And Another Thing…

So, let me get this right, you support the UK maintaining a nuclear deterrent so that in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK by an armed dictator we can go for a revenge nuclear strike against the downtrodden populace?

There are several problems with this stance:
1. The most likely attack on the UK comes from a terrorist group with no nation to take our revenge on.
2. Revenge is not the most moral position to take.
3. Dictators tend to view democracies as weak and so would not necessarily expect a nuclear response so our arms are no deterrent anyway.
4. If a small country attacks the UK a retaliatory strike may lead to radiation exposure to other countries depending on the prevailing winds.
5. Having a nuclear response leads, logically, to using a first strike policy as the best form of defence. If we are willing to attack a country that attacks us then it is surely better to hit them first if they have an unstable dictator in charge?

I have a list of other problems with maintaining a nuclear ‘deterrent’, but these deal most directly with what you said.

Paul – The only reason the Soviets never attacked the west during the cold war is because they couldn’t be sure we were not serious about wiping them off the map in retaliation. It was the threat that worked. You would seriously be happy in a situation where every democratic country had disarmed but North Korea, Iran, China and God knows who else had nuclear missiles?

Tom, that was not the only reason the Soviets never attacked. Besides, the US and the Soviets fought all* their wars abroad by proxy (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.) so that there was no nuclear confrontation. Was that moral?

The real problem you are failing to address, for good reason (there’s an election on), is that some of the dictators, especially radical religious ones, either believe they are untouchable or have an actual death wish and so the fear of retaliation is no fear at all. Some may actually welcome it as a way to achieve immortality. Dictators, in the main, have little regard for the well-being of their populace so a strike against the country, assuming the Dictator is bunkered up, is of little concern to them, and with a little propaganda would actually bolster their position.

On a more personal note, if the Soviets had attacked the UK with a nuclear strike would you have wanted the UK and US to launch an all-out attack on them in retaliation, potentially wiping out billions of people and leaving very little land that the human race could survive on? Do you not rate the survival of the human race as more important than the survival of the UK?

*Mutually Assured Destruction led to some crazy brinkmanship, the Cuban missile crisis being the main one, but there were other instances of when a simple misunderstanding could lead to major incidents. I am forever reminded of Dr. Strangelove when this topic arises.

Tom, If only the Labour government were as honest as you. You would not be in the mess you are . I could not help compare what you have written to what I heard from your Dep. Leader on 5 live.it was just unbelievable how she never gave one straight answer.

No one WANTS nuclear weapons but you have to be realistic as you are. The bottom line is about survival, the tough decisions are never the popular ones.

The naivety of some people is just mind blowing.

Ten days left, folks.

I assume this means ten days left for Labour.

I agree that with rogue states like Israel and North Korea having nuclear weapons, it makes sense to have our own. But do we really need to have the very best top-of-the-range nuclear arsenal?

Re asylum seekers and work, it’s a very complicated issue. And it’s very emotive as well, which doesn’t help.

If someone is an economic migrant rather than a genuine asylum seeker, then clearly it doesn’t seem right that they should be allowed to work. But if they do work, then they are ‘paying their way’ as it were, rather than being in limbo and impoverished circumstances for what can be a very long time. But then, if they do work, there’s the question of whether they’re being exploited as cheap labour. So basically whatever decision is taken is going to be very imperfect in some way.

So, an enjoyable if – for me – not terribly productive evening in terms of garnering support.

But were they a typical cross-section of Glasgow South voters, or a typical cross-section of Observer readers? Yeah, I’ve got an inkling what the answer is to that question.

Tom, I am trying to nail you down to answer the only question that counts in the nuclear weapons debate:

Do you support the use of nuclear weapons against a downtrodden population if their undemocratic leaders elect to attack the United Kingdom?

@Nicky:

Two problems with letting Asylum seekers work – firstly they are doing a job that could be done by somebody who lives here and has the right to work (note I didn’t say “British Jobs for British workers!)

Secondly it will just encourage more asylum seekers/economic migrants to try & come here and I think we get more than our fair share as it is!

This is not the only “safe” country in the world to which asylum seekers can go – but for some reason it does seem very popular.

Why is it that all the Asylum seekers are hanging out at Calais trying to cross the channel instead of just applying to live/work in France/Belgium/Holland/Germany?

Tom Harris,

Happy to debate anyone, anytime and on any issue.
Unless of course they constitute an ‘unnecessary distraction’.

I wonder Tom, what distraction do they cause? Do they behave like yobs and animals screaming everyone else down? Or is it the presence of those who prefer to cause a riot rather than let the BNP representatives exercise their rights? I like to call that the ‘Theo Van Gogh’ debate rules.

I hate the BNP, and yet I felt so aggreived for them after the pathetic BBC QT episode. Now they don’t get invited to debates? No wonder your party is hemorrhaging votes on its way to becoming the third party of British politics.

@TTD: Er, I didn’t say I approved of economic migrants. I said it was a complicated subject, following on from Tom and his audience the other day on opposing sides of the argument.

Yes, it’s amazing to think of all those non-nuclear-weaponed countries across the world, from Switzerland and Germany to Australia and Japan, who must be living in ‘daily panic’ of these ‘menacing terrorists’.

Did the Soviet Union ever, seriously, wish to wipe out this country? Or did the fabrication of that ‘threat’ serve a more obvious agenda?

Now it’s the turn of China, Iran – actually, unlike Israel, still a non-nuclear-armed state – and N Korea; the same default line, cold war argument, the demonic ‘other’, the politics of fear, all helping to maintain Britain’s economy of death.

After the Soviet Union fell, a 1998 UK Strategic Defence Review asserted that:

“there is today no military threat to the United Kingdom or Western Europe. Nor do we foresee the re-emergence of such a threat.”

http://www.cnduk.org/pages/binfo/ntr07.pdf

In short, there was, and remains, no essential need for Trident.

Bear in mind, also, that any renewal of Trident will be a material breach of the NPT:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/29/comment.military

But the ‘threat’ always has to be maintained in order to make the proliferation case and serve those all-important corporate-military interests.

Which all neatly fits with your asylum seeker vilification, Tom. The same alarmist doctrine of stop and purge, all part of the great ‘external threat’ to ‘us’.

Is there even the remotest room for a little compassion in this unsparing, punitive worldview?

Some more hustings thoughts here:

http://johnhilley.blogspot.com/

Kind regards

John

I was there, as one of the non-party activists hoping to get some help in deciding who to vote for. If you’re interested, I’ve blogged from an audience perspective at http://theshooglypeg.com/2010/04/25/glasgow-south-hustings-the-verdict/

I genuinely feel sorry for you Tom – not often I’d say that to any MP.

It does anger me that a small group can marginalise a debate (on any subject). Getting politicians to sign up to a pledge during an election is just wrong. Have your piccie taken for the local rag or not. it’s a form of blackmail.

Is this common practice to check pledges at candidates ? If so, no wonder MP’s promises are generally so worthless – they were backed into a corner when they made them.

@NIcky: “Er, I didn’t say I approved of economic migrants. I said it was a complicated subject, following on from Tom and his audience the other day on opposing sides of the argument.”

I know you didn’t – but it isn’t a complicated subject. There is just no way we can have asylum seekers allowed to work, even on a temporary basis for the reasons I said.

@ The “non Nuc-ers”
Maintaining trident is necessary simply because we don’t know what will happen next in the whole geo-political environment. I’d rather not spend £100Bn on it either – but to put that in context, its £4Bn a year – or about what Gordon borrows every week, so in the grand scheme of things it isn’t an economy wrecker

(You need to buy & install “Brown’s Economic Madness & (mis)management Software” to do that – just be aware that its pretty undstable, crashes quite a lot & its maths are pretty questionable too )

@Taxed to Death

Having nuclear weapons while telling others they are not allowed them is hypocritical.

Killing millions of innocent people because their unelected leaders launched a nuclear attack on the UK is not moral, just or proportional.

So we have to have smaller, tactical nukes then, able to take out specific targets with much less collateral damage.

I agree with you Tom. I just got up off the floor to type this.

@Stephen O’Donnell

I bet you sell the “Socialist Worker” outside Tesco’s.

@Paul – Its an imperfect world. We know our values, morals & the circumstances under which we might use Nukes. Sadly it has to be recognised that there are some nutters out there in charge of countries (and “Imadinnerjacket” down in Iran is the obvious example) trying to acquire same who , frankly, can not be trusted to have Nukes and keep their fingers off the button (see his comments about Israel – of whom I am no great fan BTW).

Given that, I’d much rather he and his ilk knew that we have a much bigger/better bomb than he does – because if he acquires the capability he is seeking can you 100%, cast-iron, guarantee me he wouldn’t use it if there was no fear of a retaliation in kind?

@Paul

“Killing millions of innocent people because their unelected leaders launched a nuclear attack on the UK is not moral, just or proportional”

You seem to be saying that it’s bad for us to defend ourselves. But then it would be quite OK for unelected leaders to feel that they can cause massive casualties in the UK without any fear of reprisal? Tactical nukes wouldn’t do it – they are “local area” devices and wouldn’t deter one of those leaders. After all he/she would make sure that they aren’t in any possible areas or would stay in large population centers (which you wouldn’t want to hit anyway).

“On a more personal note, if the Soviets had attacked the UK with a nuclear strike would you have wanted the UK and US to launch an all-out attack on them in retaliation, potentially wiping out billions of people and leaving very little land that the human race could survive on?”

Well, yes, that’s how MAD works.

“Do you not rate the survival of the human race as more important than the survival of the UK?”

So – it’s OK for your wife/children/parents/families etc to be reduced to vapour, but we must turn the other cheek? Once we’ve been reduced to ash, do you think they would sit back and say “well, that’s that then”, or would they go on to nuke other countries (because no one else is willing to use their own weapons so there is no come back)? What would stop them going on to destroy the world anyway.

“….. other instances of when a simple misunderstanding could lead to major incidents.”

However, the presence of nuclear weapons can also help concentrate the mind. Take India/Pakistan, they’ve fought three wars since independence and have had numerous “skirmishes”. But can you recall that the last time they almost came to blows, they had both become nuclear powers. Both they and the international community knew it could easily escalate. Pressure was put on and conflict was avoided, with the possibility that MAD saved thousands, if not millions, of lives.

@Taxed to Death,

“Imadinnerjacket” is a member of one of the two major death cults known as ‘Children of Abraham’ so I am guessing he has no fear of death, especially when it comes after the death of many, many non-believers. The fact we could kill millions of Muslims after ‘his nuttiness’ blows up London does not mean he wouldn’t do it (they’d all go sit with Allah, or their virgins) or that we should retaliate against (wipe out) the country.

If China decided to destroy the UK they would not need nuclear weapons, they have a million strong army!

Given that only China currently have rockets that could reach the UK, who are we actually threatening with our weapons?

And more to the point:
Do you support the use of nuclear weapons against a downtrodden population if their undemocratic leaders elect to attack the United Kingdom?

Hi Tom

Do you agree that, regardless of the merits of the case, Labour’s mishandling of the Trident issue has been deliberately inept and has reinforced supporting it being a vote-loser?

In particular, I would welcome answers to the following questions:

(1) Why does the Labour manifesto say: “Our independent nuclear deterrent?”

(2) I know the last word is a matter of argument but surely to say “Our” when we lease Trident from the USA is misleading?

(3) How can it be “independent” when we can’t operate Trident without the Americans?

(4) Now I don’t expect you accept the Greenpeace costing of £97bn but isn’t the figure given by the government is absurdly low, and in any case doesn’t the MoD overspends all the time?

(5)Why didn’t the government conduct consultation on replacing Trident – after all, they do loads of consultation on the most unimportant issues? And then, why go on to exclude Trident from the defence review?

@Chris
1. We are not defending ourselves by threatening to kill millions of innocent people in revenge for an attack on our country by a small number of individuals who have no care for people in their country or fear of death.
2. MAD was called MAD for a reason. If you can honestly say the saving of thousands of lives was worth the very real risk of killing every human on earth then you are on a different moral plane to me. (Dr. Strangelove)
“the possibility that MAD saved thousands, if not millions, of lives.” at the risk of millions!
3. If a country is close to developing or deploying nuclear weapons then we have no right to invade and disarm while we have them. If we disarm then we can morally justify stopping anyone else having them as a form of self-defense. Or we could spend the £100 Billion on a defence shield…

@Keddaw,Paul & the non-Nukers

The details you are getting into as to the rights, wrongs, costs, conditions of use etc surrounding Nukes are completely missing the point IMO which is a simple one:

Its always better to negotiate from a position of strength.

In addition to that our Nukes are a deterrent. They are not the sole reason nobody has lobbed a bomb at us, but they are a contributing factor and will continue to be so (IMO).

Also don’t forget the cultural issue as to how some races & cultures perceive “strength” in an opponent/enemy & also what they might perceive as weakness (and then what they might then do to exploit that). Other cultures do not necessarily operate by the same sets of rules, standards or thinking that we do. To assume that they do would be both foolish and dangerous.

@Keddaw,Paul & the non-Nukers

The details you are getting into as to the rights, wrongs, costs, conditions of use etc surrounding Nukes are completely missing the point IMO which is a simple one:

Its always better to negotiate from a position of strength.

In addition to that our Nukes are a deterrent. They are not the sole reason nobody has lobbed a bomb at us, but they are a contributing factor and will continue to be so (IMO).

Also don’t forget the cultural issue as to how some races & cultures perceive “strength” in an opponent/enemy & also what they might perceive as weakness (and then what they might then do to exploit that). Other cultures do not necessarily operate by the same sets of rules, standards or thinking that we do. To assume that they do would be both foolish and dangerous.

@Taxed to Death.
“Nobody has lobbed a bomb at us”.
Factually incorrect.
Not a quibble, since the bombs we have to fear are not delivered by long-range missiles.

@Taxed to Death
You’d rather threaten to kill the 75 million people in Iran (and millions surrounding from fallout) if the minority of theocratic nutters attacked us?

Key question though: would you actually (want to) do it?

Nukes cease to be a deterrent if: people don’t think we’ll use them; or, people don’t care if we use them. Both of these are entirely possible when dealing with religious loonies, even Saddam didn’t think we’d invade as we were giving out mixed messages.

Please do not portray me as anti-nuke, I am simply pointing out that people like Tom and yourself talk a big game on nukes but, when push comes to shove, would you be willing to kill more people than live in the UK for an attack on the UK, when the majority of those you would kill are oppressed by the same people that attacked us?

It will be interesting (and very scary) to see what happens to Israel if/when Iran get their hands on nuclear weapons, will their religious fervour trump their survival instinct? Will Israel perform a pre-emptive first strike? A nuclear war in that arena will massively impact the price of oil and the way of life for everyone.

@Paul
“1. We are not defending ourselves by threatening to kill millions of innocent people ………………..”

Well Paul, how would you suggest that we defend ourselves (assuming you’re not talking about turning the other cheek).

“2. MAD was called MAD for a reason. If you can honestly say the saving of thousands of lives was worth the very real risk of killing every human on earth then you are on a different moral plane to me. (Dr. Strangelove)”

Well, I probably am on a different moral plain as I believe that it is our right to defend our nation against attack or subjucation – you say Dr Strangelove, I say Auschwitz.

Fifty million people died in WW2 without the use of such weapons, the cost would have been a lot higher if Hitler had used the nerve gas weapons that Germany had stockpiled since the 30s. Strangely enough, he would never use them as he experienced the effect of being gassed in WW1, he also believed that the allies also had such weapons (i.e. there would have been retalliation). In other words he had his own “moral code”, admittedly one we hope will never be seen again, but that with the belief that it would result in the devastation of Germany probably saved millions of lives.

I’ve already mentioned India/Pakistan, but is it just pure coincidence that no one has invaded Israel since they obtained nuclear weapons? The Jews, mentally Ill, Romanies, communists and many more learnt what can happen when you are weak and Israel decided to make sure it was never in such a situation again.

The regime in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to Gulf War one and had shown a willingness to use them. Of course, the West had signed away their right to these weapons many years ago, but is it a coincedence that they didn’t use them after being told their use would elicit a nuclear responce.

“the possibility that MAD saved thousands, if not millions, of lives.” at the risk of millions!

But how many millions would have been lost without MAD? We would probably have had a full out war with the Soviet bloc for starters, the Soviets may have been quite willing to use their full arsenal of NBC weapons to remove any blocks to total victory. The middle east may have been in a constant state of warfare, the wars between N & S Korea may have continued and there are probably other areas where the risk of nuclear warfare has actually saved lives.

In other words, there is a risk in either scenario

“3. If a country is close to developing or deploying nuclear weapons then we have no right to invade and disarm while we have them.

I don’t recall ever saying that we had a right to invade and disarm anyone (my belief was that there was no way Iraq had these weapons prior to gulf war 2, it was more Dubya finishing daddies business for him).

“If we disarm then we can morally justify stopping anyone else having them as a form of self-defense.”

Er, how exactly – if some of them are as devoid of morals as you believe, what difference will it make if we are morally right (after all, our morally right may be there morally wrong). I’m reminded of a stand up routine Robin Williams used to do, it was about the British Police not being armed and trying to stop someone “What does he do – shout “Stop, or I’ll shout stop again”"

“Or we could spend the £100 Billion on a defence shield…”

Hey, nothing against an independant shield. However, I think you’ll need to be prepared to add a few zeros to your 100 billion – are you willing to do away with things to pay for a space program etc? The US (with it’s existing space program) have already invested in excess of 100 billion on their program and they started in 1984. So assuming that it would take many years to get any such program up and running, we’d still need Trident as a deterrent until it is in place.

Hi TOm,

what is point of having a blog when you are not willing to allow them what they feel about you as an MP?

“One positive development was that the BNP candidate was not invited to attend, which is just as well. It would have been an unnecessary distraction, and would probably have resulted in his being the only candidate left on the platform”.

That is indeed positive and well done to you for having that decided that you wouldn’t have shared a platform with him had he indeed come. I am really proud of the way our canidates in the general election are refusing to give holocaust denying fascists free and advantageous exposure for their views.

@Chris,

This is off the top of my head, but here goes:

Anyone/government that unjustly attacks UK personnel or homeland is subject to the full extent of the viciousness that we can have. Anyone involved in the decision, anyone who was in a position of power who did not speak out against an attack against the UK, is targeted, either by UK special forces or by mercenaries. Torture is part of the payment and, depending on the damage to the UK, family, friends and allies are all targeted too.

Frankly, I am trying to be as evil as possible to the people who make bad decisions and the people they care about in order to minimise the number of innocent victims. That some people suffer is inevitable, but if we can threaten the people with what hurts them most then we can limit our moral liability, even though it’s personal.

Tom,

Why your party does has hypocritical policies? Your party took Britain to the War against Iraq and killed over 1 Million people including children but at the same time you are developing Trident?

What is your stance on Trident?

@keddaw – 28 April 2010, 12:07 am

Thanks for at least thinking about it instead of just denouncing as some do. Well, this certainly could work under certain circumstances (i.e. in the case of a limited strike against the UK with a low yield weapon).

There are certain problems though, in order for such a plan to work you would have to profile all possible aggressors, you would need good human intel on the ground (i.e. recruit locals in the regime) and people willing to go on a suicide mission (which would probably rule out mercs). Even then it wouldn’t be easy, look how long it took to find Saddam even with so many coalition forces on the ground. All of this would take lots of money, it would be very easy for funding to be cut without mentioning it to the public, thus negating the threat to those who would do us harm. It would also, of course, require a great deal of luck – never a particularly good thing to rely on.

But the biggest obstacle will be the politicians, in order for such a threat to work it would have to be widely known (especially by those who may pose a threat). Because we live in a democracy there will be plenty of people who will think that this is also immoral and you would just swap CND type campaigns for another sort. Also, all political leaders (i.e. also those who take up government at a later date) would have to realise that there would be regimes out there planning for the demise of them and their families. Those people will have a far easier time planning/enacting such an action as we live in a fairly free society. Plus they probably wouldn’t be averse to a pre-emptive attack anyway, it would take a lot of courage for politicians to commit their families to looking over their shoulder for the rest of their lives.

You would still have the problem of an attack that wasn’t so limited. With 4 high yield weapons you could pretty much paralyse the UK (1 each for London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow – an almost diagonal line that would do a good job of splitting the UK in half with massive casualties). In that scenario I don’t think your idea would work, there would be a good chance that those able to order such an operation would be dead or disabled, those who would carry out the operation may already be dead, but even if they aren’t then they will have a heck of a job getting to where they would need to be.

One of the big problems about the whole nuclear debate is that people talk about morals, unfortunately there aren’t many morals in warfare – you either kill the enemy or he kills you. The morals kick in when you have won (tending to the wounded, rebuilding a country etc). The debate will probably go on until some one finds an even more efficient method of killing people, at which point nukes will become obsolete (or we all manage to live in peace of course, just to finish on a glass half full).

@Chris,

How many countries have attacked on us? It was us who trained Bin Laden and his group in HighLands against Russians.

If we hadn’t stood shoulder to shoulder with USA then there wouldn’t have been 7/7 or Glasgow airport incident.

It’s all happening because of our unjust foreign policies towards Muslim countries.

Israel have been killing Palestanians, how come we didn’t attack on them, they went their and occupied their land.

We have ruled the world once becuase of the Justice in our courts and justice throughout the world but since we have left the justice, UK itself is shattering in to pieces.

War in Iraq and Afghanistan was nothing else but for oil and occupation of those areas.

Another issue is we don’t have many friends, since we have walked shoulder to shoulder we have made too many enemies.

Lets get back to moral values which we had in the past.

I am in favour of keeping nuclear weapons because they are completely kick ass. Ask anyone opposed to them if they had the chance to drive a nuclear sub for the day if they would still be against them on that day. Exactly.

However on immigration, surely Tom you have to recognise a growing number of people with serious real concerns. We have seen detention centres, dawn raids, and laterally a very firm line on new people coming in. I am a labour blogger, and as the case for many at your hustings I’m a Christian, but the one thing that makes me doubt whether I can vote labour is the morality of how we have treated immigrants. People really care about their immigrant neighbours, is there a response to these concerns which carries the same or a greater amount of care?

Forge – In case you missed them, I’ve written about immigration and asylum here, here and here.

Forge, nuclear subs do not necessarily carry nuclear weapons, they simply use nuclear power to generate electricity to drive the engines and other systems on-board.

Tom: Yes I know, I understand your position from some of those posts. It actually made me want to ask the question I did and see what your response would be, as for me its a big one on thursday. Although there are many things in asylum we should be proud about, I think some of the national events of the last few years such as dawn raids and detention centres are insupportable.

Paul: Oh.