Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[chef-borjan]

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

Stop this please.

You cannot be SURE whether a strike will happen or not. Only in hindsight. Your hypothetical condition doesn't work in the real world, because we can't predict the future.

Those US generals probably made a decent argument about why they needed to launch. It's only looking back that we know they were wrong. Whereas you are advocating that if we are 'sure' that we need strike first (hint: we never can be) then we should push the button and in actual fact condemn us all.

I'm struggling to see how you don't get this.

 

[dowie]

Those US generals probably made a decent argument about why they needed to launch. It's only looking back that we know they were wrong. Whereas you are advocating that if we are 'sure' that we need strike first (hint: we never can be) then we should push the button and in actual fact condemn us all.

I'm struggling to see how you don't get this.

Why can you be so sure that we can never know in advance? Especially if we're not dealing with the likes of Russia but potentially with powers that can't simply give an order to launch and have ICBMs flying within minutes... North Korea isn't anywhere near to that for example.

 

[chroniclard]

Rather have 40 billion for education or the NHS, we are going to need it, plenty of other deterrents than nukes, total waste of money.

 

[FoxEye]

so we're back to you imagining Russia as the only possible enemy again...

You're arguing in circles.

This is what you said earlier:

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...

So clearly you're talking about a first strike against another nuclear capable country. It doesn't matter who this is, only that we believe they might nuke us.

As others have told you, there is no stage where you can be "sure that an attack is imminent" before that attack is actually ordered.

And if it takes 15 mins from the order to first launch (say for prep time), then it will take our missiles a similar amount of prep time also.

So your scenario, which revolves around us being "sure" an attack will happen before it happens, and are able to strike first, is pure fantasy.

Others have told you this also. Give it up, dowie.

 

[FoxEye]

Why can you be so sure that we can never know in advance? Especially if we're not dealing with the likes of Russia but potentially with powers that can't simply give an order to launch and have ICBMs flying within minutes... North Korea isn't anywhere near to that for example.

LOL. You think Jim Jong is going to give an order such as:

"Dear general. Prease make note in diary. In 12 weeks time, launch nuclear attack on UK. Thank you prease."

I give up

 

[dowie]

So clearly you're talking about a first strike against another nuclear capable country. It doesn't matter who this is, only that we believe they might nuke us.

not quite - not believe they might but that they are in the process of...

As others have told you, there is no stage where you can be "sure that an attack is imminent" before that attack is actually ordered.

doesn't have to be before that is ordered, can be after it has been ordered and before it is able to be carried out

And if it takes 15 mins from the order to first launch (say for prep time), then it will take our missiles a similar amount of prep time also.

So your scenario, which revolves around us being "sure" an attack will happen before it happens, and are able to strike first, is pure fantasy.

Others have told you this also. Give it up, dowie.

and you're back to the Russia as the enemy scenario - and no I'm not going to give up if you're presenting flawed arguments like that...

since when can say North Korea give an order to launch an ICBM and have it airborne in 15 minutes... at the moment their longest range rockets use liquid fuel and take a while to prepare

 

[FoxEye]

not quite - not believe they might but that they are in the process of...



doesn't have to be before that is ordered, can be after it has been ordered and before it is able to be carried out



and you're back to the Russia as the enemy scenario - and no I'm not going to give up if you're presenting flawed arguments like that...

since when can say North Korea give an order to launch an ICBM and have it airborne in 15 minutes... at the moment their longest range rockets use liquid fuel and take a while to prepare

NK isn't so stupid as to give an order to nuke that UK that it is not capable of carrying out.

You live in a total fantasy world dowie.

You don't give nuclear first strike orders days/weeks/months in advance!!

!!!!!


!!!!!!!

 

[dowie]

LOL. You think Jim Jong is going to give an order such as:

"Dear general. Prease make note in diary. In 12 weeks time, launch nuclear attack on UK. Thank you prease."

I give up

See if you can't even make a serious reply or keep falling back to attacking positions I've not presented then there isn't much point to this as it ends up as a back and forth that just disrupts the thread - either try to discuss things more maturely or don't bother

 

[FoxEye]

loldowie.

That is all.

 

[dowie]

NK isn't so stupid as to give an order to nuke that UK that it is not capable of carrying out.

You live in a total fantasy world dowie.

You don't give nuclear first strike orders days/weeks/months in advance!!

!!!!!


!!!!!!!

This just doesn't add much to the discussion again either - I'd also hope that NK wouldn't do such a thing too but we can't rule out that we're (or the West in general) is never going to be the target of a nuclear strike. And again you're needlessly attacking a position I've not put forth re: weeks/months etc... why not try to discuss it without the attitude as it just means more pointless and unconstructive back and forth which disrupts the thread.

 

[dowie]

loldowie.

That is all.

just like the past few posts by you this one again is pretty immature

 

[FoxEye]

For the very last time, dowie.

No leader, of any country, is going to issue a nuclear first strike order if they are not in a position to launch immediately.

Until NK has that capability, they will not issue any such order.

This is completely obvious. To literally everyone except you.

 

[Ayahuasca]

why not?

It's always hypothetical questioning, you cannot just say yes I'd strike first or no never, the decision would need to be made on a case by case basis and there's a whole host of scenarios a nuclear attack could come about.

Corbyn saying yes to first strike questioning achieves very little other than to quench the thirst of those who think nuclear warfare is some wild west game of quick draw.

 

[chef-borjan]

I totally appreciate differing viewpoints on how to take the country forward. Borrow more to boost spending or scrimp and save to lower debt. These are differing viewpoints and debate is healthy.

But this idea that we should/can have the ability to 100% predict and have the ability to launch a preemptive nuclear strike is maddeningly frustrating. You are demonstrating a staggering lack of critical thinking that many of us are pointing out, over and over again. We should not have to explain the nature of time, cause and effect and how you can't predict the future.

Equally, we should not have to explain why if there is a nuclear capable nation that we somehow have the ability to know when a nuclear order is issued but cannot be launched immediately... then we probably have the ability to strike with conventional weapons without much fuss. After all, we have great intelligence so we must know where those launch sites are right?

 

[dowie]

It's always hypothetical questioning, you cannot just say yes I'd strike first or no never, the decision would need to be made on a case by case basis and there's a whole host of scenarios a nuclear attack could come about.

indeed there are

Corbyn saying yes to first strike questioning achieves very little other than to quench the thirst of those who think nuclear warfare is some wild west game of quick draw.

Well not really - there is a specific worry with him as a result of his previous stance and his campaigning. May doesn't have an issue with saying yes and we don't expect that she's going to mindlessly order an attack on a whim.

 

[dowie]

For the very last time, dowie.

No leader, of any country, is going to issue a nuclear first strike order if they are not in a position to launch immediately.

Until NK has that capability, they will not issue any such order.

This is completely obvious. To literally everyone except you.

Fox, if you're not even willing to discuss the topic but instead post silly immature responses or go round in circles repeating attacks on positions I've not even put forth then it is all a bit pointless. However to then come and state something is 'obvious' when you're not even capable of discussing it sensibly is rather dubious. This could easily have been discussed in far fewer posts and with much less disruption to the thread if you'd just dealt with the arguments presented and cut out the 'lol' nonsense etc..

 

[bayo000]

Nobody expected her to call early election either.

Just drop the stupid argument about nukes. Honestly if it comes to that then I couldn't care less who is the PM. Either way he/she failed to keep people of this country safe and launching a nuke 1st means **** all in that situation.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Well not really - there is a specific worry with him as a result of his previous stance and his campaigning. May doesn't have an issue with saying yes and we don't expect that she's going to mindlessly order an attack on a whim.

To be honest I don't think I've seen May have to answer a question on the topic live and if she simply says yes she would strike first under any circumstance that's more worrying from my point of view, I'd like to hear her reasoning.

 

[gettothechopper]

We employ Trident as a deterrent

We dont have it as some ultimate first strike weapon

anyway Corbs shouldn't answer - a deterrent requires you not to spell out when you would or wouldn't use it

If May gets away with saying she cant explain her Brexit plans because it gives away her hand
How can we expect a potential PM to spell out where his nuclear red lines are to our enemies?

 

[FoxEye]

Fox, if you're not even willing to discuss the topic but instead post silly immature responses or go round in circles repeating attacks on positions I've not even put forth then it is all a bit pointless. However to then come and state something is 'obvious' when you're not even capable of discussing it sensibly is rather dubious. This could easily have been discussed in far fewer posts and with much less disruption to the thread if you'd just dealt with the arguments presented and cut out the 'lol' nonsense etc..

That's an "answer" May would be proud of. Lots of words, no specifics. Nothing to argue against.

However, the specific point you've raised has been countered. You keep saying, "There must be some situation where an we can intercept an enemy nuclear launch order but nuke them first before they can nuke us."

There isn't.

Countries are well aware of our nuclear strike capability, probably even to the point of knowing how many minutes between the order and the launch.

If a country knows it would take them 10x as much prep time to launch, then they aren't going to issue a first strike against us. Because most world leaders are actually smart enough, or have smart enough advisors, not to put themselves in a lose/lose situation.

NK isn't going to order a nuclear first strike against us, or any nuclear power, unless it KNOWS we can't respond in time to prevent their launch.

A first strike is always going to be a losing proposition against any nuclear armed nation. NK knows this. We know this. Nobody is going to first strike anybody.

And that's why MAD works.

If, as you assert, there were scenarios where launching a first strike MADE SENSE, MAD would not work. But it does, because your hypothetical situation does not exist in the real world.