[Link]

Looks like JC or DC wouldn't have much say regarding launching a nuclear strike...

Edited by nickgusset (01 Oct 2015 7.55am)

Not sure I read that the same way as you, Nick.

We are dependent on the US for the systems, components, and technical support, but still have an independent 'button'. The fact that the US would be very cross if we launched without approval would, I'm sure you'd agree, be pretty irrelevant in a post-nuclear holocaust world!

What JC has done, in a single comment, is invalidate Labour's nuclear defence policy. Labour's policy (ratified at the recent conference) is for an independent nuclear launch capability. JC says he would never launch under any circumstances if he were PM. Those two facts seem to mean that Labour would be keeping the capacity with a view to what happens when they have got rid of JC. Odd state of affairs.

No one has mentioned Germany have they...It is a known fact Russia has been building a larger armed force and its missile stock pile. It has also armed other countries in order to justify Putins hunger for being "top dog". He will go to any lengths to prove his power. His own people dare not question him as if they do they seem to disappear or get killed.....Putin is unstable in my opinion and in the opinions of world leaders hence the need for some sort of Nuclear deterrent .... Corbyn does not have a clue about most things let alone nuclear weapons.

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

That is a selected piece submitted by anti nuclear campaigners - including John Ainslie who is a Scottish CND veteran who has been trying to get Trident out of Scotland for years.

It helps people form an opinion when they know the exact source - you didn't do that.

Germany was just a hypothetical. I thought I clearly said "anywhere outside the former Soviet-Russian bloc." Germany was simply the first country that came to mind. But ditto Poland, Hungary, etc. The underlying point remains the same.

Yes, Putin in unstable and I agree with all your observations about Russia -- although it's largely the curve of history that allows him to get away with that sort of internal intimidation. Sadly, it was ever thus in Russia and it's not easy to shrug off the yoke of the people's expectation, no matter what pretense you make towards being democratic. But that doesn't make him a threat to Europe, the west or beyond. Or require that we possess a nuclear deterrent. As I said earlier, I have real doubts that whatever unpalatable things Putin is doing at home, he wants to do them to the west. Such imperialism (in the Middle East, etc.) as he engages in is a play for economic influence rather than territory, at least as I see it.

The opinions of western leaders are largely self-serving. If retaining the support of the defense manufacturing industry helps them win elections (through funding) then they will quite conveniently position Putin as a threat to the west as it's in their financial interests to do so. But that doesn't make him a threat. Indeed, at the same time they are bleating about how he requires a nuclear deterrent to control him, they are sitting round the table with him on any number of issues. I doubt this is largesse; that the US and Britain care desperately about the plight of the Russian people. That, too, is spin.

If we are a mature nation -- and by now we should be -- we ought to have an independent morality to guide us towards our own best interests.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.