1

MHOC: THE WEEK MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2014 /R/MHOCPRESS

"Should Britain retain the nuclear deterrent?"- I_miss_Chris_Hughton

Anarchy In The UK

Britain was stunned today by the outbreak of a series of riots across the UK, primarily in

Coventry, Birmingham and parts of London, resulting in the widespread deployment of the riot police and the deployment of the Territorial

army.

The riots began following the arrest of a 17 year old who had attempted to climb the Lady Godiva statue whilst intoxicated during turning on of the Christmas lights in Coventry city centre. This prompted jeers from the crowd, and a suspected agent-provocateur threw a brick at the police cordon. Fighting broke out as

the police attempted

to enter the crowd in order to apprehend the assailant.

Rioting spread throughout Coventry as police

were unable to reach the city centre due to heavy traffic. The number rioters expanded rapidly, due to the widespread use of social media which quickly publicised the riots. This also resulted in the spread of the riots to other

city centres, as Birmingham and London soon faced widespread disorder and looting.

The claimed leaders of the riot the 'Mercia Free State' have thus far not been apprehended,

though

Hevil

Riot police in Coventry City Centre on the morning of the 16th

2

it is unknown whether they have any real connection to the outbreak of the riots. Known

to locals as a society celebrating Mercian culture and history, they rapidly spread the

claim on twitter and other social media of the riots being a call to independence for the suppressed Mercian people.

A series of political and diplomatic blunders

also exacerbated the riots; private comments sent between Green party MPs suggesting the

use of nuclear weapons on Coventry were leaked resulting in a press furore. A statement issued by the Irish President calling for a meeting between the Free State and the British

Cabinet was snubbed by PM OllieSimmonds for interfering in British affairs.

Green MP, RandomPhotographer was reported missing and kidnapped soon after the beginning of the riots, though she was later found by members of the police in the streets of

Coventry. She suffered minor head trauma and amnesia, and currently recovering in hospital.

CWL MP Whatismoo was also attacked by an unknown assailant with a handgun, as he directed CWL personnel in Coventry city

centre. Although the MP was largely unharmed due to a bulletproof vest, the perpetrator of the

attack has not been found.

The Logo of the Mercian Free State

Large scale clashes occurred

between protestors and riot police

in Birmingham, although damage

was limited as much of the police

had already assembled.

Coventry saw the heaviest rioting

and damage as police struggled to

enter the city in enough force to

suppress the disturbance. Coventry

saw over half the property damaged

caused, as well as all 3 deaths. As

many as 3,000 rioters are suspected

of joining the uprising in Coventry,

the most of any city in the country

Sporadic rioting, mostly limited to looting

and vandalism occurred in London,

however the presence of active police units

prevented true riots from developing, as

well as the co-operation of local protestors

The riots were also notable for the deployment of paramilitary organisations from several parties to

assist the police in riot suppression. The 'Squadristi'

A wave of minor vandalism occurred

in other towns, but failed to develop

3

of the British Imperial Party, the 'Red Brigades'

of the Communist party, and the 'Partisans' of

the Celtic Workers league were ordered by their

respective parties to engage in a series of

activities, both assisting the emergency services

as well as the protection of property and

engagement with the rioters.

A report released by government analyst

sZjLsFtA applauded the governments quick

response but argued that the usage of water-

cannons and the ineffective blackout were

ineffective and 'Totalitarian'. It also found no

malicious intent on the part of the party

affiliated organisations, but recommended that

procedures be established to allow for better

communication between them and the

emergency services.

Since the end of the riots, some 750 arrests

have been reported to have been made by the

police across the UK. However, the process of

trying the rioters will take months to complete,

and many arrests have yet to be made.

The riots have resulted in enormous damage in

Coventry and Birmingham; smashed windows

and burnt-homes, wrecked police-cars and

looted storefronts. However, the real cost of

these riots shall be felt in the years to come; the

uncertainty, the mistrust, and the

dissatisfaction that has manifested itself in

Coventry will haunt this parliament for years to

come.

£11,960,000

£8,120,000

£2,320,000

£360,000

Coventry Birmingham London Other

DAMAGE REPORT

34002100

500250

Coventry Birmingham London Other

"As I walked down the street, a

felt a bullet slam into my back..."

Rt. Hon. Whatismoo, MP

4

The Week in Brief General

NoPyroNoParty has been made deputy speaker

AMan_reborn has been made a Lord

Adam3017 has replaced georgep93 as MP for West Midlands

Bills

B-027(Green) - Natural Resources Bill 2014 - Passed

B-028(PLP) - Transport Restructuring Bill 2014 - Failed

Motions

M-015(Lib Dem) - Award of the Order of St. Michael and St. George

MHOC Awards Rising Star: Googleplexbyte

Most Controversial: Jacktri

Best MHOC Moderator: Rorytime

Best Leader: G0vernment

Most Active Member: Morgsie

Admirable Member: NoPyroNoParty

Most Constructive Member: Randomphotographer

Most Eccentric Election Campaign: The Monster Raving Loony Party

Most Eloquent Writer: NoPyroNoParty and AlbrechtvonRoon

Best Comment: Cocktorpedo

Best Leader: Banter_lad_m8

Best New MP: ViscountHoratio

Best Old MP: OllieSimmonds

Bar Pal: InfernoPlato

Most Likely To Become An MP: Remiel

Most Popular: NoPyroNoParty

Sublime Member: NoPyroNoParty

5

It is now widely acknowledged that climate change is a real and present danger, and it is set to

be the biggest challenge facing our generation. People are becoming increasingly aware that

threats to our environment can no longer be ignored, but many of the environmental problems

we face are on an international scale - we can't sit back and pretend that our little island will be

fine when the rest of the world are pumping out carbon emissions 24/7. Climate change is a

threat we share and it's one that we must work together on to make real progress.

This is where the European Union plays it’s part. Of all the benefits we receive from

membership of the EU, its championing of environmental policies and renewable energy is one

of the most significant and influential, but it is perhaps not appreciated as much as it deserves. It

is estimated that over 80% of the environmental legislation currently in force in the UK is

derived from European law, and if it were not for the EU putting pressure on member states to

take action it is likely that most of Europe - ourselves included - would not have these laws in

place, and we would not have benefited from EU competence in these areas. However we don't

just passively accept EU laws on these matters either; the UK has been instrumental to the

development of EU environmental law and we continue to collaborate closely to work towards

what's best for our country, for Europe as a whole and for the future of our planet.

Take air quality for example. Air pollution doesn't respect national boundaries, and for this

reason it has been a major focus of international co-operation and a main aspect of the EU's

environmental programme since the 1980s, when a series of directives set emission limits and

limit values for concentrations of pollutants in the air. This has led to major reductions in

carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and other harmful greenhouse gases and has subsequently

improved ambient air quality in EU towns and cities massively since the late twentieth century.

These improvements would not and could not have been achieved without EU legislation. Even

had the UK independently developed similar standards (which until the mid 1990s it largely did

not), this would not have dealt with pollution from other EU member states.

Indeed, in February of this year the European Commission had to launch legal proceedings

against the UK because we were falling so far short of our air pollution targets. We like to pride

ourselves on being one of the greenest countries in the world, but if even we can't be trusted to

tackle the rising amount of ground-level ozone then perhaps it's no bad thing having an

international body prodding us to take action when the government invariably forgets to live up

to its promises.

Why A Green UK needs a Green EU

NoPyroNoParty

6

Withdrawing from the European Union and therefore disengaging from the body of EU

environmental law would lead to a major setback for valuable environmental protection schemes

in the interests of short term political expediency. We would no longer be a part of the EU law

making process and have no influence on international environmental protection programmes,

influence that has provided us with many mutual benefits in the past - for example the EU

adopted the UK's Integrated Pollution Control framework (now the Industrial Emissions

Directive) in 1996 which took a more flexible approach than standard emission controls with

emphasis on emerging technologies and the sensitivities of the local environment, and this led to

a more level playing field for industry across the EU and in doing so greatly benefited UK

industry as many member states previously had a much lower standard of industrial regulation.

The profuse opportunities to shape a cleaner and more sustainable future on a wider scale and

at a local level are just one of many reasons why I shall be campaigning tirelessly to keep the

United Kingdom in the European Union, and I hope you'll join me.

Why I joined the BIP Jacktri

Why I joined BIP

After the general election, the week of silence began. While most parties participated in coalition

negotiations I sat starring at my empty inbox, hoping that one day that fateful message would come

"Jacktri we need you to be Prime Minister for our coalition, you are the country's only hope!" alas that

message never came.

When the government was announced with another independent at the helm the truth finally hit me,

our democracy has been hijacked by multi-national oligarchs, the Cons, UKIP, and Greens etc they

are all in on it. I had two options, roll over and watch as the British people are betrayed by those they

elected to represent them, or join forces with a party that truly had the best interests of the British

people at heart.

BIP welcomed me with open arms, made me feel at home, and after much discussion it become

apparent that they were the only party that puts ordinary British people first. I implore other

members of the house and public to ditch the status quo and join a true revolutionary force, the

British Imperial Party will break our chains and set us free.

7

Should the UK retain an independent nuclear deterrent?

Nuclear weapons are, far and away, the most destructive weapon on the planet. The UK has a nuclear

arsenal in the Trident weapons system. Carried on a Vanguard class submarine, each missile can

deliver 8 warheads to a target 7000 miles away (1) The United Kingdom has a maximum of 225

warheads (2), with each vanguard carrying 8 Trident Missiles whilst on a patrol. This gives the UK a

considerable nuclear arsenal that is capable of enacting a truly devastating strike to any nation that

poses a significant enough threat. Such incredible power however is met with incredible resistance for

inside the world of British politics. A plethora of parties in the UK, many with seats in the House of

Commons, disagree with the idea of a nuclear arsenal for many reasons. Some, like the SNP and the

Greens, see it as immoral (3)(4) and a waste of money. In this Essay I shall attempt to convince you

that the UK needs a nuclear arsenal independent of other nation’s control.

The first point I should like to make it is a fairly clear one. The UK needs a nuclear arsenal to deter

aggression, particularly nuclear aggression, from other countries. This is probably the simplest and

most commonly used justification of the UK’s nuclear weapons and the cornerstone of deterrence

theory. The UK’s arsenal is set up in such a way that it has to be strategic (more on this later on), and

so the UK uses strategic nuclear deterrence described by Lawrence Freedman in his book Deterrence

as ‘A strategic option available to A which takes the form of an explicit commitment to take

disciplinary action against B, if B acts in a specified manner against A’s wishes’. This definition is not

perfect as nuclear deterrence doesn’t work if you know exactly what the limit is for your opponent, but

it’s always implied that a nuclear strike on the UK will elicit a nuclear response. The closest thing we

have to an answer on this front is kept a secret from us, hidden as it is inside the ‘letter of last resort’

on board all nuclear submarines (6). It doesn’t really matter what the letter says anyway, what matters

is is that the UK has at any one time 8 Trident missiles somewhere under the sea. As stated earlier,

each missile contains 8 warheads, and each warhead has a yield of 100 Kilotons (7). That effectively

gives the UK 6400 kilotons of destruction ready to fire during peacetime, during a time of war of

intense tension there would be a capability to increase the number of missiles in a submarine, or

indeed increase the number of submarines on patrol. Under these circumstances, it’s easy to see why

foreign powers might think twice before pushing the UK at all, seeing as A) they don’t know what’s too

far and B) such a massive amount of destruction is at the British governments disposal.

to

Should the UK retain an independent nuclear deterrent?

I_miss_chris_hughton

8

A counter argument to this is that deterrence, as ‘peaceful’ a façade it puts out, has an underlying and

dangerous truth inherent to it. That being that the power using nuclear weapons to deter aggression

must, at some point, be willing to launch at least a retaliatory strike if pushed far enough, This

essentially means that the mere possession of nuclear weapons in a deterrence role greatly increases

the risk of a nuclear apocalypse (no doubt the greatest fear when it comes to nuclear weapons).

Anthony Kenny in his essay ‘Better dead than Red’ in the book ‘Objections to Nuclear Defence

(Philosophers on deterrence)’

‘A retaliatory strike could, of course, be viewed as an act of revenge; but few politicians, during

peacetime planning at least, are willing to present revenge in and for itself as a respectable goal of

policy. Otherwise than an act of revenge, a retaliatory strike would seem to be at best pointless’ (8)

Very soon after, he makes the more crucial point

'If both a first strike and second strike use of nuclear weapons would be irrational, how can it be

rational to possess them at all?(8)

This is a valid point. He makes a very strong argument that the very possession of nuclear weapons is

totally pointless and, in his words, ‘Irrational’ if the use of them is the same. However I must argue a

counter point to this otherwise perfectly reasonable claim.

Nuclear weapons are a horrific thing, but it’s not something the human race can just forget. Therefore,

Deterrence is about the only thing we have that’s stopping the human race from just having it out and

ending it all. And if the human does decide to have it out, I’d rather that the UK have its own

independent nuclear arsenal to give it a fighting shot at least retaliating or deterring an initial strike.

This isn’t the only argument against Deterrence however. Another simple question is that who are we

deterring? Everyone who has nuclear weapons seems to be deterring aggression from someone (never

named for obvious diplomatic reasons). This raises the simple question of if everyone’s deterring

everyone else, why can’t we just disarm?

The answer to this is my opinion lies in the world of tactical nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear

weapons have no solid definition, but for this essay I shall be using the range of yields used in ‘Tactical

Nuclear Weapons’ by Brian Alexander and Alistair Miller which is given as

‘Relatively low – 0.1 Kiloton to yields higher than those of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and

Nagasaki- 10-15 kilotons and upwards to 1 Megaton’ (9)

9

I will also be insisting that a Tactical Nuclear weapon is not one with multiple warheads as the UK’s

trident missiles are, rather just one warhead attached to its own delivery method. By this Definition,

the UK has no tactical nuclear arsenal seeing as all its nuclear warheads are kept inside Missiles which

carry more than one. This means that the UK, basically, must operate under a policy of ‘unacceptable

retaliation’ towards external threats. This can be defined as ‘The ability to retaliate against an

attacking nation with enough force to impose ‘unacceptable damage (10)’. Other nations however

have the ability to be more discretionary with their methods. With smaller warheads, a nation may

choose to target say a battlefield formation, a naval fleet, an airbase or a missile silo. These are things

of tactical value with which civilian lives are put at less risk. It also means that the aggressor gets to

decide what is and what is not tactical.

For example, if Russia where to invade Western Europe, it would likely flatten NATO bases in Poland,

Germany and the Baltics with Tactical nuclear weapons in an attempt to offset the material advantage

of the NATO forces. In retaliation, Advancing Russian forces would likely be destroyed by Tactical

nuclear weapons from NATO in an effort to offset the new imbalance from the use of the first

weapons. This is all theory, and would most likely affect Western Europe. The trouble comes when we

look at a map of Europe and realize that the UK would likely be a tactical target for Russian

submarines trying to break into the Atlantic. In this scenario, the UK’s cities could be deemed Tactical

targets (Portsmouth is home to the Royal navy for example, and Rosyth which is close to the Scottish

central belt). This would pose a serious risk to the populace of the UK, since so much of the Royal

navy is berthed in these areas we would be perilous to invasion (or at least intimidation).

The crucial point here was mentioned earlier. The UK has no tactical nuclear weapons, only strategic.

That means that any nuclear attack on the UK would be met with a strategic response, escalating the

situation beyond saving (again, 6400 kilotons of destruction sit on a Royal Navy submarine during

peacetime). Due to their Nature of being submerged under water, they have one great strength and

one great weakness that’s deadly to anyone on the receiving end. A Submarine carrying nuclear

weapons doesn’t have much choice on how many it fires, it must fire at its target in such a way to

render the target incapable of responding and so must aim at command and control centres that are

usually in cities otherwise it will be discovered and sunk with its valuable cargo (satellites can pick up

launches almost immediately). This essentially means that if a naval base in the UK was targeted, the

Capital city of an enemy would be hit in response. This gives the UK a strong reason to maintain a

nuclear arsenal, as with nuclear weapons the UK has a much better defence against any nuclear attack

on its soil. It forces any potential aggressor to view the UK as ‘out of bounds’ for a tactical launch, and

therefore makes a strike less likely. If the aim of the British government is to save lives, then trident

saves lives. Therefore it is in the government’s interest to retain trident.

10

Yet another argument is that we don’t know what the future will be like. New enemies will come and

go and powers will rise and fall, but the UK’s sole imperative must be to survive and, ideally, remain a

global power. This requires that the UK remains safe from all possible threats. As technology

develops, the only way that this can happen is that the nuclear arsenal remains stable, especially as

more and more nations gain nuclear weapons. Losing nuclear weapons puts you at risk of being

neutered by future events. For example, when Ukraine signed the Budapest memorandum, it

unilaterally disarmed the nuclear weapons it gained when the USSR collapsed. This removed their

greatest weapon and their greatest defence in a time of relative peace and prosperity following the fall

of the Iron curtain. After a revolution in Ukraine after the Government shifted away from the EU

towards Russia (against the will of the people) Russia went into full imperialist and essentially tried to

bully Ukraine with covert military action in supporting a counter revolution in the east and seizing

the Crimean peninsula (and most of the Ukrainian Navy) for themselves(11)(12). Its hard to

imagine a similar scenario occurring if the Ukrainian government had even a fraction of their nuclear

arsenal to hold as a weapon of last resort. The thing to take away from this is that a peaceful situation

can turn around and change into a dangerous one in the blink of an eye.

A counter argument to this is that the situation in Ukraine is remarkably unique and only possible

due to Russia’s intense aggression and an inferiority complex about losing their ‘great power status’.

It would probably go further, and say that if the UK disarmed other countries may follow suit, and

totally remove the threat of nuclear annihilation. A good take on this was one I found in the book

‘disarmament and development (A design for the future?) which goes one step further. It actually

stipulates that by removing nuclear weapons from a nations arsenal (Along with generally cutting its

military budget) will reduce tensions and therefore reduce the likelihood of war. It puts forward six

broad propositions:

1) A reduction in arms spending will increase economic performance in the north

2) Reductions in spending will improve east west relations and reduce the likelihood of war

3) Reductions in arms spending will facilitate improvements in development assistance

4) Increased economic assistance will improve economic performance in the south

5) Improved economic performance in the south will improve domestic political stability there

6) Improved economic performance there will improve north south relations (13)

11

Therefore, as a conclusion, I’d like to make the point that the UK needs some kind of nuclear deterrent

to defend itself in a world that has multiple threats. To remind you of them, there is the threat from

states that already have nuclear arms and are not above using military force to achieve their aims or

have otherwise proven themselves unwilling to rule out a nuclear attack. There is also the fact in a

large war that involves tactical nuclear weapons being used the UK could be targeted for its numerous

military resources, in particular in terms of its Navy. The Nuclear deterrent stops this from being a

viable option for any enemy. And to finish off there is the fact that by cutting the nuclear weapons it

leaves us open to intimidation and threats in the future, something which any UK government should

go well out of its way to avoid. The only way to ensure that none of these happens is to keep an

independent nuclear arsenal in the UK’s hands. And that’s not even mentioning the more egotistical

grounds that I have made a point of sticking away from of being a ‘great power’ and the argument that

‘the UK needs prestige it can only get from nuclear weapons’ as I find these poor reasons to keep a

weapon of such potent and biblical devastation.