- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
You see this is *not* an example of a "Deep State" thing, at least not since the Nuremburg trials. It is in fact just "State", because that's how the democratically-elected leadership of the country have set up our sunshine delivery system.
Because I can't resist a Clancywank derail:
Every member of the military is under a legal (not to mention ethical) obligation to refuse an order that is illegal; the UK nuclear chain of command *specifically* emphasises this - there is no "football" like the Americans use which allows the President to directly order a launch. While theoretically given by the PM exercising the prerogative of the Crown, the launch command must be approved by the Minister of Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, First Sea Lord (or head of the branch of the military with the nukes if we ever dust the Vulcans off or decide to give squaddies a bunch of second-hand Davy Crocketts), although realistically any order to launch would have been decided on by consultation between at least the first three along with the Cabinet and the rest of the Defence Staff.
Even then the weapons may only be launched with the specific agreement of both the Captain and Weapons Officer of the sub(s). All of the people in that chain are specifically permitted, in fact instructed, to refuse the order if they consider it to be illegal or otherwise illegitimate.
Letters of Last Resort are - surprisingly - also compatible with this framework; the chain of command all agree the circumstances under which they are to be opened constitute a legal reason to launch the nukes wherever the gently caress the Captain wants to, and there's no real way for the PM to order the Captain to do more than this so legally he's in the clear, but also at that point who gives a poo poo about legality, and it's strongly suspected that they give the Captain the option to just chuck the nukes overboard and try and find somewhere not glowing to settle down.
So does this mean if the captain and weapons officer decide to, they can launch the nukes whenever they want?
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2020 18:34
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 07:55
|
|
- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
So yes, the Captain and WO *can* launch weapons on their own initiative. They have standing orders that describe the circumstances under which they can do so - this includes (it's rumoured) that the BBC World Service isn't transmitting, but basically they have a couple of ways of inferring that property prices in London have suddenly dropped precipitously. Once these are fulfilled, they open the Letter of Last Resort which tells them what to do (again it's rumoured that most PMs basically say "Do whatever, who gives a gently caress", but as the letters are destroyed after each patrol nobody knows for sure).
Firing weapons outside of their orders would not be in the greatest traditions of the Royal Navy, so we don't have to worry about that. Just in case they run out of rum and the lash and sodomy isn't enough to stop them deciding to wipe Scunthorpe off the map though, there are a couple of failsafes. The first is, of course, the fact it requires both the Captain and the WO to agree to launch (and pull triggers at opposite ends of the sub) - the idea that *two* RN officers would disobey orders is just plain inconceivable to anyone who's never met anyone in the Navy. There's also the fact that the missiles are pre-targeted before they leave port - they will have effectively a menu of targets they can choose from, but no capability to just type in that one pub that kicked them out the other night.
So yeah, it's completely loving ridiculous, but it's also perfectly sensible and logical by the completely loving ridiculous standards of nuclear weapons.
This is interesting but scary! That the targets are pre set doesnt reasure me much as presumbly most of the targets are in countries that would instantly retaliate, so there's still a decent chance of wiping out Scunthorpe.
That we are relying on the officers being good old chaps who wouldnt do that sort of thing seems is just crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2020 20:09
|
|
- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
I'm probably missing something really obvious why this wouldn't make sense
but I keep coming back to Corbyn's noted lack of adherence to the party whip.
if Starmer really wanted to force him out the PLP, all they had to do was wait 5 minutes for a contentious vote to come along. there's been at least a couple of them between the leadership election and the EHRC report publication.
they could've removed the whip from Corbyn any time they wanted really. casus belli is there if anyone wanted to declare that X is important enough to the party to enforce a three line whip.
so I'm inclined to believe when he says this current mess wasn't planned & he hadn't intended all along to boot Corbyn as many have suggested. this situation is a giant gently caress up not a calculated Stalinist purge.
But then it could turn into a debate on policy, and Starmer seems to do everything possible to avoid that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2020 00:49
|
|
- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
That's kind of my point, really. China runs a big trade surplus and it doesn't seem like a beneficial relationship. What are they using that money to buy that they can't just make themselves? I'm hard pressed to see what Britain can provide that they would want in exchange for the vast amount of manufactured goods they send over. At some point the money has to convert to something or you've just handed over goods for nothing.
Edit: China still has an actual, real economy at this point. The UK has an economy based around a massive Ponzi scheme that assumes rates of growth not seen since before 2008 and even those rates were a fantasy built on the housing Ponzi. It's hard to imagine, having built things to the point they are, that China would want to exchange big chunks of productivity for a stake in such a flimsy illusion.
If you treat China as one entity, then you're right it doesnt make much sense, you need to look at the classes within countries:
https://www.ft.com/content/f3ee37e0-b086-11ea-a4b6-31f1eedf762e
quote:
“Trade war is often presented as a war between countries. It is not: it is a conflict mainly between bankers and owners of financial assets on one side and ordinary households on the other — between the very rich and everyone else.”
The economic success of China was the result of an extreme version of what the authors call the “high savings” model of development, together with exploitation of trade opportunities, which Japan pioneered. Thus, from the early 1990s and particularly after 2000, there was a sharp decline in the share of household consumption in China’s gross domestic product.
“As of 2018, Chinese households still consume less than 40 per cent of Chinese output — a lower ratio than in every other major economy in the world, by far,” the authors write. This is due to a host of mechanisms — high household savings, low interest rates, lack of rights of rural migrants in cities, regressive taxation, weak social safety nets and the failure of state-owned companies to pay dividends — all designed to shift income from workers and retirees to companies and the state.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 22:27
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2020 18:34
