No one said anything about 'under any circumstances'
Someone asked her a rather more open question and her direct answer was 'Yes' - posted a few pages ago:
Last edited:
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
No one said anything about 'under any circumstances'
Someone asked her a rather more open question and her direct answer was 'Yes' - posted a few pages ago:
I'm confused, are you denying that the Manchester Arena bombing took place? Is this some next level straw or do you actually think it's part of a conspiracy to make MAy look bad? lol.
He's condemned the IRA dozens of times, the right wing media just like to be very selective about it, good articles here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-refuse-condemn-ira-please-stop-saying-he-did
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...fusal-condemn-sky-news-election-a7770026.html
http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/22/jeremy-corbyn-has-finally-called-the-ira-terrorists-6653633/
If you're going to try and quote me then use the quote button
OK this is the problem - we're talking about the unlikely event of a strike being imminent - you can't just assume that is never going to happen, you can assume it is unlikely to happen because it would be crazy for it to happen but you can't simply say that it won't. Given that my argument is conditional on it happening I don't see an issue with the position. If you think it is highly unlikely (or even impossible) then what is the issue with the stance re: a first strike? If the condition is impossible then the first strike by us is too.
The question was about the answer to such a question - the clip contains that.
We've told you that there is no way of knowing that an attack is imminent, before it happens.
You're hinging everything on this requirement, yet we know this requirement is not able to occur in the real world.
Unless you can read minds, you will never know that an attack is imminent before it happens.
If NK does not have the capability to launch within minutes of the order being issued, they will never issue the order. Nor will any other nation.
Your whole argument is based on a logical fallacy.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 1,111
IF (and a big if but okay) NK decided to launch against us, then we are relying on intelligence right to intercept this order.
What is that intelligence was wrong? What if someone was deliberately trying to screw with us? What if someone just got the wrong message? What if the order was taken back in 2 minutes?
Doesn't matter. We have pressed the button.
Now follow through with what happens.
EDIT: And thankfully people get this. So quite frankly, this is why you don't push the button, and we rely on MAD to keep us safe.
What is that intelligence was wrong? What if someone was deliberately trying to screw with us? What if someone just got the wrong message? What if the order was taken back in 2 minutes?
Doesn't matter. We have pressed the button.
Now follow through with what happens.
EDIT: And thankfully people get this. So quite frankly, this is why you don't push the button, and we rely on MAD to keep us safe.
that isn't true... unless we're back to the enemy being Russia again...
it was conditional on the requirement that a strike is imminent all along - without that I don't believe there are many scenarios where a first strike is justified, that was the whole point
no you're basing an argument on the world behaving logically and an unlikely event being impossible - it isn't, you're in no position to say that because something is logically a bad decision that it won't occur
“I think the idea of anyone ever using a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world is utterly appalling and terrible. It would result in the destruction of lives and community and environment of millions of people. I would be actively engaged to ensure that danger didn’t come about.”
Frankly, this is the sane viewpoint to have on nuclear weapons. The idea of actually firing one against a civilian target is certainly horrifying, and it isn't something we should be flippant about.
For a peacetime government, I think simply owning nukes is a sufficient threat. If you're a potential enemy of the UK, would you assume that just because Jeremy Corbyn is PM our nuclear deterrent is irrelevant? Or would you still consider our nuclear weapons an active threat, given the possibility for Mr Corbyn to change his mind, be overruled, or replaced? If you were wrong, if the UK turned out to be willing to retaliate, the cost would be dire.
I really don't think anyone should be keen on the idea of mass killing. It's a tad sociopathic. And I don't consider that the deterrent is any more effective just because we have a PM who seems eager to pull the trigger.
Frankly, this is the sane viewpoint to have on nuclear weapons. The idea of actually firing one against a civilian target is certainly horrifying, and it isn't something we should be flippant about.
For a peacetime government, I think simply owning nukes is a sufficient threat. If you're a potential enemy of the UK, would you assume that just because Jeremy Corbyn is PM our nuclear deterrent is irrelevant? Or would you still consider our nuclear weapons an active threat, given the possibility for Mr Corbyn to change his mind, be overruled, or replaced? If you were wrong, if the UK turned out to be willing to retaliate, the cost would be dire.
I really don't think anyone should be keen on the idea of mass killing. It's a tad sociopathic. And I don't consider that the deterrent is any more effective just because we have a PM who seems eager to pull the trigger.
Trident is a deterrent, if you have to go into the realm of second strike it has failed its purpose.
If this is your position on the climate you live in, in the life you lead, in the expectations you have of this country, all I can say is, if only the rest (well me) were that way inclined.
A stance on a military deterrent and use of decides my children's opportunity, we would have not so quiet words.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 1,111
In case you didn't catch this.
So no, having a bit of intelligence isn't the same as being able to predict the future with 100% accuracy.
There are no situations where you would know that an attack is imminent before it occurred.
Orders to launch nukes are not made in advance.
A country not capable of carrying out the order immediately does not issue the order.
All very true.
Provide a scenario where you could use intelligence to be certain an attack would occur before launch happens, which gives us enough time to launch our own nukes and strike first.
Provide a single scenario. Go on.
Oh I'm sorry, so the word of May is gospel evidence for the reason for the General Election, how she'd handle our nuclear deteran etc,t but historical economic fact is irrelevant when assessing the impact of austerity versus inward investment, I'm actually embarrassed for you at this point!
Caporegime
Very little reasoning there and it's quite frankly laughable how she thinks telling nations we're willing to use it would deter them, any nation willing to launch an attack on the UK would be expecting retaliation not just from the UK but our allies. It's not just like oh we'll nuke these guys because they won't launch one back, it's already game over.
But what if it is right, what if say the US doesn't push the button and a strike happens to California say causing millions of American deaths... then the resulting conventional invasion to overthrow NK ends up with a similar level of casualties...
Perhaps we have another such threat from Iran, this time to the UK, would we ignore the intelligence again that warheads have been moved to a launch facility and their crude attempt at an ICBM is being field up - or would a first strike be more rational?
Yes we're talking about convoluted scenarios...
In reply to your suggestion that someone was trying to screw with us, we might never know - I mean if say North Korea had got to the point where a warhead was being transported to a missile and they were in the position of preparing it... then, in the even the US were to strike, then they might not even find out that they were 'just messing' with us - though I'd suspect that that is also a rather unlikely scenario
What on earth are you even talking about - the question from the other poster was whether she's given such an answer, the answer was contained on that clip... anything else you're going off about is frankly irrelevant to that post
Have you looked at the strike range of the Countries you mention? Or are you treating this as things go up and come down again?
Well this is not true - in the case of Russia it could be a minute (or seconds even) in advance... in the case of a country that needs to use spend a while preparing a missile rather longer..
well if we're making up hypotheticals - how about either an asset within the North Korean military, or some intercepted communications ordering a launch in addition to observing a warhead being transported to a launch site and a missile being prepared
- Status