| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. 03:22 - Jun 3 with 4221 views | Meraki |
... because he wont push the "Nuke" button?
Who the f*ck wants anyone to push that? |  | | |  |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 06:02 - Jun 3 with 2332 views | Humpty |
Stupid hateful people?
There's a lot of them about. |  | | |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 07:33 - Jun 3 with 2298 views | jojaca |
He could easily have lied to cut the debate short, but I admire his honestly. Who wants to kill millions of people? |  |
| Even when you know, you never know? |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 07:51 - Jun 3 with 2280 views | swanforthemoney |
Because we live on an island that's pretty difficult to conquer (even if anyone wanted to), lots of folks think we can press the button and nuke someone without any comeback.
Just like you bomb bits of the Middle East and there's no impact, right?
Personally I find it difficult to envisage circumstances where a prime minister would need to press the button. On the other hand, the global nuclear standoff that's existed since the Cold War has, ironically, contributed to 70 years of relative peace in Europe.
So, keep it as a deterrent, say you would use it, but really, ultimately, don't use it. That's my position. |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 08:09 - Jun 3 with 2262 views | icecoldjack |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 07:51 - Jun 3 by swanforthemoney |
Because we live on an island that's pretty difficult to conquer (even if anyone wanted to), lots of folks think we can press the button and nuke someone without any comeback.
Just like you bomb bits of the Middle East and there's no impact, right?
Personally I find it difficult to envisage circumstances where a prime minister would need to press the button. On the other hand, the global nuclear standoff that's existed since the Cold War has, ironically, contributed to 70 years of relative peace in Europe.
So, keep it as a deterrent, say you would use it, but really, ultimately, don't use it. That's my position. |
Which is the right position.
All Corbyn needs to do is walk that line but his History means he's snookered himself. Vice president for the campaign of Nuclear disarmarment and stating he's a pacifiest and would never use Nuclear weapons pretty much means his government will be weak in terms of the 70 yr check mate that has quelled further world war .
I think we all love corbyns principles but the reality is that while he's leader the Tories have an easy ride. |  | | |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 08:37 - Jun 3 with 2236 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 08:09 - Jun 3 by icecoldjack |
Which is the right position.
All Corbyn needs to do is walk that line but his History means he's snookered himself. Vice president for the campaign of Nuclear disarmarment and stating he's a pacifiest and would never use Nuclear weapons pretty much means his government will be weak in terms of the 70 yr check mate that has quelled further world war .
I think we all love corbyns principles but the reality is that while he's leader the Tories have an easy ride. |
The Tories have had far from an easy ride.
What Corbyn should have said was " so, what you're saying (Mr thicko) is that once North Korea (!) has launched a preemptive strike against us here, before we all get horribly fried to cinders we should make sure that they do to. You do realise our missiles can't stop theirs in mid air, don't you? So, what you're saying is it's alright if we're all going to die, as long as they are too? OK, let it go on record this evening that if attacked, I'll fry the other side just to make it right and fair. "
How this is even an issue after nearly 75 years since Hiroshima just goes to show how much the population worry about the most stupid and abstract concepts whist allowing the Tories to rob us blind because they'll "definitely fire back". We'll all be f*cking dead anyway!!! |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 09:00 - Jun 3 with 2202 views | longlostjack |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 08:37 - Jun 3 by Brynmill_Jack |
The Tories have had far from an easy ride.
What Corbyn should have said was " so, what you're saying (Mr thicko) is that once North Korea (!) has launched a preemptive strike against us here, before we all get horribly fried to cinders we should make sure that they do to. You do realise our missiles can't stop theirs in mid air, don't you? So, what you're saying is it's alright if we're all going to die, as long as they are too? OK, let it go on record this evening that if attacked, I'll fry the other side just to make it right and fair. "
How this is even an issue after nearly 75 years since Hiroshima just goes to show how much the population worry about the most stupid and abstract concepts whist allowing the Tories to rob us blind because they'll "definitely fire back". We'll all be f*cking dead anyway!!! |
Exactly. Mind boggling stuff. |  |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 09:09 - Jun 3 with 2191 views | sherpajacob |
There are about 7 or 8 countries that have nuclear weapons.
How do the other 100 plus nations without nuclear weapons sleep at night knowing they are open to attack at any time?
It's not about deference or deterrent, it's about maintaining the illusion for some people that the UK is a global power.
It's a very expensive way to do it.
For those concerned about defence, the same money should be spent on conventional defence, including employing personnel and building ships, tanks and airplanes in the UK.
Alternatively we could spend the money on health, education and infrastructure. |  |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 09:12 - Jun 3 with 2184 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 09:09 - Jun 3 by sherpajacob |
There are about 7 or 8 countries that have nuclear weapons.
How do the other 100 plus nations without nuclear weapons sleep at night knowing they are open to attack at any time?
It's not about deference or deterrent, it's about maintaining the illusion for some people that the UK is a global power.
It's a very expensive way to do it.
For those concerned about defence, the same money should be spent on conventional defence, including employing personnel and building ships, tanks and airplanes in the UK.
Alternatively we could spend the money on health, education and infrastructure. |
The people who ask these questions read the mail and the sun and blindly believe whatever propaganda that is fed to them. We're f*cked with a large part of the electorate being a stupid as this! | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 09:20 - Jun 3 with 2170 views | Gowerjack |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 09:12 - Jun 3 by Brynmill_Jack |
The people who ask these questions read the mail and the sun and blindly believe whatever propaganda that is fed to them. We're f*cked with a large part of the electorate being a stupid as this! |
Yep.
That's why we have the Brexit clusterfcuk |  |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 09:34 - Jun 3 with 2139 views | johnlangy |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 08:37 - Jun 3 by Brynmill_Jack |
The Tories have had far from an easy ride.
What Corbyn should have said was " so, what you're saying (Mr thicko) is that once North Korea (!) has launched a preemptive strike against us here, before we all get horribly fried to cinders we should make sure that they do to. You do realise our missiles can't stop theirs in mid air, don't you? So, what you're saying is it's alright if we're all going to die, as long as they are too? OK, let it go on record this evening that if attacked, I'll fry the other side just to make it right and fair. "
How this is even an issue after nearly 75 years since Hiroshima just goes to show how much the population worry about the most stupid and abstract concepts whist allowing the Tories to rob us blind because they'll "definitely fire back". We'll all be f*cking dead anyway!!! |
He was asked basically the same type of question a few weeks ago. He was asked would you authorize a drone attack to kill the leader of ISIS.
He didn't answer yes or no because he can't. Because it's a stupid question. Faced with that situation he would say 'where is he ?'. Imagine the answer was 'he's in a house in a suburb of Aleppo'. Then he'd ask 'can we be sure that we'd get him without killing other innocent people ?'. The answer would be 'we can't guarantee that'.
So, if it was you would you (not you BJ, the generic you) say we'll take the chance if it's only 5 innocent people that would die (that's real women/children/men). Or would your limit be 10 ? Or 20, 50, 100 ?
How can a question like that be answered ? | | | |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 09:46 - Jun 3 with 2118 views | Kilkennyjack |
Even if UK fires first its almost certainly assured mutual destruction.
Spend the money on the military if you have to, but this is mad.
Theresa is happy to press the button mind - if anyone can find her.
'A blow hard who collapses at the first sign of gun fire'. Brilliant. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 09:56 - Jun 3 with 2103 views | Shaky |
Well if you're never going to use it, there's obviously no point in having it.
But deterrence does have a value, albeit a somewhat uncertain one.
Here's a surprisingly lucid analysis by American right-wing nut job Charles Krauthammer on the harm done to the value of NATO's deterrence by Trump's refusal of publicly endorse Article 5:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump Undermined NATO’s Deterrent Effect
And for what?
By Charles Krauthammer
So what if, in his speech last week to NATO, Donald Trump didn’t explicitly reaffirm the provision that an attack on one is an attack on all?
What’s the big deal? Didn’t he affirm a general commitment to NATO during his visit? Hadn’t he earlier sent his vice president and secretaries of state and defense to pledge allegiance to Article 5?
And anyway, who believes that the United States would really go to war with Russia – and risk nuclear annihilation – over Estonia?
Ah, but that’s precisely the point. It is because deterrence is so delicate, so problematic, so literally unbelievable that it is not to be trifled with. And why for an American president to gratuitously undermine what little credibility deterrence already has, by ostentatiously refusing to recommit to Article 5, is so shocking.
Deterrence is inherently a barely believable bluff. Even at the height of the Cold War, when highly resolute presidents, such as Eisenhower and Kennedy, threatened Russia with “massive retaliation” (i.e., all-out nuclear war), would we really have sacrificed New York for Berlin?
No one knew for sure. Not Eisenhower, not Kennedy, not the Soviets, not anyone. Yet that very uncertainty was enough to stay the hand of any aggressor and keep the peace of the world for 70 years.
Deterrence does not depend on 100 percent certainty that the other guy will go to war if you cross a red line. Given the stakes, merely a chance of that happening can be enough. For 70 years, it was enough.
Leaders therefore do everything they can to bolster it. Install tripwires, for example. During the Cold War, we stationed troops in Germany to face the massive tank armies of Soviet Russia. Today we have 28,000 troops in South Korea, 12,000 near the demilitarized zone.
Why? Not to repel invasion. They couldn’t. They’re not strong enough. To put it very coldly, they’re there to die. They’re a deliberate message to the enemy that if you invade our ally, you will have to kill a lot of Americans first. Which will galvanize us into full-scale war against you.
Tripwires are risky, dangerous, and cynical. Yet we resort to them because parchment promises are problematic and tripwires imply automaticity. We do what we can to strengthen deterrence.
Rhetorically as well. Which is why presidents from Truman on have regularly and powerfully reaffirmed our deterrent pledge to NATO. Until Trump.
His omission was all the more damaging because of his personal history. This is a man chronically disdainful of NATO. He campaigned on its obsolescence. His inaugural address denounced American allies as cunning parasites living off American wealth and generosity. One of Trump’s top outside advisers, Newt Gingrich, says that “Estonia is in the suburbs of St. Petersburg,” as if Russian designs on the Baltic states are not at all unreasonable.
Deterrence does not depend on 100 percent certainty that the other guy will go to war if you cross a red line.Moreover, Trump devoted much of that very same speech, the highlight of his first presidential trip to NATO, to berating the allies for not paying their fair share. Nothing particularly wrong with that, or new – half a century ago Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield was so offended by NATO free-riding that he called for major reductions of U.S. troops in Europe.
That’s an American perennial. But if you’re going to berate, at least reassure as well. Especially given rising Russian threats and aggression. Especially given that Trump’s speech was teed up precisely for such reassurance. An administration official had spread the word that he would use the speech to endorse Article 5. And it was delivered at a ceremony honoring the first and only invocation of Article 5 – ironically enough, by the allies in support of America after 9/11.
And yet Trump deliberately, defiantly refused to simply say it: America will always honor its commitment under Article 5.
It’s not that, had Trump said the magic words, everyone would have 100 percent confidence we would strike back if Russia were to infiltrate little green men into Estonia, as it did in Crimea. But Trump’s refusal to utter those words does lower whatever probability Vladimir Putin might attach to America responding with any seriousness to Russian aggression against a NATO ally.
Angela Merkel said Sunday (without mentioning his name) that after Trump’s visit it is clear that Europe can no longer rely on others. It’s not that yesterday Europe could fully rely – and today it cannot rely at all. It’s simply that the American deterrent has been weakened. And deterrence weakened is an invitation to instability, miscalculation, provocation and worse.
And for what?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448194/trump-refuses-affirm-nato-article-5 |  |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 10:05 - Jun 3 with 2088 views | yescomeon |
 |  |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 10:07 - Jun 3 with 2080 views | ploppy |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 08:37 - Jun 3 by Brynmill_Jack |
The Tories have had far from an easy ride.
What Corbyn should have said was " so, what you're saying (Mr thicko) is that once North Korea (!) has launched a preemptive strike against us here, before we all get horribly fried to cinders we should make sure that they do to. You do realise our missiles can't stop theirs in mid air, don't you? So, what you're saying is it's alright if we're all going to die, as long as they are too? OK, let it go on record this evening that if attacked, I'll fry the other side just to make it right and fair. "
How this is even an issue after nearly 75 years since Hiroshima just goes to show how much the population worry about the most stupid and abstract concepts whist allowing the Tories to rob us blind because they'll "definitely fire back". We'll all be f*cking dead anyway!!! |
You say "You do realise our missiles can't stop theirs in mid air, don't you?".
Just curious what you know about Britain's ballistic missile defence capability and its strategy for the future? | | | |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 10:54 - Jun 3 with 2028 views | perchrockjack |
Face it
He cannot be criticised
Summer of 67 wasn't perfect
World is under threat
His answer is to talk ,negotiate.
Sounds great
Hasn't always worked
Cue more abuse | |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:03 - Jun 3 with 1982 views | blueytheblue |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 07:33 - Jun 3 by jojaca |
He could easily have lied to cut the debate short, but I admire his honestly. Who wants to kill millions of people? |
Nobody does.
The left are as usual missing the f*cking point.
Mutually assured distruction prevents use of nukes. You can launch your nukes...and then get nuked into oblivion yourself The only way that deterrent works is with a leader prepared to push the button.
Rogue nation decides to target UK, sees Corbyn as PM and knows that he'll never press the button in retaliation. Little incentive for that rogue nation not to fire the nukes - the only deterrent would be if allies with nukes would intervene. | |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:07 - Jun 3 with 1974 views | sherpajacob |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:03 - Jun 3 by blueytheblue |
Nobody does.
The left are as usual missing the f*cking point.
Mutually assured distruction prevents use of nukes. You can launch your nukes...and then get nuked into oblivion yourself The only way that deterrent works is with a leader prepared to push the button.
Rogue nation decides to target UK, sees Corbyn as PM and knows that he'll never press the button in retaliation. Little incentive for that rogue nation not to fire the nukes - the only deterrent would be if allies with nukes would intervene. |
So NATO , the UN or other nuclear powers would take no action against rogue nation.
I'm not aware of any rogue nations threatening to nuke Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia etc etc etc.
What exactly would rogue nation stand to gain?
[Post edited 3 Jun 2017 11:10]
| |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:08 - Jun 3 with 1971 views | Jack_Meoff |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:03 - Jun 3 by blueytheblue |
Nobody does.
The left are as usual missing the f*cking point.
Mutually assured distruction prevents use of nukes. You can launch your nukes...and then get nuked into oblivion yourself The only way that deterrent works is with a leader prepared to push the button.
Rogue nation decides to target UK, sees Corbyn as PM and knows that he'll never press the button in retaliation. Little incentive for that rogue nation not to fire the nukes - the only deterrent would be if allies with nukes would intervene. |
correct me if I'm wrong bluey, wasn't the point about the preemptive use of said weapons, not the retaliative use? |  |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:09 - Jun 3 with 1968 views | blueytheblue |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:07 - Jun 3 by sherpajacob |
So NATO , the UN or other nuclear powers would take no action against rogue nation.
I'm not aware of any rogue nations threatening to nuke Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia etc etc etc.
What exactly would rogue nation stand to gain?
[Post edited 3 Jun 2017 11:10]
|
There isn't any rogue nation threatening to nuke anyone at the moment.
It's still a deterrent.
You have more faith in NATO, UN et al than I do. | |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:22 - Jun 3 with 1940 views | Neath_Jack |
Some silly people out there isnt there.
If someone is of the mindset to send a nuke over, do you think that they are going to be overly bothered about us having one? Of course they're not.
F*cking stupid.
Scrap the the trident and put the money towards something that can really make a difference to people, here and now.
It's another stick to beat Corbyn with though, because lets face it, other than that and his supposed IRA links, they've got f*ck all else. |  |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:35 - Jun 3 with 1919 views | blueytheblue |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:22 - Jun 3 by Neath_Jack |
Some silly people out there isnt there.
If someone is of the mindset to send a nuke over, do you think that they are going to be overly bothered about us having one? Of course they're not.
F*cking stupid.
Scrap the the trident and put the money towards something that can really make a difference to people, here and now.
It's another stick to beat Corbyn with though, because lets face it, other than that and his supposed IRA links, they've got f*ck all else. |
Well, yeah, I think you'll find if you wanted to punch me in the head but I was fully prepared to smash your face in... you'd not throw a punch.
Scrap trident. Ok, there are around 10k jobs directly and indirectly stemming from Trident. I presume you've a plan to create jobs to replace those lost?
"Supposed IRA links"? There's absolutely zero "supposed" about it. | |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:36 - Jun 3 with 1919 views | rock1n |
The point is it is a 'deterrent' i.e. It is not meant to be used.
It stopped mutual destruction during the Cold War. By having this bizarre policy of renewing trident yet not entertaining the possibility of using it labour are being ridiculous and if you weren't so one eyed and biased you would see this.
This idea people were saying bomb 'em is classic propaganda they were saying in the unlikely event we were attacked would you be prepared to hit back, that is a pretty fair question.
The UK and France are protectors of Europe - this idea the Germans etc would be happy for us to give them up is ludicrous Russia would see weakness and annex the East. |  |
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter |
| |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:54 - Jun 3 with 1903 views | johnlangy |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:03 - Jun 3 by blueytheblue |
Nobody does.
The left are as usual missing the f*cking point.
Mutually assured distruction prevents use of nukes. You can launch your nukes...and then get nuked into oblivion yourself The only way that deterrent works is with a leader prepared to push the button.
Rogue nation decides to target UK, sees Corbyn as PM and knows that he'll never press the button in retaliation. Little incentive for that rogue nation not to fire the nukes - the only deterrent would be if allies with nukes would intervene. |
I'll check back for confirmation but I believe he actually said not first strike or some wording like that. | | | |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:55 - Jun 3 with 1898 views | johnlangy |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 10:05 - Jun 3 by yescomeon |
|
Well done. What a bunch of pillocks. | | | |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:57 - Jun 3 with 1887 views | rock1n |
| Are people honestly having a go at Corbyn.. on 11:55 - Jun 3 by johnlangy |
Well done. What a bunch of pillocks. |
Only because you disagree with them, if they were having a go at May you'd say heroes.
Corbyn had a good night but was rattled on the nuclear issue and IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
You can have all your wishy washy crap, but in the end it's crap. The defence of realm is the most important facet of any Gov, he is weak on this. | |
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
