Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
some polls suggest AR could lose his seat!
If you think a nuclear first-strike by the UK against Iran or NK is a good idea... then we must all be very glad you aren't the one making those decisions.
completely depends on the scenario... if a strike by them is imminent then I'd be glad you weren't tbh.. seems like you'd be happy to allow us to be on the receiving end of strike and only then strike back thus killing as many people as you'd have killed if you'd struck first to begin with...
Caporegime
How do you know when a strike is imminent and at which point in the whole scenario do you strike first?
Soldato
I thougth both did well, theresa May appeared human this time round. Corbyn started strong but suffered a bit on the nuclear issue and after. So overall I think May did better this time round.
On the nuclear question I think Jeremy is actually giving the harder answer and sticking with it so he has to get some credit. The easy answer would simply be, to say yes but it's against his principle. Ultimately if it came to it it's clear we would / he would use it but is trying to channel the discussion away from fantasy hypothetical scenarios which involve murdering millions of people. It makes me feel no safer just saying yes like May has than what Corbyn is saying he would try to avoid the situation from getting there.
On the nuclear question I think Jeremy is actually giving the harder answer and sticking with it so he has to get some credit. The easy answer would simply be, to say yes but it's against his principle. Ultimately if it came to it it's clear we would / he would use it but is trying to channel the discussion away from fantasy hypothetical scenarios which involve murdering millions of people. It makes me feel no safer just saying yes like May has than what Corbyn is saying he would try to avoid the situation from getting there.
Soldato
oh please stop arguing semantics over the nuke thing - some people want them some dont - end of
now we're talking about hypotheticals - I could come up with a convoluted scenario if you like but I don't see how useful it would be if you're not willing to simply accept the premise that we know by some means one is imminent and have a choice to react... like I said it is unlikely but possible
The alternative (launching before your enemy has launched) means you have succumbed to your suspicion, distrust, paranoia... that you believe your opponent will *likely* strike at you, but without the certainty that he actually has.
You become the bad guy, in simple terms.
Never forget, during the Cuban Missle Crisis, some top military advisers *recommended* that the US first-strike Russia. Aren't we glad they didn't?
Caporegime
Then I don't see how Corbyn or anyone else for the matter can give a yes/no answer to the questions he gets asked.
why not?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 1,726
personally if a nuclear bomb was about to hit us I wouldnt be all that bothered if the PM retaliated just before we died. I would think money would be better spent in defending us against a nuclear bomb (do they have some sort of missiles that can explode a nuclear bomb before it gets anywhere near us)
I would also rather the money spending money on things that effect me right now... not what will possibly help me.
That old guy on question time was an old fool thats been lapping up what the papers say since day one.
I would also rather the money spending money on things that effect me right now... not what will possibly help me.
That old guy on question time was an old fool thats been lapping up what the papers say since day one.
Much as you find the hasn't happened even vaguely or 70 years scenario fascinating I'd suggest several issues are more pressing.
You're saying a strike wasn't possibly imminent during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
LOL. I'm out.
Believe it or not, that was in a pamphlet from my local (Tory) MP. It seems bizarre that they'd want to draw attention to the fact they might actually lose an election that they thought was a dead cert.
It also includes a fair share of mud slinging, which I find disappointing. This is the same MP that rose above similar attacks on himself in 2015, discussing his record and his plans for the future instead. It's how he got my vote; his main rival was an absolute cretin. This time? "Vote for me because May is Strong and Stable and Jeremy Corbyn is..."
Yuck.
I've dropped him an email to let him know he's given me the last nudge I needed to committing to vote Red for the first time.
Yes, now you're just arguing over semantics... my conditional for a first strike is that doing nothing to stop it means it actually happens... ergo the Cuban missile crisis doesn't meet that requirement
you don't seem to have understood the premise for the debate
Then I refer you to my previous post. Unless you are able to read minds, you don't know that a strike is imminent before it happens.
First strike decisions are made at the very top level, but national leaders. Once they've given the order, the first thing you'll know about it is the missiles launching.
There is no "in-between" stages where you can get "intelligence" that an attack is imminent, before it happens.
That's pure fantasy.
so we're back to you imagining Russia as the only possible enemy again...
- Status