The labour Leader thread...

Thompson_NCL said:
1. Germany was occupied by the Soviets for decades.
2. It now exists under the protection of the NATO nuclear umberella
3. Many non-nuclear states have been invaded. No nuclear states have been invaded.
4. Trade does not change anything! Someone said the same thing before WWI. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.
5. Yes it is hypocritical. What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

This. And the fact whilst it is expensive, the cost spread over 30-40 years isn't as bad as some suggest. For the security it provides, it represents good value imo.

It's insurance. You hope you never have to use it, that doesn't mean it's a waste of money.
 
Last edited:
Clearly there is supporting evidence that maintaining a nuclear deterrent has a benefit of reduced occurrences of conventional warfare. This isn't the only factor to be considered

Possessing nuclear arms may yield a short term gain regarding lives lost due to the lower frequency & probability of escalation but a much higher & irrecoverable element of damage done when it does occur. The therotical gains in our security as a society may be a case of back loading our body count, with disarmament being a potential (not definite) way around this.

Personally, I'd rather have 100 conventional wars in the next 200 years than a single full scale nuclear exchange. One will kill likely billions, the other end our species.
 
I thought as much. Those are very specific exceptions that were localised events. In fact it is argued that the mini-war in Kargil did not escalate into all out war because both sides were nuclear. So we could debate that nuclear weapons have helped make the world more peaceful with that very example.

Granted, the statement that no nuclear state has been invaded is a false one. However, I think you're just being pedantic and glazing over what that really means.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
Did either country have the capability to launch or drop a nuclear weapon on the other at the time?
Click to expand...

Yes. Both have nuclear programes dating back to the '70s.

scorza said:
The Falkland Islands don't have any nuclear weapons (as a British Overseas Territory they aren't part of the UK).
Click to expand...

They didn't/don't have any Harriers, Vulcans or aircraft carriers either ;)

Neither do Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man or Gibraltar, but the UK is responsible for thier defense in the same way as it's responsible for the Falkands.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it fascinating that people really put the Trident debate above other pressing matters such as the Housing crisis, reduced income for the poor, NHS at breaking point, Tory tax reductions for the rich, etc?

The country needs to focus on sorting out the declining living standards rather than waste money on something which may never be used and even if it was to be used would effectively end the world as we know it.

Since the UK will not launching a nuke pre-emptively then they will be launching in revenge which I assume will may make some feel better after we are all dead.
 
Good god man, defensive weapons are used every day, weather or not they're actually physically fired. Nuclear arsenal massively reduces the chance of conventional wars. As we result we rarely see anything more than small skirmishes.

And good luck achieving any of that with the paltry cost of trident system.

We have two options to sort real issues out, massively increase tax fir everyone. And have some sort of living wage for all regardless of job. Or have a big think about what should or shouldn't be included in things like nhs and reduce the cost of public services. trouble is public doesn't want either, they want everything but without paying for it.
 
Glaucus said:
Good god man, defensive weapons are used every day, weather or not they're actually physically fired. Nuclear arsenal massively reduces the chance of conventional wars. As we result we rarely see anything more than small skirmishes.
Click to expand...

Then why do we also spend more than anyone else in Europe on our conventional forces and why do the States (who have an unmatched nuclear arsenal) spend more than the next 5 countries combined on their regular military?

By your reasoning, the more nuclear weapons a country has, the less need it has for conventional defence forces yet we tend to see the opposite happening.

Glaucus said:
We have two options to sort real issues out, massively increase tax fir everyone. And have some sort of living wage for all regardless of job. Or have a big think about what should or shouldn't be included in things like nhs and reduce the cost of public services. trouble is public doesn't want either, they want everything but without paying for it.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy, you can increase GDP as well which increases the tax take without anyone having to pay more (proportionally to what they get to keep) in tax.

That's Corbyn's plan, whether it'll work or not is another thing
 
Not my reasoning at all, why would more nukes increase your protection. You need enough nukes to secure your protection, after that it's pretty much willy waving. It's also not my reasoning that you heed less conventional forces wither. Nukes protect against major incursions/wars. There's still skirmishes, still assists to protect, still humanitarian aid, which all require conventional forces. Your entire thought process on this is confusing. You seem to think pirates hijacked a cargo ship, launch the nukes, off course that doesn't happen, that requires substantial and permanent conventional assists to tackle.

Good luck out growing the economy in the global market at the current time, there isn't going to be massive growth for years possibly decades.
 
Last edited:
...and round we go again.

TBH it is a bit silly that the Trident debate is overshadowing many far more important issues. Corbyn's biggest mistake so far has been trying to make a big thing of Trident. It's a polarising issue that people won't ever agree on and it could potentially put people off voting for Labour, regardless of other policies.

Trident isn't expensive. Personally I'd rather be wrong about needing it than wrong about not needing it - the consequences of the latter are far worse than the consequences of the former.
 
Last edited:
satchef1 said:
...and round we go again.

TBH it is a bit silly that the Trident debate is overshadowing many far more important issues. Corbyn's biggest mistake so far has been trying to make a big thing of Trident. It's a polarising issue that people won't ever agree on and it could potentially put people off voting for Labour, regardless of other policies.

Trident isn't expensive. Personally I'd rather be wrong about needing it than wrong about not needing it - the consequences of the latter are far worse than the consequences of the former.
Click to expand...

Quite, and when you make a valid and reasonable point it's just ignored. So lets just drop the nuke discussion, nothing is going to come of it.
 
RoboCod said:
Quite, and when you make a valid and reasonable point it's just ignored. So lets just drop the nuke discussion, nothing is going to come of it.
Click to expand...

The topic (somewhat predictably) has slid off my reasons for bringing up the point anyhow - which wasn't so much nuclear good/bad but more an interest in more detail on Corbyn's policies (granted its early days and there were/are conferences relating to policy, etc. coming up).

There seems to be a massive vagueness to a lot of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom