Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[Tubey]

That is not even remotely close to what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. At one point a Soviet submarine officer overruled an order to launch a nuclear torpedo. We have had many other near misses - Able Archer, the 1979 NORAD computer malfunction, the Norwegian rocket episode. We have been very, very lucky so far.

You should read Eric Schlosser.

Take the mother of all nuclear standoffs: the Cuban missile crisis. For 13 days in October 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union each threatened the other with destruction. But both countries soon stepped back from the brink when they recognized that a war would have meant curtains for everyone. As important as the fact that they did is the reason why: Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's aide Fyodor Burlatsky said later on, "It is impossible to win a nuclear war, and both sides realized that, maybe for the first time."

That is what happened. It's not spin or bluster - it was avoided because the end game was intolerable, and that has been the case ever since.

The period of peace we are currently enjoying (yes, enjoying) is completely unprecedented and should be valued, with the reasons for it celebrated.

 

[ashwuk76]

It's called expressing a view and trying to explain why that view exists, especially when you and others use "baying mob" and "bloodlust addled" to describe those who hold that view.

And you call me condescending...

the audience last night were clearly a baying mob because he refused to say he would strike first, they were jeering him, it was horrible to see.

Nuclear weapons are a danger to the planet, and yes i get the MAD theory, but i dont agree with it, if we are ever in a position to actually need to use nukes we are all proper screwed and may as well kiss our ass goodbye.

You say nuclear weapons have kept the world safer? hmm if no nuclear weapons exisited do you think North Korea would be trying to develop them? no they would be happy with conventional means. Peace needs to happen, and yes that makes me sound like a hippy but i dont care, i do not want a nuclear war, or even the threat of one. If we had a nuke fired at us, does it really matter if we did or did fire back? we would be screwed anyway.

I agree with corbyn and i am sickened that a lot of the public are happy to kill people indiscriminately with a nuclear weapon, proper sickens me.

 

[Boss_Blue]

It's called expressing a view and trying to explain why that view exists, especially when you and others use "baying mob" and "bloodlust addled" to describe those who hold that view.

And you call me condescending...

Ah right, so you were in the audience mate?

Makes sense.


And for what it's worth, while supporting multilateral nuclear disarmament, I actually disagree with Corbyn's approach to Trident.

Having said that, if you don't think a member of the public angrily demanding that we nuke North Korea before they nuke us is not portraying a bloodlust then but okay, that's politics.

 

[Mozza1987]

Really don't understand this nuclear weapons point. We have one isn't that enough. Corbyn rightly said he wouldn't use it first. As let's be honest if it came to that then it's bye bye for us all. You try other means before sending a nuke to kill millions of innocent people. Was absolutely ridiculous from some people. There is much more important issues for our country such as the Economy, NHS and Education than nuclear weapons ffs! It's stupid!

 

[Tubey]

the audience last night were clearly a baying mob because he refused to say he would strike first, they were jeering him, it was horrible to see.

Nuclear weapons are a danger to the planet, and yes i get the MAD theory, but i dont agree with it, if we are ever in a position to actually need to use nukes we are all proper screwed and may as well kiss our ass goodbye.

You say nuclear weapons have kept the world safer? hmm if no nuclear weapons exisited do you think North Korea would be trying to develop them? no they would be happy with conventional means. Peace needs to happen, and yes that makes me sound like a hippy but i dont care, i do not want a nuclear war, or even the threat of one. If we had a nuke fired at us, does it really matter if we did or did fire back? we would be screwed anyway.

I agree with corbyn and i am sickened that a lot of the public are happy to kill people indiscriminately with a nuclear weapon, proper sickens me.

To take your points one by one:

* if we are ever in a position to actually need to use nukes we are all proper screwed and may as well kiss our ass goodbye.

Exactly mate. That's the point. So you hold them to avoid that outcome, because by holding them it keeps the threshold on the consequences high. The high-ups don't care about sending millions of soldiers to their deaths in a conventional war, as they're safe behind the scenes. But a nuclear war is indiscriminate - it kills everyone. That's what assures people step back from the threshold.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that there would have been a third world war between the USSR and the USA in the 1950s/60s without nuclear weapons existing. If not, there would have been one between India and Pakistan that would have enveloped the world like Austria-Hungary/Serbia did. All completely negated by the awareness of the end game. "Mutually Assured Destruction" at this point isn't really a theory; it's a fact. It's not the same theory as the doctrine taken up by Kennedy and Krushchev - nowadays it's a holding concept that governs international diplomacy; there's always that threshold. So there's nothing to agree or disagree with - it's just a fact that nuclear weaponry provides that upper ceiling to prevent conflicts escalating.

* You say nuclear weapons have kept the world safer? hmm if no nuclear weapons exisited do you think North Korea would be trying to develop them? no they would be happy with conventional means.

Let's pretend then that the science for a large scale bomb never existed. What would North Korea be doing now? Well, it almost certainly wouldn't exist, for starters. The Korean War would have been part of a larger global conflict and it wouldn't have been stopped by stalemate as it would have escalated over and over again. Millions upon millions of lives would have been lost - if the war happened in the first place. The reality would have been the USSR would have invaded Europe in the 50s and we'd have a USA/USSR world war.

What nuclear weapons have done is, again, provide that ceiling on what countries are willing to do. You saw Putin annex Crimea, right? He backed off from any further ambitions and the west backed off from retalliating because the consequences were unthinkable. Without nuclear weapons, that's a Franz Ferdinand moment all over again.

Conventional war is infinitely more likely than nuclear war - without nuclear weapons, conventional war happens on a global scale, over and over again, as our history shows.

* If we had a nuke fired at us, does it really matter if we did or did fire back? we would be screwed anyway.

You're looking at the outcome rather than what the question actually means. It's about the philosophy and doctrine that the country holds that means an aggressor would never risk giving it a go.

Corbyn, by refusing second strike, has said that the nuclear armament is pointless - absolutely pointless. It doesn't act as a deterrent so it may as well not exist.

That's why it matters. You have to be prepared to fire back so that you never actually have to. It's rhetoric, but pragmatic rhetoric.

* i am sickened that a lot of the public are happy to kill people indiscriminately with a nuclear weapon, proper sickens me.

And here's the crux of the matter - what you describe as sickening you doesn't actually exist. Nobody wants to kill people indiscriminately with a nuclear weapon. Indeed, they want the status quo to exist so nobody ever dies from their usage. By existing, they ensure they will never be used. People who support nuclear weapons want peace every bit as much as you do - they just see a practical way of achieving it that has proven to work.

 

[Milkman]

I would like to point out that talking about Trident is exactly what the Tories want you to do this week. Everyone needs to knock it on the head immediately.

Unless there's something we haven't been told, we're not getting nuked any time soon. We are all royally f*cked if the Tories win a majority, though.

 

[Tubey]

Ah right, so you were in the audience mate?

Makes sense.


And for what it's worth, while supporting multilateral nuclear disarmament, I actually disagree with Corbyn's approach to Trident.

Having said that, if you don't think a member of the public angrily demanding that we nuke North Korea before they nuke us is not portraying a bloodlust then but okay, that's politics.

They didn't "demand" that - they wanted a possible future PM to keep up the rhetoric that passively ensure aggression is curtailed by the threat of destruction, which has maintained world peace for over half a century.

It's about leaving something unsaid so that you have a threshold on what is acceptable behaviour, so that if North Korea ever though, "say, let's drop a bomb on the south", then that switch in their head would go off that makes them aware of the consequences and stops them doing it for reasons of self-preservation.

Indeed, that audience member demanded that answer from Corbyn so we never would have to nuke or be nuked.

 

[evilwebby]

If the turnout at this GE is about 70% then the LP are in business in terms of making it a hung parliament; if it's the usual 66% then the Tories will increase their majority (though not enough to get a landslide that will set them up for a a generation to come).

Don't know why you think that. High turnouts have traditionally favoured Conservatives. Even Blair's historic landslide in 1997 was off the back of a big dropoff in turnout from the previous election.

 

[ashwuk76]

They didn't "demand" that - they wanted a possible future PM to keep up the rhetoric that passively ensure aggression is curtailed by the threat of destruction, which has maintained world peace for over half a century.

It's about leaving something unsaid so that you have a threshold on what is acceptable behaviour, so that if North Korea ever though, "say, let's drop a bomb on the south", then that switch in their head would go off that makes them aware of the consequences and stops them doing it for reasons of self-preservation.

Indeed, that audience member demanded that answer from Corbyn so we never would have to nuke or be nuked.

pretty sure that wasn't his intention. And i totally disagree with you, the audience sounded like a baying for blood mob, if you cant see that, then i am sorry, but you are wrong, its exactly how it looked on tv, whether you dont believe the public think like that or not.

 

[davek]

Don't know why you think that. High turnouts have traditionally favoured Conservatives. Even Blair's historic landslide in 1997 was off the back of a big dropoff in turnout from the previous election.

I didn't claim a big turnout always breaks Labours way; I stated that a circa 66% turnout will mean that the likelihood is a Tory win with a large majority as it'll probably mean the older voters have turned up and younger voters have failed to.

 

[Mozza1987]

To take your points one by one:

* if we are ever in a position to actually need to use nukes we are all proper screwed and may as well kiss our ass goodbye.

Exactly mate. That's the point. So you hold them to avoid that outcome, because by holding them it keeps the threshold on the consequences high. The high-ups don't care about sending millions of soldiers to their deaths in a conventional war, as they're safe behind the scenes. But a nuclear war is indiscriminate - it kills everyone. That's what assures people step back from the threshold.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that there would have been a third world war between the USSR and the USA in the 1950s/60s without nuclear weapons existing. If not, there would have been one between India and Pakistan that would have enveloped the world like Austria-Hungary/Serbia did. All completely negated by the awareness of the end game. "Mutually Assured Destruction" at this point isn't really a theory; it's a fact. It's not the same theory as the doctrine taken up by Kennedy and Krushchev - nowadays it's a holding concept that governs international diplomacy; there's always that threshold. So there's nothing to agree or disagree with - it's just a fact that nuclear weaponry provides that upper ceiling to prevent conflicts escalating.

* You say nuclear weapons have kept the world safer? hmm if no nuclear weapons exisited do you think North Korea would be trying to develop them? no they would be happy with conventional means.

Let's pretend then that the science for a large scale bomb never existed. What would North Korea be doing now? Well, it almost certainly wouldn't exist, for starters. The Korean War would have been part of a larger global conflict and it wouldn't have been stopped by stalemate as it would have escalated over and over again. Millions upon millions of lives would have been lost - if the war happened in the first place. The reality would have been the USSR would have invaded Europe in the 50s and we'd have a USA/USSR world war.

What nuclear weapons have done is, again, provide that ceiling on what countries are willing to do. You saw Putin annex Crimea, right? He backed off from any further ambitions and the west backed off from retalliating because the consequences were unthinkable. Without nuclear weapons, that's a Franz Ferdinand moment all over again.

Conventional war is infinitely more likely than nuclear war - without nuclear weapons, conventional war happens on a global scale, over and over again, as our history shows.

* If we had a nuke fired at us, does it really matter if we did or did fire back? we would be screwed anyway.

You're looking at the outcome rather than what the question actually means. It's about the philosophy and doctrine that the country holds that means an aggressor would never risk giving it a go.

Corbyn, by refusing second strike, has said that the nuclear armament is pointless - absolutely pointless. It doesn't act as a deterrent so it may as well not exist.

That's why it matters. You have to be prepared to fire back so that you never actually have to. It's rhetoric, but pragmatic rhetoric.

* i am sickened that a lot of the public are happy to kill people indiscriminately with a nuclear weapon, proper sickens me.

And here's the crux of the matter - what you describe as sickening you doesn't actually exist. Nobody wants to kill people indiscriminately with a nuclear weapon. Indeed, they want the status quo to exist so nobody ever dies from their usage. By existing, they ensure they will never be used. People who support nuclear weapons want peace every bit as much as you do - they just see a practical way of achieving it that has proven to work.

Corbyn never refused second strike yesterday on Question Time. He just said he would never push the button first, which is right.

 

[Tubey]

pretty sure that wasn't his intention. And i totally disagree with you, the audience sounded like a baying for blood mob, if you cant see that, then i am sorry, but you are wrong, its exactly how it looked on tv, whether you dont believe the public think like that or not.

It was anger at something someone found important.

The reason I gave is easier to believe than somehow believing that man wanted millions dead for a laugh mate.

The guy who shouted down May for calling the election out of self-serving interest was aggressive too - doesn't mean he wants every Tory dead.

 

[ToffeeTim]

You either refuse to ever retaliate and then don't renew trident.

Or you accept retaliation would he acceptable if attacked first and renew trident for this scenario.

You don't renew trident if you will never use it under any scenario, even if weve been hit.

That's Corbyn's problem. Massively incoherent and illogical.

 

[ashwuk76]

It was anger at something someone found important.

The reason I gave is easier to believe than somehow believing that man wanted millions dead for a laugh mate.

The guy who shouted down May for calling the election out of self-serving interest was aggressive too - doesn't mean he wants every Tory dead.

With respect what a stupid comparison... Yeah because nuclear Armageddon is comparable to calling a general election. Christ.on.a.bike.

 

[Tubey]

Corbyn never refused second strike yesterday on Question Time. He just said he would never push the button first, which is right.

He did though, he ducked the question completely - which isn't good enough. It was clear what his mindset was.

And a PM of this country should be prepared to push first if in our national interest. Note the word "prepared" - it doesn't mean they'd actually do it.

For example, if I were PM, I'd say I'd strike first if needed, and definitely retaliate, but I almost certainly wouldn't actually do it if the situation presented itself. But that's the actual point - by saying you'll do it, you ensure you never actually will.