What? The whole reason Russia and China wouldn't use nuclear weapons on us or the USA, is because they know full well, they would end up getting destroyed just as much as we would.
That is how 'MAD' works.
The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
What? The whole reason Russia and China wouldn't use nuclear weapons on us or the USA, is because they know full well, they would end up getting destroyed just as much as we would.
That is how 'MAD' works.
Reigned in the Torys, stopped them scrapping the Human Rights Act, stopped them slashing the NHS as much as they wanted, stopped them slashing benefits as much as they wanted.
Basically anything that this government does that is worse than what the coalition did.
It's not pointless at all and WOULD change our own demise, because if they know that killing us will result in us killing them, they won't kill us.
It's also irrelevant if Corbyn says he would never order a nuclear attack, he isn't the only one who can, after a nuclear attack on London kills him the will be numerous high ranking MPs capable of ordering a retaliatory strike, and IIRC the subs will be under standing orders to launch by themselves x hours after a strike on the UK unless ordered not too (it's standard practice to avoid a sneak attack wiping out any ability to respond).
We can't uninvent nuclear weapons, and the world is getting to be a more fractious and dangerous place. I dunno what to do about Trident, it is very much a Rolls-Royce solution when the requirement might well be satisfied by a Jag. One thing I am certain of is that we need to be investing money and researching other, newer weapons of mass destruction. I'd damn sure Russia and China are doing this, so we'd be foolish not to.
To even mention china is ridiculous, they are one of our bigger trading partners. George Osborne has just returned from there after discussing closer financial agreements.
They are even going to build our new nuclear power station.
I think it is safe to sat they are not considered a threat.
They are even going to build our new nuclear power station.
I think it is safe to sat they are not considered a threat.
If, as we are told, the biggest threat we face is from terrorism, how do nuclear weapons counter that?
TBH I don't think it matters that Mr Corbyn won't use nukes under any circumstances. If he becomes PM and the matter ever becomes critical, I expect he'd find himself removed from that position immediately.
In fact, having them but with the potential future PM saying he won't authorise their use isn't a bad position to be in really. I can't see other nations (friend or foe) not being aware of the abovepossibility probability. If Mr Corbyn were PM, the only assurance that other countries could take is that we wouldn't be attacking or invading anyone else for a while. Defence is a whole different story.
In fact, having them but with the potential future PM saying he won't authorise their use isn't a bad position to be in really. I can't see other nations (friend or foe) not being aware of the above
exactly, if the worst situation occurs the military will not sit back and do what he says.
biggest threat =/= only threat
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Everyone is a threat in a world with limited space and resources, just some more so than others.
China already runs a sophisticated cyber warfare campaign against the West, stealing our technology and trade secrets. They are now building a blue water navy with an eye to extending its influence further into international affairs. And above all, it's a bloody communist dictatorship.
Our relationship with China is not going to remain friendly for long. The Chancellor is just trying to get as much cash out of them whilst we can.
Well because obviously nukes don't counter terrorists. They do counter nations and the lack of world wars since ww2 has been largely to do with nukes. I don't see how people just brush off nations like Russia who have a gigantic stockpile and is controlled by one man with questionable motives to say the least.
Alan Sugar ridiculing Corbyn was just cut off mid sentence on ITV, it would be interesting to find out what he said.
When they came back they said the weather took priority, yes you always cut people off for the weather forecast mid sentence don't you.
When they came back they said the weather took priority, yes you always cut people off for the weather forecast mid sentence don't you.
I wasn't thinking of the military. I can't see parliament sitting idle and saying nothing. If we were ever put in a position where launching (or threatening to launch) a nuke was the only sensible answer, Mr Corbyn would be given a choice between doing the sensible thing, resigning or being sacked.
And yet that country has meddled far less in foreign affairs than westerns countries.
Britain's relationship with India started out as trading partners, then we kinda took it over. I've always suspected that this rush to do business with China will be seen as a monumental folly in years to come because they have a very different geo-politicial outlook than the west does.
Right so that auto-disqualifies their invading of Ukraine, corruption, repression, unsolved murders and lack of democracy which, you know, is kinda better than having one man control everything? Don't cha think? Let's drop our defences because this is obviously a better nation than ours and we can ignore their mammoth nuke stockpile as it's irrelevant.
I never said Russia was better, i merely pointed out that as far as nations go the west is as bad if not worse.
Ok that doesn't make sense but I get what you're saying and I don't agree at all.