Can you really ever see a time when a Nuclear strike, killing hundreds of thousands of overwhelmingly innocent civilians immediately and condemning millions more into radiation sickness, cancer, leukaemia and deformed children for generations as a logical and sane action? Really? Because I really cannot EVER see a time when a Nuclear First Strike by the UK is a proportional, sane, logical and correct action. Like EVER EVER. We'd be vilified and crucified internationally for decades. That is, of course, assuming the delapidated state of our submarine fleet means that a strike would actually be possible and would work when requested. From some of the things I've read about our state of readiness and state of the Royal Navy fleet I'm not convinced pressing the button would actually work.
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
That's the issue though. A huge proportion of people on this forum are in the top 5%. He'll even I'm to
7% and my other half is top 4% maybe 3% so as a couple we are well up there in the top few percent.
With the Tories saying no tax increases for the top 5% and in general how they look after the top 5%, I can see why anybody in that group would want to vote for the Tories no matter how bad their policies are elsewhere like Fallon and May saying they would do a nuke first strike.
Caporegime
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.
Right.... So what makes you think the UK wouldn't have been protected by these arrangements without our own nukes? As I said there's an argument that nukes kept the cold war cold but the UK didn't need it's own nukes for that.
Last edited:
He has a point though taking nuclear options out of the equation - if it ever came to it - which in this day and age fortunately is a lot less likely than in the past - it would be like Neville Chamberlain all over again except Chamberlain did eventually come to his senses (but only once the tanks were rolling) while I'm not sure the same would happen with Corbyn.
It is funny to see people so willing to vote against things that have been possibly the cornerstone of the relatively good life they've enjoyed over the past few decades and while the world has moved on somewhat things haven't really changed to the point you can be that complacent about them.
A lot more to the cold war period than just US v Russia though - but at the end of the day do we really want to leave the balance of power entirely in the hands of a small number of entities? can't un-invent nuclear weapons so isn't it better to dilute the power somewhat? and I sure trust them in our hands than in the hands of many others.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,588
Found it pretty stressing that Corbyn couldn't give a better answer regarding the nuclear option. I understand that he doesn't want to use them and be responsible if they was used, but he made it pretty clear that if the UK was attacked by a Nuclear weapon, he wouldn't respond in kind.
He would let the country burn in Nuclear fire, let the UK die in it's flames. Pretty shocking to be honest.
But since a Nuclear exchange isn't going to happen between anyone in my life time, we can carry on as business as normal.
He would let the country burn in Nuclear fire, let the UK die in it's flames. Pretty shocking to be honest.
But since a Nuclear exchange isn't going to happen between anyone in my life time, we can carry on as business as normal.
Soldato
It probably would have, but you cannot predict the future political climate. It could get real bad, and you can't just build a fleet like that when things get bad enough to warrant having them.
The US may also not stay as powerful as it was either. Don't do a Europe and rely on someone else to protect you, because it may not be there when you need it in the future.
Strange question from someone making an analogy between a small piece of wood and a technology that could reasonably be said capable of wiping our entire species off the face of the planet in an hour or 2.
For me Nuclear is not similar to incremental technological progress in weapons or energy production, those who disagree appear as idiotic to me as I seem to, to them.
Interesting the scientist who developed the technology didn't on the whole walk around making stick analogies.
Soldato
This isn't put up as argument either way, just a comment on a popular historical misconception. Britain was not ready for a war with Germany at the time. In particular we had little in the way of air defence against German bombers who could have Dresden'd most of London if they wanted to. Upon Chamberlain's return, Britain began a rapid scaling up of its military, especially in modernising its forces - tanks, planes, navy. Chamberlain's agreement actually bought time for Britain to prepare for war. If we'd gone in at the time, Germany would have flattened us. Hell, they almost did so anyway. Part of our modern view of Chamberlain as a coward comes from Churchill who was a political rival and replaced him.
It is beyond shocking and people want to vote for this guy? A guy who is not prepared to defend his country and people. I loved the sheer disgust from the guy with the glasses in the audience who challenged him upon his answer.
I watched this at no point did I take that message, where did he express that he wouldn't retaliate?
Soldato
This is why I called you stupid. Stop taking analogies so literally, they're meant to give you a basic understanding of the concept, yet it goes whoosh past your head and you miss the point being made in the first place.
And then that last line is just... dear god.
Permabanned
Its not about defending the country its about launching nuclear strikes. Its not shocking in the slightest.
Calling someone stupid for seeing zero analogy to be made in the single largest technological jump known to man and a stick isn't justified by a handwave of don't be so literal.
And that last line, dear rational evidenced based thought.
So while others launch at you, you do not retaliate?
Soldato
Lol, there is no helping some people.
Permabanned
This calls for a trite meme.
That aspect has been debated considerably - but it should serve as a cautionary tale even today - during the early and mid 1930s the general attitude of the country and politically was towards appeasement policies and the general consensus was that with the increased globalisation of commerce and industry, society, etc. it made war very unlikely - it could be argued that Chamberlain bought time but it could also be argued that that time wouldn't have been needed if he and those immediate before him had banked less on soft options leaving so much to chance when it came to what happened when the soft option failed. Similar happened with France - while they had a formidable defensive line in itself the general policy had been towards appeasing Germany and instead of reading the signs that the soft option was failing and preparing their forces for the actual reality they were stuck with a weakened armed forces not prepared for the more advanced and powerful army that Germany had been building up. I don't think its entirely far fetched to say that if the UK and France had struck a more balanced position and retained, updated and/or invested in some of their heavier capabilities WW2 might not have ever happened.
Those intimidated by the emotional rhetoric of nuclear weapons may ironically be advocating a path that would make the world a less safe place for their children not a better one.
I don't know why you're doing all this appealing to emotion crap, I know what nukes do, the point is that we may have to fire first to prevent all those things happening to UK citizens; that's what the job of the UK government is, to protect UK citizens. Maybe Jeremy Corbyn should be running to be head of the UN as he doesn't seem to understand that the primary area of concern for the UK government is infact the UK.
- Status