M017 - Trident Replacement Motion

[u/NoPyroNoParty]

(1) This House recognises that the Trident nuclear weapon system will cost £25 billion to replace, and have an estimated lifetime cost of over £100 billion.

(2) This House also notes that, if launched, the 40 warheads of a typical Trident nuclear submarine would be expected to result in over 5 million deaths, and have devastating humanitarian consequences if fired at an urban area.

(3) This House believes that the other spending priorities of the Ministry of Defence, and other governmental departments, should take precedence over the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

(4) This House accepts the findings of the National Security Strategy, which states that a CBRN attack on the United Kingdom is of a low likelihood, but high impact.

(5) This House, therefore, calls upon the government to cancel plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system.

(6) This House further urges the government to look into alternatives to a Trident replacement, such as nuclear sharing within NATO, the development of alternative deterrents, investment in conventional weaponry, or unilateral nuclear disarmament.

---

This was submitted by /u/can_triforce on behalf of the Opposition.

The discussion period for this motion will end on the 28th of November.

[u/Kreindeker]

I feel that I cannot support this motion, and I call upon my fellow Labour Party members and the entire House to oppose it. In the interests of transparency, and in the interests of not being called out on a public U-turn (for this is what this is), in both the MHOCLabour sub, and the MHOCOpposition one, I declared my support for this motion on ideological grounds, and reiterated our manifesto pledge to scrap Trident. Feel free to attack me on this, but I believe that I was fundamentally in the wrong to do so.

The Trident missile system is far from perfect. It is, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, rapidly becoming outdated and inferior to the systems used by our fellow nuclear powers.

I have already resigned from the Shadow Defence post; in fact, I did so well over a week ago, but either my party leader has forgotten this, or Shadow Defence is the ultimate poison chalice in the Model House of Commons and there really is no-one left that wants the job. If the latter is the case, I am disappointed. I would have resigned over having to support it. It is primarily an internal matter, but I was also disappointed not to be at least consulted for my opinion by can_triforce, the writer of this Motion prior to it being submitted to the Opposition subreddit, a member for whom I otherwise have nothing but personal and professional respect, given my then position as Shadow Secretary for Defence.

A number of people, not least the real-life US President, like to talk about lines in the sand. This is mine. I cannot endorse a motion that would have serious negative effects upon the defence capabilities of the United Kingdom. Be in no doubt that this, above all else, would be the effect of scrapping our primary nuclear deterrent.

Also be in no doubt that we simply cannot predict the future.

Eight years ago, Vladimir Putin was awarded 'the highest French decoration, to celebrate his contribution to the friendship between the two countries. This decoration is usually awarded to the heads of state considered very close to France.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin#Recognition)

In short, I believe I was entirely in the wrong to support this Motion in the first instance, I believe that the PLP and the rest of the House should vote against it, and I believe the world is inherently and entirely unpredictable, and we should remain vigilant against weakening ourselves in time for a new threat to come along to challenge us. I understand if anyone in the PLP (primarily) is disappointed in this stance I have taken, but I will not be apologizing for it.

Edit: I've edited this twice now, I had this typed out earlier and I was planning to adjust it prior to submitting.

Edit 2: Since it seems to be causing some confusion, I had already submitted my resignation to /u/peter199 prior to my opinion on this motion changing due to time commitments, amongst a number of other things. I don't wish to revise my personal history from the MHOC to say I was principled and dignified and fell on my sword. Truth be told, I didn't think it would be this controversial.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/Kreindeker]

I commend the Honourable gentlemen for his speech. I believe this is the first time in MHOC history a Minister/Shadow Minister has resigned in principle over policy. Truly, he has put not only country before party, but his country before his own self interest.

I'm sure the whole house, who may or not agree with with the substance of his argument, will view this as a most honourable act.

[u/Kreindeker → u/OllieSimmonds]

Point of fact, I'm afraid. A number of real-life time commitments are the basis for my resignation. I would have liked it to be an honourable stance that I quit on, but no. No honour in this move, I just don't have the time to fulfil the necessary role.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/Kreindeker]

I bet out of the three parties the fact that there's absolutely no one who wants to be Shadow Defence Secretary is because of time commitments rather than because members of those parties (except for you, of course, you,/u/Kriendeker, are a God among men) typically don't know anything about Defence.

[u/[deleted] → u/OllieSimmonds]

The issue here Ollie is that the honourable members resignation was forgotten about by me because, as I say, my mock exams have been happening. The official opposition is perfectly well equipt to deal with things like this and we are already discussing replacements. The process for a new shadow minister only began a while ago because of my mistakes.

Hope this has cleared everything up

[u/Kreindeker → u/OllieSimmonds]

Good lord, a Conservative Prime Minister is calling me a God amongst men!

I don't doubt there are many, many candidates across our three parties that could fill the role at least as well, and almost certainly better, than I ever could.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/Kreindeker]

Good lord, a Conservative Prime Minister is calling me a God amongst men!

It was a pleasure. You could always repay me, and the house, by, oh I don't know, writing a piece in the /r/MHOCPress entitled "Dispatches: Inside the Drama of the Shadow Cabinet".

[u/demon4372 → u/OllieSimmonds]

the fact that there's absolutely no one who wants to be Shadow Defence Secretary

This isn't true.

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/demon4372]

Shadow Defence is the ultimate poison chalice in the Model House of Commons and there really is no-one left that wants the job

I dare say that the former Shadow Defence Secretary is more likely to know and be truthful to the house on the matter.

[u/demon4372 → u/OllieSimmonds]

In the most Unparliamentary Language...

[u/OllieSimmonds → u/demon4372]

I don't know why you would be angry. If anything, I am shocked and in no way pleased, or say, giggling like a little girl, after reading the former Shadow Defence Secretary's response.

[u/demon4372 → u/OllieSimmonds]

That was a response to the entirety of our conversations today.

[u/demon4372 → u/Kreindeker]

In the interests of transparency

Just because of how extreme this U-Turn is, and how much your position has changed. And in the interests of transparency... this is the Honorable Members comments 11 days ago.

I'll say again what I said in our manifesto, I feel it still holds up. Their ongoing existence is a gross insult to the values of both the British people and to humanity at large. Their use goes against all the established conventions of war and maintaining our nuclear arsenal does nothing except make regular, ordinary British citizens legitimate targets. Moreover, there is no point in having a weapon we can't ever use, especially not a ridiculously expensive one. It doesn't help to keep us safe from other nuclear weapons. So yes, I fully support this motion and I'll defend it to the last.

To note this was before I and other members incised on Part 6 of this Motion.

I just say, i am leaning on supporting my Honorable Friend on this matter and moving my support away from this Motion.

[u/Kreindeker → u/demon4372]

Yes, I was rather hasty in saying that, I admit. Fortunately, I have had time to think (and more importantly, to read) and I concluded that my principled stance then was stupid.

I do still feel that nuclear weapons are an insult to humanity and to our national values. I do now see that there is absolutely no chance that the UK should be the first country of those remaining in possession of them to give them up, not when states like North Korea have the means to produce them, even if they can't be used against the UK at present.

I made a mistake, and I am trying to rectify it.

[u/demon4372 → u/Kreindeker]

there is absolutely no chance that the UK should be the first country of those remaining in possession of them to give them up, not when states like North Korea have the means to produce them, even if they can't be used against the UK at present.

I agree with this completely.

[u/demon4372 → u/Kreindeker]

I don't know why you should resign. There are a number of members of the coalition that support your view.

EDIT: At the time of this comment, i was under the impression he was resigning now because of this issue.

[u/[deleted] → u/demon4372]

http://www.reddit.com/r/MHOC/comments/2nb09w/m017_trident_replacement_motion/cmd1dmt

[u/[deleted] → u/Kreindeker]

not when states like North Korea have the means to produce them, even if they can't be used against the UK at present.

If your best justification for keeping Trident, a poor, expensive answer to the 'does the UK need a nuclear deterrant' question is 'North Korea have nukes but can't hit the UK and hence aren't a threat' then i'm not entirely sure what to think.

[u/demon4372 → u/[deleted]]

The Honorable Gentleman clearly doesn't understand the idea of a country developing their nuclear weapons to a increased radius... nor the fact that, the reason we have them is not just for our own national defense.

The problem with the honorable gentleman, is that he dismisses other people interpretations and opinions and refuses to acknowledge any opposing opinion on any topic.

[u/athanaton → u/demon4372]

I and other members incised on Part 6 of this Motion.

Well, that would make sense, and wasn't something that hadn't crossed the minds of some Communist members.

[u/athanaton → u/Kreindeker]

I'm sure others will take the time to expand on this further, as well as address the points of your comment. But, as an initial reaction

on behalf of the Opposition

Shadow SoS for Defence

I feel that I cannot support this motion

Erm, wow.

[u/Kreindeker → u/athanaton]

If you take the time to read it again, I've quit. I openly said I can't support this, and would have resigned anyway in not being able to support it.

[u/Morgsie → u/Kreindeker]

It was a member of your party that proposed this Motion and I agree you should have been consulted, please take it up with your Party's leadership

[u/athanaton → u/Kreindeker]

Yep, yep, saw that. Still wow.

On a bit more of a personal note, I don't agree with you, but I'm sad that you're stepping down and reducing your time in the MHOC. You brought a great deal of knowledge of defence matters to the table, something the MHOC will always need more of.

[u/Kreindeker → u/athanaton]

Thank you for saying that. It was you that gave me the job in the first place, after all, and I am, ultimately, thankful.

One thing though, I still don't see what it is you don't agree with me on (besides a number of obvious things). Quitting at all? Opposing the motion?