Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[Tubey]

They clearly do if they are asking the question mate. They want to know if he would send I nuclear weapon first. That's what they asked him.

No, they don't want to nuke anyone - they want the deterrence maintained. Massive difference. They wanted a commitment to a credible deterrent so nuke would ever be fired. The insinuation is behind the question; it's not about face value.

 

[Mozza1987]

I want a nuclear free world. But with hindsight, I believe the existence of nukes is what has kept Europe largely at peace since 45. They stopped a barbaric escalation of the cold war. They are a necessary evil imo. But their purpose is removed if you've someone who wouldn't retaliate to an unprovoked attack on our own people.

I do understand your point. But if people are honestly not going to vote for him solely because he would try other means first than give his word on pushing the button then what a sad world we live in. Least he is being honest and not lying about it.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I do understand your point. But if people are honestly not going to vote for him solely because he would try other means first than give his word on pushing the button then what a sad world we live in. Least he is being honest and not lying about it.

Nothing to do with "try other means". I want a pm who actually uses the deterrent as it's designed. Ie one who would hit back if we were subject to an unprovoked attack.

 

[flibbyflob]

Nothing to do with "try other means". I want a pm who actually uses the deterrent as it's designed. Ie one who would hit back if we were subject to an unprovoked attack.

if we had one we'd all be dead anyway so it wouldn't really matter.

 

[Mozza1987]

Terrorism is only the pressing global threat because nuclear weapons exist to prevent conventional warfare. Without them, terrorism would be a footnote.

It's about the bigger picture and not taking for granted what we have enjoyed.

Terrorism is still happening though even with nuclear weapons. Unfortunely it will be hard to fully stop. I understand the points you make but it's a sad world if people seem to be only bothered about whether he will push the button or not and from that not voting for him.

 

[Mozza1987]

Nothing to do with "try other means". I want a pm who actually uses the deterrent as it's designed. Ie one who would hit back if we were subject to an unprovoked attack.

But if it was nuclear weapons then like others have said would it matter, everyone is dead anyway.

 

[Boss_Blue]

@Tubey going full throttle Damo in this thread.


Amazing stuff.

 

[Boss_Blue]

I wrote an essay on this a few pages back mate.

Genuinely crying at this.

 

[ashwuk76]

Genuinely crying at this.

Yeah I particularly liked how he broke down my post point by point Into said essay...

 

[hullefc]

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.

Since 1945 there has been constant war throughout the world, stepped up since 1989 mass slaughter in Yugoslavia. Try telling the rest of the world that this is a 'period of peace we are currently enjoying'. Since 1945 there has been wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, India - partition, Palestine, Kenya, Malaysia, Ireland, Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran/Iraq war, Syria, Libya etc. etc. etc. not stopped because of nuclear weapons. Britain has been involved in numerous wars to stop the anti colonial movements in Asia and Africa. The UK having nuclear weapons didn't stop Argentina from going into the Falklands. Conventional and non conventional.

It is a misnomer to suggest that nuclear weapons have been instrumental in creating 'the period of peace we are currently enjoying'. I am assuming you mean just the UK that has enjoyed ' the period of peace we are currently enjoying'. You claimed we are in in 'war with terrorists' after Manchester. Hardly, a 'period of peace we are currently enjoying'. The conflict in Ireland caused many many death in the occupied part Ireland controlled by the UK - hardly peace. It spilled on to the streets of Britain - deemed a 'war against terrorists'. Hardly peace. Having nuclear weapons didn't stop Iceland having a go at the British fishing industry.

This is yet another project fear against Corbyn that you are using, echoing alongside the Tories, every other project fear that you have brought up to try and discredit Corbyn. Trying to use the 'nuclear weapons have been responsible for the period of peace we are currently enjoying' is pathetic scaremongering used typically by Tories and the state controlled BBC.

We are constantly told that Iran and North Korea are a treat to the UK because they are developing the capacity to build nuclear weapons. A first strike option would eliminate them now off the face of the planet because they are supposed to be a 'thereat to the UK'. What is May waiting for a telegram, e-mail phone call from North Korea and/or Iran saying 'we are about to launch a nuclear attack against the UK' so that May can get in there first. May would be changing her mind anyway.

The 'I will use first strike' is an absurd thing to say and is a soundbite to have a go at Corbyn. It has backfired miserably. As is your anti Corbyn agenda.

 

[tsubaki]

How is it any more ridiculous than believing that guy in the audience wanted millions dead by nuclear weapons ffs

That is what that bloke wanted, so he was right to point out the consequences of what he was saying.

Though that said, this is the one thing that truly annoys me about Corbyn. He has had literally decades to come up with a better answer than the ones he gave last night, and he refuses to do so.

He could have pointed out how "the button" works (ie: that as our SSBN are out of radio contact for most of the time there wouldn't be any button to push, that's why they have those letters of last resort) and that if we were ever the victims of a nuclear attack, London would almost certainly be the target and so he would be dead anyway; that the fact they are believed to be at "days" readiness rather than hours means it isn't something that you just push a button and off it goes, defending us all; that its not a weapon we could ever (or would ever) use against rogue states like North Korea and Iran (the Trident missiles have probably between 4 and 6 warheads per missile, with yields as big as 100 kt, so launching one would probably devastate each country and substantially affect (to the point of irradiating much of their population) regional allies / rivals like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, South Korea and China), and that launching them after such an attack would be in the certain knowledge that the people responsible were all safe miles underground and the only people you'd incinerate were millions and millions of innocents. He could even have pointed out that, despite Tory rhetoric, the only set of circumstances they'd launch them is as part of a global thermonuclear exchange that would guarantee the deaths of 99% of the people in the West - which would be an admittance that their use as a deterrent had utterly failed. If it got to that point where we realistically going to launch it wouldn't protect us, it would just avenge us.

Instead he just gave his stock answer, which just walks straight into the trap of "well, you wouldn't protect us" and which doesn't in any way explain what he wants to do in a way that most people, raised on a false idea of what a nuclear exchange would be like, could ever accept or understand. (edit) To my mind this is almost unforgiveable, given how much work has been done elsewhere by him to explain what he wants to do and the vast likelihood this will come up at every interview, debate, question from the public etc.

 

[hullefc]

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.

Illogical. So you would 'push it first' but then you 'wouldn't actually do it'. Is that you Theresa? U turn after u turn.

 

[hullefc]

Did he say he would never push it though? Did them words come out of his mouth?

Why do people need to know if he is prepared to push it? Honestly don't get it because if anyone in the world pushes it then we will all be dead anyway. It's the most pointless thing ever for me. Let's worry about the NHS and Educstion first. You know more important things.

So you are saying you would lie to the British public that you would push it, when in fact you wouldn't. I thought we wanted politicians to be more honest with us?

Exactly. It is illogical and part of the lies, slurs and innuendos of the anti Corbyn brigade.

 

[davids]

No, they don't want to nuke anyone - they want the deterrence maintained. Massive difference. They wanted a commitment to a credible deterrent so nuke would ever be fired. The insinuation is behind the question; it's not about face value.

I've always been a little confused as to which country we need the deterrent against.United States, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea?Are we ever likely to be involved in conflict with any of these countries in isolation without say, Nato involvement? Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey have Nato access to atomic weapons too.In a real world situation it would be a toss up to as who would be crazy enough to blink first.For example as it stands if Russia launches any ICBM's the US wouldn't wait for the target to be identified before launching a counter.

 

[tsubaki]

Terrorism is only the pressing global threat because nuclear weapons exist to prevent conventional warfare. Without them, terrorism would be a footnote.

It's about the bigger picture and not taking for granted what we have enjoyed.

TBH terrorism is only a pressing global threat because nuclear weapons prevent conventional warfare between the great powers.

If we didn't have nukes then the US would have fought the USSR openly, rather than via proxies like the Muhjahideen in Afghanistan, and the USSR would have fought the West openly in Western Europe rather than using proxies like North Korea and North Vietnam, or all the Euroterrorism groups and the various Palestinian groups of the 70s and 80s. We all see how what went on in the cold war has affected all of us living since.

So you are right to say that its probable more people would have died if the deterrent didn't exist - though you'd be much more correct if you said more of us would have died - but we should all acknowledge what the effect of the deterrent has been, that loads of people have died on our behalf since 1945 in wars and terror attacks that weren't really about them.

Whether that is a good or bad thing morally, I don't know.