Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media

[Andrew Hertford]

Back when I was sitting on the German plains, waiting for Armageddon, most of the people I worked with, other ranks and officers, put absolutely no faith in the nuclear deterrent - that mystical, mythical force that supposedly would prevent first strikes from either side - even though back then we had the RAF's considerable stock of air-drop material to hand. The reason we didn't believe in the deterrent effect was the volume of British and US tanks and infantry in Germany, and the fact that both blocs knew that the only way to go through each other was to use limited "strategic" strikes at massing points and/or on garrison towns. What limited both sides from taking the option wasn't a nuclear threat from their enemies, it was that if they did use nuclear warfare, they'd have to a) hopscotch their troops over and around the sites of their strategic strikes - difficult when garrisoning effectively created a screen, and air cover could selectively remove deployed assets with conventional weapons - and b), literal "blowback". Check out the prevailing weather patterns between central and northern Germany, and the Warsaw Pact states. Fallout was as likely to go east well into Soviet Russia as it was to go west, over Europe.

I don't live in fantasyland. On the contrary, I learned about this stuff first-hand. All the UK's "independent" nuclear deterrent is, is a political mechanism. What it buys us is not freedom or safety. What it bought, and still buys the UK, is crumbs from the US's table.

That's a great reply mate, thanks.

I'm a unilateralist myself and have been since before JC was an MP, but my argument is that the most of the millions of undecided voters that Labour will need if they are to win in 2020 are not going to vote to get rid of the bomb. I think you and other's on here are underestimating just how important remaining a nuclear power is to the vast majority of voters.

I admire the Labour membership on rediscovering their core values and sticking by them with Corbyn, but with it comes an admission that they'll almost certainly remain in opposition until at least 2025. Labour getting into government (and I don't accept that it has to be a Blairite government) is still the only way of stopping the relentless tory attack on the fabric of society. There is no alternative.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How does mutually agreed destruction affect them? You're exemplifying my point.

No I'm not. You just didn't get my point. The Cold War was not a period of peace in the world - it was a period of a long series of proxy wars between the US, Soviet Union and China that cost millions of lives. But those lives were of poor non-Europeans, so they didn't count in your summing up of the 'nuclear peace'.

As for the idea that peace in Europe post-WW2 was due in large, some, or any part to the holding of nukes by the opposing sides, that needs to be a far wider discussion. Counterfactual history is always a precarious thing to engage in, but the building of the EEC in the 40s and 50s was done in great part in order to secure peace. After such a devastating war, there was no prospect of another one any time soon between the parties of WW2, nukes or no nukes. The Soviet Union had no ambitions to invade Western Europe, so I'm not sure what threat from the USSR British nukes were helping to counter. And 'conventional' warfare was already known to be terrible enough - 25 million Soviets lay dead in testimony to that, not one of them killed by a nuke.

So accounting for all that, what might a non-nuclear Cold War have looked like? I would argue that it would have looked very much like the nuclear Cold War. Neither side using nukes, neither attacking each other directly, as the non-nuclear consequences of that would have been quite terrible enough, both retrenching their bits of the world and fighting dirty proxy wars over those peripheral bits that were still up for grabs.

 

[DotCommunist]

No I'm not. You just didn't get my point. The Cold War was not a period of peace in the world - it was a period of a long series of proxy wars between the US, Soviet Union and China that cost millions of lives. But those lives were of poor non-Europeans, so they didn't count in your summing up of the 'nuclear peace'.

As for the idea that peace in Europe post-WW2 was due in large, some, or any part to the holding of nukes by the opposing sides, that needs to be a far wider discussion. Counterfactual history is always a precarious thing to engage in, but the building of the EEC in the 40s and 50s was done in great part in order to secure peace. After such a devastating war, there was no prospect of another one any time soon between the parties of WW2, nukes or no nukes. The Soviet Union had no ambitions to invade Western Europe, so I'm not sure what threat from the USSR British nukes were helping to counter. And 'conventional' warfare was already known to be terrible enough - 25 million Soviets lay dead in testimony to that, not one of them killed by a nuke.

So accounting for all that, what might a non-nuclear Cold War have looked like? I would argue that it would have looked very much like the nuclear Cold War. Neither side using nukes, neither attacking each other directly, as the non-nuclear consequences of that would have been quite terrible enough, both retrenching their bits of the world and fighting dirty proxy wars over those peripheral bits that were still up for grabs.

this does elide the fact that both sides to some degree, at the top table, saw themselves as existential enemies. There's that 'very nearly' where a soviet commander in a sub didn't press the button but was near enough (although that was over a confusion in sig int iirc) but still. It was dicey. Thing is none of that weaponry has gone away, just now there is no grand narrative of bloc v bloc theres loads of nations with a nuclear option. If anything that should give one MORE fear of the Bomb. But it doesn't for me. Grew up with nukes as yesterdays argument.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

this does elide the fact that both sides to some degree, at the top table, saw themselves as existential enemies

The argument that nuclear weapons helped keep some kind of knife-edge peace relies on the idea that nuclear weapons changed behaviour. I would argue that they largely did not change behaviour. The only thing they might conceivably have prevented is a direct war between the US and the USSR. Do you or anybody else have any evidence that such a thing was ever seriously on the cards? Maybe the US might have been mad enough to contemplate it, but the USSR? When, and what's the evidence?

Counterfactual history is difficult, but what kind of form might such a suicidal plan have taken without nuclear weapons? And why would we think that such plans would have existed without nukes?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's that 'very nearly' where a soviet commander in a sub didn't press the button but was near enough (although that was over a confusion in sig int iirc) but still. It was dicey. .

Yes, this was my point about saying that the argument for nuclear peace is fireproof right up to the day when it's proven wrong. By which time there's no more argument - we're all dead.

There is peace, therefore nukes are the cause of the peace. The proof is the existence of the peace itself. The notion that nukes are causing the peace is simply an act of faith, more or less.

 

[DotCommunist]

The argument that nuclear weapons helped keep some kind of knife-edge peace relies on the idea that nuclear weapons changed behaviour. I would argue that they largely did not change behaviour. The only thing they might conceivably have prevented is a direct war between the US and the USSR. Do you or anybody else have any evidence that such a thing was ever seriously on the cards? Maybe the US might have been mad enough to contemplate it, but the USSR? When, and what's the evidence?

Counterfactual history is difficult, but what kind of form might such a suicidal plan have taken without nuclear weapons? And why would we think that such plans would have existed without nukes?

I don't think nukes kept the uneasy peace cos it blatantly didn't but at this time and place I really do think its yesterdays row. We lost. Could revisit in power maybe? And of course I'm never going to knock CND campaigners. It is a righteous cause. But the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. You could scrap every one of them in the whole world tommorow and a developed wealthy nation could have a shiny new one off the production line within a year. I don't like it, but it is what it is

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think nukes kept the uneasy peace cos it blatantly didn't but at this time and place I really do think its yesterdays row. We lost. Could revisit in power maybe? And of course I'm never going to knock CND campaigners. It is a righteous cause. But the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. You could scrap every one of them in the whole world tommorow and a developed wealthy nation could have a shiny new one off the production line within a year. I don't like it, but it is what it is

Yes, but the fact that other countries have nukes is, in and of itself, no reason whatever to want your country to have them. That's where I would position the argument now. 'They have nukes therefore we're safer if we have them too' is not necessarily the case at all.

If they're going to attack, they won't be attacking with nukes, and 'we'd' be mad to respond with nukes even if 'we' had them. That's the crux of the thing in this line of argument - they are an unusable weapon, they are the unusable weapon.

 

[DotCommunist]

Yes, but the fact that other countries have nukes is, in and of itself, no reason whatever to want your country to have them. That's where I would position the argument now. 'They have nukes therefore we're safer if we have them too' is not necessarily the case at all.

to my mind you aint never selling that to an electorate. Thats why I prefer the 'We'll get uncle sam to cover us!' line. Thats saleable. Bit grubby I admit but what else you got?

e2a

just thinking about scotlands fierce anti trident people and thinking maybe I underestimate peoples ability to assess the value of the Doomsday weapon. Cos doomsday happens to everyone.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

to my mind you aint never selling that to an electorate. Thats why I prefer the 'We'll get uncle sam to cover us!' line. Thats saleable. Bit grubby I admit but what else you got?

Yet, in Scotland there is now a soft majority against nuclear weapons. It's a long way, perhaps, but it has to be part of an argument for repositioning Britain, for finally shaking off the martial assumptions of empire.

 

[DotCommunist]

Yet, in Scotland there is now a soft majority against nuclear weapons. It's a long way, perhaps, but it has to be part of an argument for repositioning Britain, for finally shaking off the martial assumptions of empire.

see edit

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Arguments for nuclear peace are pretty much magical thinking.

First, they ignore the fact that there were wars all around the world in that period, many involving nuclear powers, so you have to narrow it down - by 'nuclear peace' what you're really talking about is 'peace between the nations of Europe', nothing more. And then you have to ignore all the other events and forces acting to keep and build peace in post-WW2 Europe.

Nuclear weapons prevented war between whom?
How would those other mechanisms for peace in Europe have failed in the absence of nukes?

I don't see any credible answers to these questions, so the argument just comes down to a matter of faith: in a nuclear age, with nuclear weapons pointing all over the continent, there were no further wars after WW2. Correlation is deemed causation with no proof whatever, with no evidence offered.

The evidence of bits of the world that have worked their way towards peace without nuclear weapons is also ignored: South America, for instance, where there is not a single nuclear weapon, but where the possibility of war between nations is becoming increasingly remote, the odd small-scale border tension notwithstanding. With no nuclear threat to stop them, how come South American countries are not constantly battling one another? It's a dismal, and I think provably wrong, idea to think that assured mutual destruction is the only way to stop countries from going to war with one another.

 

[brogdale]

Remember when, 33 years ago, we were told that our national security was dependent upon the deployment of GLCM? Then, just 5 years later, they were withdrawn from service and from the UK.

 

[DrRingDing]

Remember when, 33 years ago, we were told that our national security was dependent upon the deployment of GLCM? Then, just 5 years later, they were withdrawn from service and from the UK.

GLCM?

 

[brogdale]

GLCM?

Ground-launched cruise.

 

[laptop]

Remember when, 33 years ago, we were told that our national security was dependent upon the deployment of GLCM? Then, just 5 years later, they were withdrawn from service and from the UK.

And all along it was a turf war among the three branches of the US military, battling to stay in the nuclear game.

As maintaining Trident is for Her Majesty's Navy.

 

[Flanflinger]

And all along it was a turf war among the three branches of the US military, battling to stay in the nuclear game.

As maintaining Trident is for Her Majesty's Navy.

And it wont play any part in deciding who wins in 2020.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

The Sun puts the boot in with that front page.
Corbynistas up in arms about it.
They ignore that an embarrassing, ill thought through, stupid partial U-turn has allowed this.
The party is fucked. It's not credible. It's probably beyond repair. The replies to this are "but it was too like the Tories" ignoring the real differences between the last Labour government and this current vicious one.
It's the far left making sure the Tories can do what they like, safe in the knowledge they're winning the next general election, and probably the one after that.

 

[existentialist]

The Sun puts the boot in with that front page.
Corbynistas up in arms about it.
They ignore that an embarrassing, ill thought through, stupid partial U-turn has allowed this.
The party is fucked. It's not credible. It's probably beyond repair. The replies to this are "but it was too like the Tories" ignoring the real differences between the last Labour government and this current vicious one.
It's the far left making sure the Tories can do what they like, safe in the knowledge they're winning the next general election, and probably the one after that.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

That is an accurate response of Corbynistas when pointing out uncomfortable facts about them belittling the electorate.

They don't care. This isn't about stopping the Tories. It's a vainglorious illustration that they can say what they like

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That is an accurate response of Corbynistas when pointing out uncomfortable facts about them belittling the electorate.

You keep saying this, with zero evidence. You do know that various things proposed by Corbyn, such as scrapping tuition fees and renationalising the railways, have widespread support?

Not that any party should simply be producing a manifesto based on opinion poll results. They might wish to, you know, stand for something and make a case for it.

 

[Tankus]

Dunno....sort of makes sense....if you follow the procurement lunacy to its next step

Unarmed ballistic nuclear sub's ....could make up a battle group with our aircraft carriers. ..that have no aircraft.....

They could turn up at areas of conflict ...and stand on the decks....waving placards....while quoting Mao...

That'll work ..!...its consensus warfare for the C21st... innit ...

 

[DotCommunist]

ignoring the real differences between the last Labour government and this current vicious one.

this is a line only credible to anyone who did alright under st tony. A lot of us didn't. We got not forgotten, oh no. Special attention payed to us and our fecklessness

 

[redsquirrel]

We still need the 'Green Jobs that politicians have been promising,

Oh, Dave now calls that "the green crap"

Are you going to answer my question? Which Stalinists are pushing Corbyn around?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

this is a line only credible to anyone who did alright under st tony. A lot of us didn't. We got not forgottrn, oh no. Special attention payed to us and our fecklessness

And also, the previous govt laid the ground for the current one. The dismantling of the idea of a common good, to which we all contribute, and which was profoundly attacked by New Labour. They endorsed the Tory view that you should work, pay your taxes, and then after that it's everyone for themselves. They maintained the health service but attacked pretty much everything else that might be thought of as a birthright of some kind - a citizen's right: to housing, to education, as a common good, as a responsibility of ourselves towards others. Nope - you do what you can for yourself, to get ahead.

Hard-Working Families - that's where it is at, that's all that exists, them and criminals. It's easy to forget that this is Thatcherism. There was a time when only the Tories said it.

 

[existentialist]

You keep saying this, with zero evidence. You do know that various things proposed by Corbyn, such as scrapping tuition fees and renationalising the railways, have widespread support?

Not that any party should simply be producing a manifesto based on opinion poll results. They might wish to, you know, stand for something and make a case for it.

I think a fundamental flaw in our mutual friend's logic is in his assumption that "if you're not for us, you're agin us". It seems to me that the only thing I have done on this thread that could give anyone the idea that I'm a "Corbynista" (how readily those labels come...) is not to simply accept his unqualified (in both senses of the word) assertions.

Of course, it could be that he is a careful Corbynista plant, operating on the well-known principle that, if you make enough of an idiot of yourself in supporting a particular view, all the while laying out clearly and repetitively what you claim to oppose, people will be instinctively drawn towards what you oppose. A cunning double bluff - perhaps we should have more respect for Mr Mark's devastatingly clever approach.

 

[Dogsauce]

Important news here from one of the UK's most serious newspapers: Jeremy Corbyn won't name his cat and instead simply calls it 'the cat'

His cat is actually called 'Chairman Miouw', but he at least has the political nous not to admit that to newspaper hacks.

 

[irf520]

Maybe this is his cat:

 

[newbie]

It is completely understandable that the trade unions which organise within the UK's defence supply industry are raising concerns about the impact on jobs should a Corbyn government become a reality.

it's good that at least one person on this thread is interested in the issue at the heart of the Labour Party policy issue. There are a lot of jobs at stake, and 'the unions', ie an awful lot of potential labour voters, see that as being central to the debate, perhaps more so than a lot of the stuff about Putin and that.

However it is surely the case that an imaginative 'swords to ploughshares' agenda could easily create far more jobs than currently engaged in wastefully building weapons delivery systems etc. .

Easily? Once upon a time the Lucas Aerospace workers showed the way, but that foundered. Whatever else is wrong with it, the market economy is quite responsive, spotting opportunities to make stuff, tooling up, getting the people and then trying to flog . So what gaps are there that a heavy engineering workforce like that in Barrow can turn to that a) isn't already being done by somebody else who doesn't want to lose their job; b) won't immediately be undercut by a cheaper workforce elsewhere in the world and c) will enthuse enough people to vote labour?

I'm unilateralist through and through but even I can see Labour has to develop credible policies if they're going to persuade the British public that not only is trident a very bad idea but also that there are realistic ploughshares for the people of Barrow (etc) to make.

 

[redcogs]

Easily? Once upon a time the Lucas Aerospace workers showed the way, but that foundered. Whatever else is wrong with it, the market economy is quite responsive, spotting opportunities to make stuff, tooling up, getting the people and then trying to flog . So what gaps are there that a heavy engineering workforce like that in Barrow can turn to that a) isn't already being done by somebody else who doesn't want to lose their job; b) won't immediately be undercut by a cheaper workforce elsewhere in the world and c) will enthuse enough people to vote labour?

I'm unilateralist through and through but even I can see Labour has to develop credible policies if they're going to persuade the British public that not only is trident a very bad idea but also that there are realistic ploughshares for the people of Barrow (etc) to make.

i trust the new influx of radicals into Labour will have many novel ideas about alternatives to producing WOMD and associated delivery systems and hardware. The obvious choice (for me) in this regard is the green option, large scale production of technology linked to renewables etc. i've absolutely no expertise in this area, but it is plain that continuing to rely upon fossil fuel for energy is stoking ever more ecological problems. i agree that Corbyn does have to present the electorate (including those at the 'sharper end' with trade union considerations to take into account) with a cogently persuasive set of options if Labour want to win. Ultimately, Labour's real problems will begin after they have achieved office.

In this area i'm 'realistically pessimistic'. Labour UK incorporated are unlikely to be able to buck the international free markets - flights of capital, investment strikes, the big beasts who really own and control the world will not sit idly back and allow Jeremy to reform too much without a damaging economic and political response. But that's another question i suppose. in the meantime, i'm not in favour of dampening the new wave of enthusiasm for socialist politics within Labour.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

this is a line only credible to anyone who did alright under st tony. A lot of us didn't. We got not forgotten, oh no. Special attention payed to us and our fecklessness

Yeah, fuck those who have benefitted from the minimum wage, or the huge increases in education and health spending, or the EMA. Or tax credits.

There's no difference between the above and the tories, according to some.