[Closed] Trident submarines without the missiles

no one really knows who would have launched against them with regards submarine based ICBMs.

Don't be silly, the missiles would have massive flags painted on them just to make it clear who the aggressor is! What's the point in having an independent genocidal weapon (not calling it a 'deterrent' any more) if the victims don't know who their murderers are?

Its really obvious that if nukes are a deterrent and we have a nuclear strike then they failed as a deterrent.

I'll accept that if you accept that if we [u]don't[/u] have a nuclear strike then they [u]are[/u] an effective deterrent.

[quote=Junkyard ]Its really obvious that if nukes are a deterrent and we have a nuclear strike then they failed as a deterrent.

If we have a nuclear strike when we don't have a deterrent, then our deterrent hasn't failed. A US deterrent isn't our deterrent - that's the whole point - the point of it is simply to deter attacks on the US.

[quote=Klunk ]no one really knows who would have launched against them with regards submarine based ICBMs. If we launch againt Russia, could be france or USA for all they know so who do they respond against ? As a result it would be pretty tough for the septics to sit it out as they are going to be targeted regardless.

Except we're discussing us not having an independent deterrent, so there wouldn't be any nukes flying towards Russia after we were attacked, hence no reason for the US to get involved from that perspective.

[quote=dazh ]You don't think a nuke-free UK having one or more of it's cities vapourised by Russia or China might raise a few eyebrows in Washington? I suppose all those generals - who of course historically have always been doves - would be saying to the president, 'Don't worry sir, they wouldn't dare attack us, lets just sit tight and see what happens'. Like I said, bonkers!

I'm sure it would raise some eyebrows. One way to guarantee the US being attacked would be for them to launch following an attack on another country - yes I can imagine the discussions where they decide between doing nothing and hoping not to be attacked or retaliating and guaranteeing it.

A US deterrent isn't our deterrent - that's the whole point - the point of it is simply to deter attacks on the US.

As I asked before, could you explain in what circumstances Russia or China could strike against the UK without provoking the US to respond? And if what we crave is 'our' deterrent, then how come we basically buy it off the US? I bet we don't even make the plutonium ourselves these days.

Edit:

One way to guarantee the US being attacked would be for them to launch following an attack on another country - yes I can imagine the discussions where they decide between doing nothing and hoping not to be attacked or retaliating and guaranteeing it.

Well I guess that's a start at explaining it. Do you even understand deterrence and the MAD principle that underpins it? The whole point of deterrence is that everyone would launch, otherwise it doesn't work. What you describe is the redundancy of deterrence, which removes the accepted justification for having nuclear weapons. Unless you're suggesting we have them just so that when the time comes we can commit tit-for-tat genocide?

As I asked before, could you explain in what circumstances Russia or China could strike against the UK without provoking the US to respond?

because my crystal ball only goes a few years into the future it's dificult to see who is going to strike, it may not even be one of the established nut-job nations. It may have naff-all to do with the States, who could also change their stance in the future.

The big problem really is that the dark side clouds everything.

the whole point of deterrence is that everyone would launch, otherwise it doesn't work. What you describe is the redundancy of deterrence, which removes the accepted justification for having nuclear weapons.

So if India and ****stan go toe to toe and nuke each other, then either we have to join in or it proves that the UK & NATO deterrent didn't work?

A US deterrent isn't our deterrent - that's the whole point - the point of it is simply to deter attacks on the US

Please read up on NATO then talk about the scenario based on the reality if the world we live in yes

Obviously an american only deterrent does not apply to use.

This is not what currently exists for them or us so why base decisions on the scenario that is false/does not exist?

Sell Trident to China? Yes? 😛

[quote=dazh ]Do you even understand deterrence and the MAD principle that underpins it? The whole point of deterrence is that everyone would launch, otherwise it doesn't work.

Well yes, I've been busy trying to explain it to you - I even gave a helpful link up there which explains that the US policy isn't to launch because somebody else has launched (and ninfan helpfully - well it had to happen some time - pointed out that the world has moved on from the days when the counterstrike had to be launched before it was destroyed).

What you describe is the redundancy of deterrence, which removes the accepted justification for having nuclear weapons. Unless you're suggesting we have them just so that when the time comes we can commit tit-for-tat genocide?

Redundancy implies that the US deterrent is exactly equivalent to ours - I'm suggesting that's not the case. The whole point is that we have the threat of doing tit for tat genocide - remember this MAD thing you mentioned!

And if what we crave is 'our' deterrent, then how come we basically buy it off the US?

🙄

[quote=Junkyard ]Please read up on NATO then talk about the scenario based on the reality if the world we live in

Of course, the theory is we all defend each other, I understand that's how it's supposed to work, and TBH that's probably the way it would work - I was simply exploring situations where the US might wonder what the point was of retaliating as part of NATO, when doing so wouldn't recreate an ally from the dust, but would result in parts of the US being turned to dust. Game theory again - or maybe just logic which you should be familiar with, the sunk cost fallacy.

The thing is, if we had no independent deterrent, somebody mad enough* might follow the train of logic I've given there. Though just in case you've missed it, there are other arguments I agree with as to why we don't need nukes - it's just that I'm not comfortable with the one about relying on the US.

* still not mentioning him

Why should the Americans be the only people providing nuclear deterrent for Europe?

Klunk - Member
Soviet threat was a myth

Klunk, complete bollocks on the part of the Grauniad as usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

The Chiefs of Staff were concerned that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war, and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there existed a Soviet threat to Western Europe. The Soviet numerical superiority was roughly [b]4:1 in men and 2:1 in tanks[/b] at the end of hostilities in Europe.[1] The Soviet Union had yet to launch its attack on Japanese forces, and so one assumption in the report was that the Soviet Union would instead ally with Japan if the Western Allies commenced hostilities.

The plan was taken by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible due to a three-to-one superiority of Soviet land forces in Europe and the Middle East, where the conflict was projected to take place. The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers. Any quick success would be due to surprise alone. If a quick success could not be obtained before the onset of winter, the assessment was that the Allies would be committed to a protracted total war. In the report of 22 May 1945, an offensive operation was deemed "hazardous".

Defensive operations[edit]
In response to an instruction by Churchill of 10 June 1945, a follow-up report was written concerning "what measures would be required to ensure the security of the British Isles in the event of war with Russia in the near future".[5] United States forces were relocating to the Pacific for a planned invasion of Japan, and Churchill was concerned that this reduction in supporting forces would leave the Soviets in a strong position to take offensive action in Western Europe. The report concluded that if the United States focused on the Pacific Theatre, Great Britain's odds "would become fanciful."[6]

The Joint Planning Staff rejected Churchill's notion of retaining bridgeheads on the continent as having no operational advantage. It was envisaged that Britain would use its air force and navy to resist, although a threat from mass rocket attack was anticipated, with no means of resistance except for strategic bombing.

I'm not comfortable with the one about relying on the US.

I also dont think there is much need for a permanent ready capability as i dont think its likely anyone will sneak up on us and do it unexpectedly on a Sunday when no one is looking. TBH even if they would one has to ask , at that point, what really is the point in us taking the rest of the world with us?

Why should the American tax payers be paying for 100 percent of the deterrent Junkyard?

Why should the American tax payers be paying for 100 percent of the deterrent Junkyard?

Tom - With Junkyard and the other hand wringers on here, it's not as much about the money but the terrible nature of nuclear weapons.

They also can't see past the "who wants to bother the UK now anyway" argument, they must have some top quality crystal balls as they know there is no viable threat to our security as a Western Democracy..

I prefer the Roosevelt option of "speak softly and carry a big stick".

[quote=Junkyard ]I also dont think there is much need for a permanent ready capability as i dont think its likely anyone will sneak up on us and do it unexpectedly on a Sunday when no one is looking.

You're suggesting handing them over to the RAF and only to be used Monday to Friday 9-5 (early finish on Friday)? 😯

TBH even if they would one has to ask , at that point, what really is the point in us taking the rest of the world with us?

Slightly more than the point in the US doing that and guaranteeing getting turned to dust as well rather than staying out of it and intact - thanks for making my point for me 😉

You're suggesting handing them over to the RAF and only to be used Monday to Friday 9-5 (early finish on Friday)?

Second one is true but remember the deterrence argument is we only have to pretend we will for them to work. Its not MAD anymore.

Junkyard » I also dont think there is much need for a permanent ready capability as i dont think its likely anyone will sneak up on us and do it unexpectedly on a Sunday when no one is looking.

Junkyard - You constantly berate me for being feeble minded for not understanding your rambling posts calling "straw man" every 5 minutes.

You really don't know anything or understand anything about what a Strategic Defence is and what it means. So why do you continue with this nonsense?

[quote=Tom_W1987 ]Why should the American tax payers be paying for 100 percent of the deterrent Junkyard?Have the American tax payers saved anything by the UK having a few nuclear weapons? Do you think they'd increase their nuclear forces to match any mount we'd reduced by? If not, it's cost them nothing.

Utopian view is utopian ... 😆

One point is that the US are very keen on us retaining our nukes and diplomatically would kick up a huge fuss behind the scenes and really could make the UK life rather difficult.

Funny really to think how much money and scientific effort the UK put into getting nukes and then we just give them up?

I dont berate you at all- paranoid?- I made one sarcastic comment after you made your disdain for me obvious [as you have done once again] Mleh

Why do I continue - I find afd homes and shooting the messenger are not effective persuasion techniques.

Have you considered reason and logic.

TBH i dont have any personal issue with you please dont make me reconsider that with increasingly personal attacks 😉

People seem very focused on Russia "nuking us", they wouldn't have to nuke us they could defeat is with conventional weapons, we'd have no last resort threat without N-weapons so would just have to roll over.

[quote=jambalaya ]People seem very focused on Russia "nuking us", they wouldn't have to nuke us they could defeat is with conventional weapons, we'd have no last resort threat without N-weapons so would just have to roll over.So, no point in having them then as to use them against Russia would see them obliterate us with theirs.

Klunk, complete bollocks on the part of the Grauniad as usual.

funnily enough written by a daily mail columnist.

operation unthinkable was originally an offensive operation against the Soviets

"to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though 'the will' of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland, that does not necessarily limit the military commitment"

must have made interesting reading for Stalin when it was sent to him by Philby. No wonder the soviets were paranoid, they had just fought and won the great patriotic war (where 80% of the German forces were deployed against them) at enormous cost in men to find out their so called allies were planning a surprise attack.

Have you considered reason and logic

OK.

The World is a dangerous place and completely unpredictable.
A Strategic Nuclear Defense is probably the most effective way of guarding against any future threats.
We do not know what the future threats are.
NATO could completely dissolve next year for all we know.
The USA may go back to a policy of Isolationism again.

As I quoted above "speak softly and carry a big stick."

TBH i dont have any personal issue with you please dont make me reconsider that with increasingly personal attacks

The Keyboard Warrior has awoken I feel the fear! 🙂

[quote=gobuchul ]The World is a dangerous place and completely unpredictable.
A Strategic Nuclear Defense is probably the most effective way of guarding against any future threats.Does this argument work for all nations? That would be great. We could just sell everyone a few nukes and establish world peace.

Does this argument work for all nations?

Obviously not.

As there are numerous failed or close to failed states in the World.

As we are a Liberal Democracy then we get the politicians and the policies we vote for. So we in theory have control on when those weapons are to be used.(No, please don't start this argument.)

So, no point in having them then as to use them against Russia would see them obliterate us with theirs.

You miss the point. The point here is not prevention, or deterrence, but macho chest-beating about how we could murder millions of people who have bugger all to do with whatever the likes of Putin might decide to do. Like I said, tit-for-tat genocide. By today's nuclear weapons logic, at the end of the second world war, millions of German civilians should have been put up against a wall and shot.

Like I said, tit-for-tat genocide.

dazh - So what is it you are suggesting?

Do you believe that NATO could get rid of it's nukes and we would be safe in the medium to long term?

The genie is out of the bottle, for all the problems of the Western Democracies, I prefer them to be suitably equipped to deter an aggressor with nukes.

jambalaya - Member

People seem very focused on Russia "nuking us", they wouldn't have to nuke us they could defeat is with conventional weapons, we'd have no last resort threat without N-weapons so would just have to roll over.

Ah, like that time they invaded the Ukraine and we nuked them?

Ah, but Ukraine is just an ally without their own nuclear deterrent - obviously a nuclear power isn't going to step in...

[quote=dazh ]Like I said, tit-for-tat genocide. By today's nuclear weapons logic, at the end of the second world war, millions of German civilians should have been put up against a wall and shot.

You claim to understand the game theory, yet you keep coming up with stuff like this 🙄

Ukraine isn't part of NATO or anything else.

They were unaligned, thus Billy no mates. Harsh world out there. Worth noting if you plan to lead a country.

Ukraine applied to join the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008. Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych, who preferred to keep the country non-aligned, was elected President.

aracer - Member

Ah, but Ukraine is just an ally without their own nuclear deterrent - obviously a nuclear power isn't going to step in...

I see. So Jamba is referring to the hypothetical where Russia invades us, having marched across the entire of europe (except France)? He can't be referring to a guaranteed NATO response since the US and France are in NATO...

I've no idea what jamba is talking about.

In that case, maybe you should leave him to answer the question?

But that aside; The question of nuclear escalation still comes down to when would we escalate. Yes Prime Minister covered it pretty well 30 years ago tbh but the problem is the same. First aggression? Not a chance. First aggression against NATO? Again no chance, because the question of conventional response isn't answered yet- we'd never escalate while there was any prospect of winning a war, or having it stop quickly. Realistically we'd always launch tomorrow, the only time there's any prospect of a nuclear escalation on our part is invasion of the UK.

we'd never escalate while there was any prospect of winning a war, or having it stop quickly.

Realistically we'd always launch tomorrow, the only time there's any prospect of a nuclear escalation on our part is invasion of the UK.

We don't have to suddenly wipe everything off the map, policy has long been developed around a flexible response that would likely see us destroy a significant military or infrastructure target in return.

On the other hand, here's your 'it's all gone tits up' escalation scenario:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

See also cobalt bombs, fantastic area denial weapons provided you're actually crazy enough to build one.

Current policy specifically states that it does not rule out a first use and includes using weapons in support of NATO, allies and our other defence treaties.

Having a written policy gives credibility to the deterrence

we deliberately maintain some ambiguity about precisely when, how and at what scale we would contemplate use of our nuclear deterrent. We do not want to simplify the calculations of a potential aggressor by defining more precisely the circumstances in which we might consider the use of our nuclear capabilities (for example, we do not define what we consider to be our vital interests), hence, we will not rule in or out the first use of nuclear weapons

UK does not require US or NATO authorisation to use its deterrent

The UK has long been clear that we would only consider using nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence, including the defence of our NATO Allies, and in accordance with our international legal obligations, including those relating to the conduct of armed conflict.

I assume that 'relating to the conduct of armed conflict' covers the whole spectrum of weapons in a conflict, conventional, chemical and biological. A catch all phrase.

You're suggesting handing them over to the RAF and only to be used Monday to Friday 9-5 (early finish on Friday)?

you know the RAF well then ..... ;-D

and only if they can live in 5 star hotel 😀

I see. So Jamba is referring to the hypothetical where Russia invades us, having marched across the entire of europe (except France)? He can't be referring to a guaranteed NATO response since the US and France are in NATO

They were so not serious about invasion that they military mapped most large towns in the UK in detail

TBH I think the people in most danger of US nuclear weapons are probably other Americans

No wonder the soviets were paranoid

They always are, it is part of their makeup.

No wonder the soviets were paranoid, they had just fought and won the great patriotic war (where 80% of the German forces were deployed against them) at enormous cost in men

Well the enormous cost in men was in a big part a result of Soviet tactics.

The left always make the mistake of trusting the Soviets too much (see the Rolls-Royce Nene fiasco) and the right trust the Yanks too much. Far better to be in control of your own destiny.

You claim to understand the game theory, yet you keep coming up with stuff like this

I said I understand it, not that I agree or accept the conclusions drawn from it. The problem with all this red blooded military talk is that it conveniently ignores the central issue, which is the murder of millions, possibly billions of people, and I'm always amazed at how this aspect seems to be ignored or degraded when people talk about it. I guess I can't keep a straight face when discussing the potential destruction of human civilisation as a way of keeping the peace. The trouble with deterrence is that we're only 60 years into this crazy, reckless project, and we don't get a second chance if it goes wrong.

they still think they can win it. last man standing and all that, I'm the king of ash.

The trouble with deterrence is that we're only 60 years into this crazy, reckless project, and we don't get a second chance if it goes wrong.

Alternatively expressed as "we've been hearing for sixty years that nuclear war is imminent" - a bit like the Daily Express winter weather predictions really.

Yeah, but the French have nukes so we don't need any. It's not as if they're going to sit idly by and let a northerly breeze carry the glowing remains of London over Paris when they could have intervened first.

Ah, like that time they invaded the Ukraine and we nuked them?

My point would be that as they had nukes we did nothing much (aside from sanctions). Now copy that over to a UK without nukes and relying on the US to help out.

This is all jolly interesting but the upcoming vote in Parliament is going to be a clear Yes

My point would be that as they had nukes we did nothing much

Seems quite unlikely that our primary response to this was a nuclear response.

The deterrent also does not seem to stop nations attacking Israel either.

I do like the premise that there's a plan in the Kremlin that the second we get shot of our nuclear weapons spetsnaz will absailing into number 10 and landing craft packed with tanks will be hitting Great Yarmouth beach after sailing past the similarly ill equiped Swedes and Finns.

I would like us not to renew trident, but realistically as long as we keep having petulant children for our political leaders worldwide voted for by petulant children as demonstrated by a few here, so they can fight for turf in the worlds playground, then I don't see us growing up and relinquishing these weapons any time soon.

Is it any wonder that the five permanent members of the UN security council also are the most belligerent on the planet?

It's the same principal as the playground, isn't it.

The bullies will stay away from the small kid who has the capability to hurt him back, whether it is a bigger brother or mad fighting skills, but he small kid who doesn't have that is in danger of getting bullied.

It seems to me tht there is no need to update trident unless the hardware is so old that people think it will be unreliable if ever tested, or there are anti-missile systems in existence that render it ineffective if ever used.

Other than that people only have to think that it would work, like a bluffers hand.

Seems quite unlikely that our primary response to this was a nuclear response.

Who ever suggested that it would ever be anyone's primary response? Straw man smells of straw!

the premise that there's a plan in the Kremlin that the second we get shot of our nuclear weapons spetsnaz will absailing into number 10 and landing craft packed with tanks will be hitting Great Yarmouth beach after sailing past the similarly ill equiped Swedes and Finns.

Planning fifty years agead means that it's difficult to envisage what might lie ahead - twenty years ago the possibility of Russia invading Ukraine would have been laughed at nearly as much as the possibility of us being at war in Afghanistan. Indeed, it was so preposterous that Ukraine gave up its Nuclear weapons in return for guarantees that the UN Security Council nations would protect them from it ever happening 😳

Ukraine gave up its Nuclear weapons in return for guarantees that the UN Security Council nations would protect them from it ever happening

Are you suggesting that the Ukraine would have launched nuclear weapons against Moscow if they had them? In response to some pretty minor border skirmishes and the annexing of a disputed peninsula where most of the natives identify themselves as Russian?

It seems to me tht there is no need to update trident

As far as I understand it they aren't, the missiles are staying, it is the subs that are hitting their design life and need replacing.

Nuclear war will not be between the West against Russia, North Korea, China, Indian, Israel or even Iran ...

But rather the nuking will be a retaliation against those stolen nukes fired from those missing(countries/locations) from the list above ...

😛

mute point really as Labour wont be in government to influence the outcome one way or the other

Are you suggesting that the Ukraine would have launched nuclear weapons against Moscow if they had them? In response to some pretty minor border skirmishes and the annexing of a disputed peninsula where most of the natives identify themselves as Russian?

No, it would never have come to that, because Russia would never have invaded...

[quote=Pawsy_Bear ]mute point really as Labour wont be in government to influence the outcome one way or the other
[b]MOOT[/b] point FFS!!!

I'm going to kill the next person to get that wrong!

No, it would never have come to that, because Russia would never have invaded...

So you don't think the Russians would have calculated that the Ukraine wouldn't risk complete annihilation to defend it's claim on the Crimea and a couple of Eastern cities where everyone thinks they're Russian?

No one would ever invade UK territory because we have nukes?

There's some folk in the South Atlantic that might disagree.

[quote=dragon ]

It seems to me tht there is no need to update trident

The missiles are getting a life extension, but that's a relatively small part of the cost (we come back to JC being an idiot). The Vanguard subs are already having a life extension, but they'll still need replacing - it's not possible to continue with them beyond that.

[quote=scotroutes ]I'm going to kill the next person to get that wrong!

Make sure it's somebody without the ability to retaliate - though I wouldn't worry about anybody who reckons their mate will defend them, as in reality mates often choose self preservation 😉

[quote=scotroutes ]No one would ever invade UK territory because we have nukes?
There's some folk in the South Atlantic that might disagree.

An interesting point you make there, given that it appears the calculation was made that we wouldn't retaliate at all - they thought we had no deterrent.

They knew we had a deterrent, it just didn't deter them
They perhaps thought we had no non-nuclear retaliation though.

Imagine it was the Shetlands or the Western Isles instead. Do you think nuclear weapons would have been deployed?

[quote=scotroutes ]They knew we had a deterrent, [s]it just didn't deter them[/s] they thought we wouldn't use it

Ok, we're agreeing. They thought we wouldn't use it so it didn't deter them. Not much bloody use then!

scotroutes.

pawsy bear sends

•Emergency Action Message (EAM)!

Just asked my mate about the Falklands issue & nukes (he was down that way, at that point, Royal Marines)
'Never in a million years would the UK have used nukes for the sake of the Falklands, didn't warrant it' was his reply.

I suggest you check:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/dec/06/military.freedomofinformation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE.177
Royal Marines have nothing to do with nuclear weapons unless their guarding them.

Certainly agree we wouldn't of used them, I was just surprised we had any even on the RFAs. Given it was SOP to sail with them on board you'd have thought someone would have had them unloaded but guess there wasn't the time.

Royal Marines have nothing to do with nuclear weapons unless their guarding them.

As in...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Escort_Group_(Ministry_of_Defence_Police)

Yeah, we already know that.

My post was simply my mate's thoughts on the subject.

if JC keeps up like this, he won't get a seat on the company board.

Yup and Margret Beckets report doesn't shy away from the issues. Not least of which is the change in social population towards more pensioners.

Labour needs to change radically. It needs to win votes and for that you have to drop the idological policies for ones people will vote for. I saw this is comment JC as simply another own goal. I had some respect for his principled stands up to now only to see him throw it all away.

I'm going to kill the next person to get that wrong!

That isn't much of a deterrent unless we know you will actually follow through. I mean, if it's only for show then the ongoing threat of retaliation is a bit of a mute point.

Labour needs to change radically. It needs to win votes and for that you have to drop the idological policies for ones people will vote for.

If we had PR, both Labour and the Tories could split and you would end up with two broadly centrist parties from the moderates, then the Corbyn left and kipper Tory's. Most people would probably vote for the centre-right or centre-left parties but there are probably enough on the further left and further right to carry some sway. It could work quite well, but will never happen under FPTP.

If we had PR, both Labour and the Tories could split and you would end up with two broadly centrist parties from the moderates, then the Corbyn left and kipper Tory's. Most people would probably vote for the centre-right or centre-left parties but there are probably enough on the further left and further right to carry some sway. It could work quite well, but will never happen under FPTP.

Sounds pretty much like what we have now? Plus ca change and all that...

not in favour of PR, I'd rather have strong government of whatever flavour. Cant see that PR governments are better. Whilst we can look to other countries where it has worked or failed it doesn't mean its right for this country. No two countries are the same. Why do we need PR, aren't the Liberia's the natural home of centralist voters?

I was in favour of the coalition for the Liberals I thought it would give them a chance, after years in the wilderness, to be part of the decision making process and deliver their polices.

The British public thought otherwise. I thought any chance of getting your policies delivered would have been good. The alternative was to never deliver anything for your supporters. But it wasn't seen like that.

I didn't vote liberal BTW. Id suggest most centralists wouldn't either.

Sounds pretty much like what we have now?

you ignore the two major ones splitting

What do you think the creation of the SDP and UKIP were?