The labour Leader thread...

[Glaucus]

What? NK doesn't have nukes.
e).

They are believed to have nuclear weaponry by most of the world

They left the NPT, they say they have nuclear weapons, we picked up seismograph detection if underground test and radio isotopes.

The option of sorting NK out ended when they became a nuclear country, china also helped in that regard before they became nuclear.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

So you are saying that it is impossible that at any point in the future we will ever find ourselves at war again with another nation?

That's not what I'm saying at all.

They are believed to have nuclear weaponry by most of the world

They left the NPT, they say they have nuclear weapons, we picked up seismograph detection if underground test and radio isotopes.

No, most intelligence agencies believ NK have successfully conducted two nuclear explosive tests (and one partially successful test). Most agree however that they have yet to weaponise the items tested.

 

[Rroff]

That's not what I'm saying at all.

That is exactly what you are saying.

 

[PermaBanned]

That's got to do with? Nothing.
Scrapping nukes is not going to stop that, that is down to government policies. Out of almost 800billion, nukes cost just under 2billion a year. Scrapping them isn't going to free up large amounts if money for solving the issues you say, only massive budget reorganisation is, which I bet you like most of the public would be against.
Because doing what is needed is not popular. The only popular option is to increase debt at an ever increasing rate,

Check what thread you're in...

Please, share with us your proposal for "budget reorganisation".

 

[Deleted member 66701]

That is exactly what you are saying.

No it isn't.

You need to read my comments again.

Clue - see post 2653.

 

[Rroff]

They are believed to have nuclear weaponry by most of the world

They left the NPT, they say they have nuclear weapons, we picked up seismograph detection if underground test and radio isotopes.

Nuclear capabilities aren't the only reason - while they might be a bit of a joke generally in offensive capability its a completely different story taking it to them on their own turf - a ground war against NK would extract a bloody toll on the attacker even if they eventually win and no government would survive the fallout at home from that casualty level of their armed forces.

 

[Glaucus]

I know what thread I'm in.
You think labour will sort the country out, it wont. No government can as our democracy is based on a popularity contest every 5 years. No government can truly do what the country needs.
Labour, Tories or any one else, you will always get centre politics that are overall popular, slight difference hear or there, but essentially the same, anyone proposing anything mire drastic, simply will not be elected.

What we need is a mire fact based government lead by groups if experts in each discipline. Rather than governments using party whips and appointing idiots to be in charge of departments when they hold no such qualifications. A sting constitution stating such things would be a giid start removing the public backlash from the government to the constitution forcing them where possible to implement what is thought to be the best way forward by knowledgeable people, not public opinion.

Nuclear capabilities aren't the only reason - while they might be a bit of a joke generally in offensive capability its a completely different story taking it to them on their own turf - a ground war against NK would extract a bloody toll on the attacker even if they eventually win and no government would survive the fallout at home from that casualty level of their armed forces.

Off course it's not the only reason but it darn well helps and before they had nukes they had and still do have backing of china.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I know what thread I'm in.
You think labour will sort the country out, it wont. No government can as our democracy is based on a popularity contest every 5 years. No government can truly do what the country needs.
Labour, Tories or any one else, you will always get centre politics that are overall popular, slight difference hear or there, but essentially the same, anyone proposing anything mire drastic, simply will not be elected.

It must get depressing to be so pessimistic.

 

[Rroff]

No it isn't.

You need to read my comments again.

Clue - see post 2653.

Which I replied to a few posts back.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Which I replied to a few posts back.

I know and I disagree.

I'll spell it out.

I don't think we'll never be at war with anyone else. However, having nukes at our disposal wil neither make that event more or less likely and neither will having or not having nukes affect our success in such a conflict.

 

[Glaucus]

It must get depressing to be so pessimistic.

It's reality. It's a popularity contest and for the foresable future will be. Until public attitude changes and becomes more enlightened which is possible.

Lots of other things to be happy and optimistic about, but uk politics isn't one of them.

 

[Rroff]

Off course it's not the only reason but it darn well helps and before they had nukes they had and still do have backing of china.

Indeed - the fact that they "could" conceivably deliver a payload to US interests in the region including bases and Japan certainly makes a difference to how the US treats them compared to say Afghanistan.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

It's reality. It's a popularity contest and for the foresable future will be. Until public attitude changes and becomes more enlightened which is possible.

Lots of other things to be happy and optimistic about, but uk politics isn't one of them.

Visionaries drive the world forward, realists hold the world back.

 

[Glaucus]

Visionaries drive the world forward, realists hold the world back.

Nonsense. Realists does not mean there's no point in trying to change or pushing for change.
Large changes take time and lots of small changes to get their. Which have nothing to do with visionary or releases etc.
It's perfectly possible to be a realist and visionary and push fir change at the same time.

 

[Rroff]

I know and I disagree.

I'll spell it out.

I don't think we'll never be at war with anyone else. However, having nukes at our disposal wil neither make that event more or less likely and neither will having or not having nukes affect our success in such a conflict.

All of which is irrelevant except for the fact you admit that we can't guarantee the current climate in which in a short sighted perspective we don't have much need for nuclear weapons.

Having or not having nuclear weapons is not about the success of such a conflict but potentially heading off that conflict in the first place - once we accept that we can't rule out the likelihood of that conflict ever potentially happening (with or without nukes on the table) we have a case for having a deterrent.

Visionaries drive the world forward, realists hold the world back.

And you need a mixture of both for healthy progress... while I agree with a lot of what you say in a theoretically sense you seem to be breathtakingly naive as to how the world really works.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Having or not having nuclear weapons is not about the success of such a conflict but potentially heading off that conflict in the first place - once we accept that we can't rule out the likelihood of that conflict ever potentially happening (with or without nukes on the table) we have a case for having a deterrent.

But how effective is a deterrent when your enemies know full well that you'll never use said deterrent?

So why bother having the deterrent in the first place?

MAD is incresingly being debunked as a military doctrine by more and more military professionals and human behaviourists. It sounds odd - but the invention of the Internet is one of the drivers behind invalidating MAD (I wont spell it out - plenty of research there to keep you busy).

And you need a mixture of both for healthy progress... while I agree with a lot of what you say in a theoretically sense you seem to be breathtakingly naive as to how the world really works.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

 

[PermaBanned]

It's reality. It's a popularity contest and for the foresable future will be. Until public attitude changes and becomes more enlightened which is possible.

Lots of other things to be happy and optimistic about, but uk politics isn't one of them.

The Overton window changes all the time. In fact just by floating this idea the party has begun to change it, because it's got people talking about it.

 

[Rroff]

But how effective is a deterrent when your enemies know full well that you'll never use said deterrent?

As I posted in response its a basic underpinning of the MAD doctrine - there is a difference between them thinking you won't use it and knowing with absolute certainty you won't use it.

MAD is incresingly being debunked as a military doctrine by more and more military professionals and human behaviourists.

Actually it isn't - some military professionals have been asked leading questions like "are nuclear weapons required for the threats the military is facing today" - which the basic response to is no - which is then used as "military professionals say that we don't need nuclear weapons".

 

[Deleted member 66701]

As I posted in response its a basic underpinning of the MAD doctrine - there is a difference between them thinking you won't use it and knowing with absolute certainty you won't use it.

Which is increasingly being invalidated as a military doctrine. It's not the 1970's anymore, the world has moved on.

Anyhow, off to bed now - thanks for the debate Rroff, have a good evening

 

[RoboCod]

The point is that there doesn't need to be an alternative. Nukes are a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

....yet.

Which is increasingly being invalidated as a military doctrine. It's not the 1970's anymore, the world has moved on.

Anyhow, off to bed now - thanks for the debate Rroff, have a good evening

The cold war is alive and kicking, just in a different guise and different premise. The motives are all the same though; power struggle.