snoot.html

...

Finally the latter half of this, below the ****

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/spe...relationship-1/

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Aug 19 2012, 10:31

[Roger Mellie]

PS: This may be of interest to our American cousins

[sanitynotincluded]

Note the word discretionary at the top. That pie chart is not even close to being the whole budget.

2 – In Obama's defence he's the first President that's had to come to grips with this changing and increasingly complex international landscape.

Far be it from me to be contrary, but the world in which Obama finds himself is not massively different to that in which Bush II found himself, and most of the trends were there under Clinton, and even starting to emerge under Bush I. The unfortunate fact is that in this regard, Obama is the most clueless occupant of the oval office since at least the second world war. That his "foreign policy expert" Vice President is Joe Biden just makes it more tragic.

The guy may be a great orator, but he (and his team) has no class.

He is a crap orator and always has been. He can read from an autocue passibly well, but that is his limit.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for", give me a fucking break.

And that's the reason the US didn't get involved in it. Our greatest friend and another ally going to war against each other is not good.

The US isn't that supportive of the UK over this. The below is the official line from the US State department - I get that they wish to maintain relations with both countries but I would expect the US (as the UKs greatest ally and all that) to support the UK line that the Islanders should determine their sovereignty. After all they use that line elsewhere in the world so the fact it is missing here is significant.

The United States recognizes de facto U.K. administration of the islands, but takes no position regarding the sovereignty claims of either party.

Anti Britishness is just one of the many chips crowding the first shoulder.

[sanitynotincluded]

In her memoirs Margaret Thatcher said the Americans were pressing the UK to negotiate with Argentina.

The difference between then and now is that it was known to those in government in the eighties that while it was expedient to toe a neutral line in public, the key players in Washington (Reagan, Weinberger, Baker) were sympathetic to the British position, and that if it became necessary they were on our side. Such confidence would be foolhardy with the present administration.

Add in that we no longer have a good friend and ally in Chile, and we might well need the threat of something to drop on B.A. to stop them getting frisky.

[naughtiesrival]

PS: This may be of interest to our American cousins

To put that chart in its proper context, it's important to note that it covers s federal government sending and a lot of what we Europeans would regard as government expenditure (education, policing, public services incl healthcare) are "unfunded mandates" as far as the federal government is concerned, it requires that the states carry it out but must fund it themselves via state and local taxes. In the UK, council tax funds only a small portion of such expenditure. Even if the chart was comprehensive, I still think the defence spending would be too high.

[Mister R]

I'd like to think you're right there. However it has not stopped the EU in the past; the EU doesn't not take no for answer easily, and presses on regardless...

That has however been in situations where there has been an obvious upside to more powerful nations. For foreign policy that upside doesn't really exist. Not yet anyway. No doubt elements within the EU structure want to see it go that way and it may very well do further down the line but we're some ways off that. And frankly I'm not convinced that the UK is ever likely to be part of it (unless there's a massive shift internally). We're far too attached to our sense of sovereignty.

Far be it from me to be contrary, but the world in which Obama finds himself is not massively different to that in which Bush II found himself, and most of the trends were there under Clinton, and even starting to emerge under Bush I. The unfortunate fact is that in this regard, Obama is the most clueless occupant of the oval office since at least the second world war. That his "foreign policy expert" Vice President is Joe Biden just makes it more tragic.

I'm not suggesting that its brand new rather that Obama is the first President that's actually had to deal with it.

Bush Jr. was really the only other President that could have engaged with it (arguably there were overt signs during Clinton's second term but it doesn't stretch back to Bush Snr. in any meaningful way. In fact Bush Snr. was really the one who made concrete the idea of 'America the leader') and he opted to ignore it. That route certainly hasn't open to Obama for any number of reasons and so he's had to engage with an increasingly complex international scene.

[Parsifal]

Even if the chart was comprehensive, I still think the defence spending would be too high.

The military budget includes a lot of pork. No doubt about it. The military industrial complex has very deep pockets when it comes to campaign contributions (aka legalized bribery).

[Roger Mellie]

Fair points Mr R. Alas you may opine it won't happen, and it isn't happening happen; but I would point out that much of what you sceptical about, is actually happening! The EU Dimplomatic Corps is being constructed as we speak

However I wouldn't much faith in Cathy Ashton anyway I'd love those who claim the UK has a voice in the EU, to tell me which British interests Cathy Ashton has advanced for the UK?

To put that chart in its proper context, it's important to note that it covers s federal government sending and a lot of what we Europeans would regard as government expenditure (education, policing, public services incl healthcare) are "unfunded mandates" as far as the federal government is concerned, it requires that the states carry it out but must fund it themselves via state and local taxes. In the UK, council tax funds only a small portion of such expenditure. Even if the chart was comprehensive, I still think the defence spending would be too high.

Ah right, thanks for the insight Yes that does put things into context; although I wonder how many other countries spend (approaching) that amount, on defence?

As for the Falklands, its residents will be holding a referendum on sovereignty soon {i}-- Dave has instructed the Argentine president to heed the results. I doubt whether whether she will though: Ninety-eight percent of Gibraltans were in favour of retaining UK sovereignity in the 2002 referendum-- yet the Spanish authorities still bristle about Gibraltar!


{i} http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412195

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Jan 15 2013, 09:35

[sanitynotincluded]

The pie chart is discretionary spending, which doesn't include medicare, medicaid, Social Security et c., and those are the timebombs in the US budget. If something isn't done about them they will bankrupt the country, but petty politics make demagoguery easier than looking for solutions.

[Parsifal]

The pie chart is discretionary spending, which doesn't include medicare, medicaid, Social Security et c., and those are the timebombs in the US budget. If something isn't done about them they will bankrupt the country, but petty politics make demagoguery easier than looking for solutions.

Yes, Republicans and other righties like to put the timebomb label on Social Security. It's not, or doesn't have to be.

Social Security is a self-funding program which is funded through payroll taxes paid equally by employers and employees. (A slightly different balance at the moment, but that is temporary.) Back in the 1980s, during the Reagan administration, it was noted that retiring Baby Boomers would make the program insolvent unless something was done. So the SS tax was increased in order to create a large enough SS trust fund to carry the program through the Baby Boomer years. But guess what? Politicans being what they are, they stole the money for pet projects back home and other budget balancing issues and gave the SS Administration what are probably worthless IOUs. Baby Bush wanted to cancel the IOUs saying that they represent loans that the government owes to itself. That's all part of an agenda where the Republicans have been trying to kill this very popular program for seniors since its inception in 1935. When Barry Goldwater ran for president on the Republican ticket in 1964 he earned us the phrase: "Social Security is the third rail of politics. Touch it and you're dead." Yes, he learned the hard way.

The truth is that SS can be made solvent overnight if the Republicans will allow it. You see, the tax only applies to the first $110,100 of a person's wage. If that ceiling is removed so that everyone pays the tax on his/her entire wage instead of just those people who earn less than that amount then the program will become immediately solvent. But Republicans want to starve the beast and rid the nation of this popular program that gives seniors in retirement dignity in life instead of facing the prospect of dire poverty as was the case before Social Security came into being.

Medicare and Medicaid are indeed timebombs, but blame the healthcare industry for that, not the programs themselves. Is NHS a timebomb in the UK?

I believe that we've diverted from the UKs nuclear capability. Or are timebombs considered on topic?