Agreed. If it's come to the point that nukes need to be fired then whoever is in charge has failed as a politician anyway. It would signal the end of the world by pressing a button.
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
I do appreciate that argument. I can see why there is value in having them. My reason for getting rid of them would be so we can put money in other things.
Whether we should have the weapons or not is a different questions to should we press the buttton. The latter is a silly question because it will never come to that. I don't feel Corbyn has undermined our deferences by saying he wouldn't strike out enemies with a weapon first. I mean, could you imagine how we would stand policitally with everyone else if we decided to up and nuke Russia or Iran?! Could you imagine Russia or Iran deciding to unilaterally nuke us, without our allies stepping in to politically prevent this? Just totally ridiculous scenarios and quite irrelevant for the purpose of voting for labour or not, IMO.
At least the economic arguments against labour are of merit
The first strike part isn't as worrying as his position on second strike. A key part of the deterrent value of Trident is the MAD principle, which is entirely dependent on a credible position on second strike. When you undermine that position with wishy washy statements about what would happen in response to a nuclear strike against the UK (or one of the many countries we have nuclear defence treaties with), you weaken the deterrent effect, as you give others a window where they might be able to attack without retaliation on a grand scale.
MAD works as a deterrent, no-one wants to have to consider the consequences of nuclear weapons flying about, but that's why, in the absence of multilateral disarmament, the consequences of an attack must be high enough to make world leaders think more than twice..
Dolph has been strangely quiet from this, maybe the butthurt is too much#bantz
Or alternatively, Dolph has a life outside of the forums, and most the quality of the campaign on all sides is kind of depressing at the moment, but can't reason people who have already chosen to ignore evidence and history out of their fantasy positions.
Here we go. Heil Dolph!
I'm not talking exclusively about labour supporters and economics. Many anti immigration conservative supporters are nearly as bad.
Soldato
Corbyn's responses about nukes were just plain bad, simple as. Of course we're never going to use them, that's the point! If I have a box and ask others to please not come inside my box, they're just going to kick me over and take the box. If I have a really big stick and tell them not to come in the box, they're going to think twice about it as they won't get the box unscathed.
The nukes do their job by just sitting there. They'll never be used against a conventional army as the UK will win any conventional war against a non-nuclear state anyway. If it comes to MAD for whatever reasons, we're all dead anyway, and whoever decided the first strike made the choice to end humanity.
The nukes do their job by just sitting there. They'll never be used against a conventional army as the UK will win any conventional war against a non-nuclear state anyway. If it comes to MAD for whatever reasons, we're all dead anyway, and whoever decided the first strike made the choice to end humanity.
It was painful to hear people clap the clueless girl who followed up on the question to Corbyn about the nukes by saying something like "why does everyone here want millions of people to be killed anyway", like how stupid is she? How stupid are the people clapping? Do some research on MAD and why we have nukes and understand that the UK mainland hasn't been attacked by another state since WW2, a large part of the reason for that is that we have nuclear weapons. By stating you would be unwilling to retaliate to an attack on the UK or use nuclear weapons first if there was a direct threat to the UK then you are completely negating mutually assured destruction, and telling our enemies they can do what they want to us. For that reason Corbyn is an existential threat to the UK, if you vote for him you are essentially saying I do not care about the safety and security of the population of the UK.
Caporegime
What rubbish. Who do you imagine would have attacked the UK without them? And why is it none of our non-nuclear European friends have been attacked?
There's an argument that nukes kept the cold war cold but that was US and USSR nukes not UK nukes.
Keep it up Tories, digging your own grave. No one's buying this condescending bull. Corbyn is coming across as a far more dedicated and passionate servant of the UK than the weak, opportunistic, self-serving May.
The longer the Tories and their supporters keep up their attacks on Corbyn and don't put forward any policy, the more their position weakens.
The longer the Tories and their supporters keep up their attacks on Corbyn and don't put forward any policy, the more their position weakens.
Because between the UK, the US and France, most of those non-nuclear European countries are protected
At least make some effort to learn about the subject.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
We would have 100% gone to war with Russia without the threat of strategic nuclear exchange, things would have boiled over very quickly without the threat of major cities being wiped out. Nuclear weapons being in the UK was a big deal before the advent of ICBMs, it's a short trip to Moscow for Vulcan bombers compared to B-52's from the USA
This, just finished the Corbyn bit on OT, he was strong in the beginning but as it went on he got worse and worse. And during the nuke question it was verging on being a bit car crashy. Over all May clinched it. But as i said earlier, could be all a bit too little too late.
Soldato
Ah that's just the regressive left who literally know nothing about foreign politics or the countries concerned.
People don't realise that WW2 wasn't actually that long ago and there's still large divisions in the world between East and West, it might seem like we've moved on from that but there's a reason Russian bombers still test our response times by flying bombers close to our airspace all the time. We aren't suddenly going to be friends with Russia because we feel we've moved on, there's a constant power struggle going on between Russia, China and the West
God I hope the pollsters are wrong again, otherwise Friday will be a very depressing day.
May hasn't showered herself in glory at all, she seems to have completely ballsed it up and quite frankly comes across as completely disassociated to the general public. At least Cameron had a sense of charisma and passion about him.
I have to give credit where its due, Corbyn has been himself and this has put him in good stead with everyone, hes actually something different. If he wasn't so hell bent on taxing people more I might actually vote for him.
May hasn't showered herself in glory at all, she seems to have completely ballsed it up and quite frankly comes across as completely disassociated to the general public. At least Cameron had a sense of charisma and passion about him.
I have to give credit where its due, Corbyn has been himself and this has put him in good stead with everyone, hes actually something different. If he wasn't so hell bent on taxing people more I might actually vote for him.
Soldato
I for one am sensing a real shift in views. It's interesting watching the Daily Mail hammer Corbyn yet pump out fear stories about the NHS under a conservative government.
I have always been a Tory voter but this time I will avoid giving them my vote. I was a firm remain voter, but Mays attitude towards Brexit has put me off. The fact is that while I won't vote labour, Corbyn comes across as a principled human being. May has called the election as an act of political opportunism but it seems this could now have backfired.
I have always been a Tory voter but this time I will avoid giving them my vote. I was a firm remain voter, but Mays attitude towards Brexit has put me off. The fact is that while I won't vote labour, Corbyn comes across as a principled human being. May has called the election as an act of political opportunism but it seems this could now have backfired.
It's really easy to come off as principled and genuine when you aren't facing up to the reality of budget constraints and economic growth. It's like spending excessively on your children at Christmas knowing they'll be happy but then be unable to pay the bills at the end of January and them asking why you can't put the heating on. It's irresponsible and childish. I'm saddened that people have so easily forgotten how dangerous Labour are for the economy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,927
Is principled but generally wrong better than unprincipled but generally right? Not necessarily in relation to these candidates but what do we actually want competent Government or to feel good about voting with our beliefs?
Yes a weapon that kills you your entire family everyone you know and your enemy is a big stick!
Thanks for the analogy, would read again.
Did the UKs post war governments spend excessively on their children or invest to grow the economy and reduce debt?
- Status