tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Even now they aren’t circulated though, they are put in a secure place aboard and hopefully never opened. That is after all the only place they would ever be needed.
Current Affairs The Labour Party
- Thread starter Number_25
- Start date
- Status
Even now they aren’t circulated though, they are put in a secure place aboard and hopefully never opened. That is after all the only place they would ever be needed.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Thats what I meant! The folk who would need them have access to them.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Yes, but they fundamentally are not directions to protect the UK population - they can’t be if they are only opened after we’ve been nuked.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
We are splitting hairs mate. My initial point was a PM has a responsibility to protect the UK, which trumps any personal opinions on the merits of nukes.
And I agree. Chances of them being used is remote anyrate, as any future big wars will be cyber ones.
But, back to the Labour Party....arsed about them personally.
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
That is again just the worst case scenario and least probable. There are only four/five states that could inflict that kind of destruction you are talking about. Hypothetically say even if Putin wanted London to be a pile of rubble tomorrow, he couldn't as I presume he likes Moscow the way it looks now. Mutually assured destruction prevents that kind of thing from happening unless the world flips right on it's head, which in that case a quick death might not be the worst thing.
It is much more likely to be either a country that has developed a small nuclear weapon or like you say a rogue terrorist group. Jezza would more than likely be alive as a one off device is probably not going to get him as I doubt he would be the specific target of an attack.
Basically picture a nerdy teenager that was always getting bullied at school, luckily enough he had the money to employ a fully grown tough looking man to always be at his side, so the other kids leave him alone, even if he said nasty things to them. One day he let on to another student that the 'bodyguard' is just paid to follow him around, he wouldn't be allowed to get involved even if kids started on him as that could lead to lawsuits if a minor was injured etc.
After that it soon gets around the school and it becomes open season again on the kid. That is how our nuclear deterrent works and JC has done what that kid did and it isn't sensible.
As @roydo said he is quite welcome to have his views on nuclear weapons, it is a noble view afterall, but he has responsibilities beyond his own beliefs if he becomes PM. By publicly saying that it is just another stone that can be thrown his way why he isn't up to the job.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Again, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that (a) it’s the PM who decides to launch (which has been discussed at length above) and (b) that we would respond to a terrorist / rogue state small scale nuclear attack with Trident anyway.
If we fired one of those off it would put every other state with nukes on edge. Given that the likely target states (Iran, NK, Afghanistan) all border those nuclear states as well, it would run the risk of triggering a response of the worst kind - they’d have to seconds to decide whether or not we were aiming at them.
As long as the Trident subs are out, they are a deterrent irrespective of who the PM is.
The above was a response to roydo (I agreed with roydo's point) - don't know how to download multiple quotes!
Not sure what tsubaki's point is? several points but no conclusion. I suspect it is that we should dump nuclear weapons, but I could be wrong.
As I see it, there are four scenario's:
1. Nuclear arms as a deterrent.
2. Terrorist attack.
3. Pearl Harbour type attack
4. Build-up of tension type attack.
First, we can eliminate 'terrorist attack' as this will happen whether we have nukes or not.
Then, in reverse order, we have the build-up tension, ie the Cuban missile crisis. In this context, whoever has their finger on the button will not be asleep but will be 300ft underground. Next, the Pearl Harbour type attack, no warning. The options are, to fight back or surrender. I think if there was time for a referendum it would be 95% fight back. Finally, nuclear arms as a deterrent. We have 74 years of history which tells us that it works.
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
I hear what you say and your a) might be the fall back if a PM is unavailable due to likely injury or death but it is more likley to be approved by the PM. This is pulled from the government website:
Decision making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK; only the Prime Minister can authorise the launch of nuclear weapons, which ensures that political control is maintained at all times
I agree that b) with a rogue group there would probably be no way we would strike back unless it can be proved conclusively that they were aided and abetted by a state. The other there is a decision to be made, if it killed 250k Londoners, there is a question to pick a similar sized population base on the responsible party.
It's all semantics at the end of the day, given what would happen in your examples I probably agree with your appraisal. I'm coming from a different perspective. Is the nuclear way perfect of course not but we live in an imperfect world. I would seriously doubt May would have the balls to authorise a strike push comes to shove, but when asked the question she gave the answer that makes it easier for most to sleep at night. Corbyn did not. Of course in the event of anything happening he could be forced out for someone who will act (this may be conventional weapons seeing he is anti war) however that would not be good for Corbyn or the Labour party.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
She cant be criticised though because it's anti-semitic.
To be fair, Corbyn said that he'd govern on behalf of the members, yet something like 70% of Labour members want a 2nd referendum. He can't have it both ways, can he?
Socrates
Player Valuation: £6m
And even more members want a General Election. So he can.
Regarding your earlier post asking how Corbyn would get a better deal than May, it all boils down to stategy.
There are a few ways of negotiating as I'm sure you are aware.
One is to state your demands and hold fast with no deal being the alternative.
The car buyers strategy.
David Davis tried this one and bailed out when he didn't get his way.
So, Theresa May went for another.
Give the other party everything they want in exchange for the one thing you want.
In her case, that was freedom of movement. Or more specifically, the curtailment of.
The EU had their way on everything else including the infamous 20xx backstop end date.
We all know how that has been received.
Which leaves Corbyn and Starmer's proposal.
Start off by agreeing where your mutual interests lie, which covers at least 80% of the deal.
For example, guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens already residing here and those from the UK residing in Europe.
Then trade off the rest.
It won't be easy but starting from a spirit of co-operation instead of an adversarial and antagonistic manner would result in a deal that would stand a better chance of being accepted by a majority of those in all camps. The leavers, the remainers and the EU.
Of course those at the extreme end of both positions wouldn't accept anything but total capitulation to their wishes but listening to them has got us into this mess and I mean the no dealers at one end and the complete Europhiles who want further integration at the other when I say extremes.
That combined with a government that is committed to investing in and working for the interests of everybody rather than a privileged few will have a hugely positive impact on this country, helping to heal the rifts in our society and ironically, having a positive influence on Europe too, once it is seen to be working.
And some say Labour doesn't have a plan.
Not quite true. They don't have a platform.
That will end when a GE is called.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Bruce, polling commissioned by the people who do want a second referendum shows that around 70% of people who identified as Labour members want a second referendum. This is different to “70% of Labour members want a 2nd referendum” - you can see what the membership actually wanted by the resolution passed at conference, which actually is Labour policy at present.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
You are completely wrong here. The weapons exist as a deterrent yes, but that is all they exist as.
A Pearl Harbour style attack with nuclear weapons would not be survivable, there would be no fight back because we would all be dead.
The “slow build up of tension” argument has never occurred using modern weapons (during the missile crisis there were no sub-launched ballistic missiles, no land launched missiles that could’ve launched immediately (they had to be fuelled first) and most nukes would still have been delivered by aircraft) - this allowed tension to build and gave people the space in which to find a solution. With modern weapons, the speed with which we could destroy ourselves is so rapid it has largely prevented that sort of situation taking place again.
My point is that this criticism of Corbyn because he wouldn’t launch a first strike, or wouldn’t launch a limited strike in response to a limited attack, or wouldn’t push the button in case of a proper exchange, just betrays people’s ignorance. No PM would do any of that.
- Status