Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

Who will you vote for?

  • Total voters
    1,453
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Azza said:
But having nukes stops a country bombing the UK.

Who that war mongering country is... well that could be anyone... Kenya, Indonesia, Australia.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Corbyn has confirmed that trident will be renewed and the subs will have the letter they need to retaliate, so why are people after somebody more of a warmonger than that?
 
Caged said:
I know this might sound strange but if another country nuked London I wouldn't really care that much if we got them back for it, because I'd have more pressing worries. I don't understand the frothing eagerness to nuke another country.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of the rapid drone strike example on a terrorist like Jihadi John. I don't think Corbyn would have the guts to carry it out. He's a weak leader of his own party never mind a country.
 
Above&Beyond said:
North Korea would say differently. We're spending tens of billions on a replacement so it is relevant. It's the ultimate insurance policy.
Click to expand...

I see nuclear weapons as more of a political tool than a military one nowadays. We have generations of people who lived through the cold war and the very real threat of nuclear war. Unfortunately they seem to be a more active portion of the electorate. I believe once they are gone we will find politicians can get away with winding nuclear capability down without facing political suicide.
 
Above&Beyond said:
I was thinking more of the rapid drone strike example on a terrorist like Jihadi John. I don't think Corbyn would have the guts to carry it out. He's a weak leader of his own party never mind a country.
Click to expand...

Ah so he should be like Trump and lose a helicopter in a terribly designed raid? And killing hundreds of civilians in bad strikes?
 
Above&Beyond said:
North Korea would say differently. We're spending tens of billions on a replacement so it is relevant. It's the ultimate insurance policy.
Click to expand...

If NK ever actually managed to develop a viable ICBM, the launch facility, research facilities and several other military installations would be obliterated by tactical conventional ordnance. Nay a single nuke would ever land on NK.
They must know this, you'd have to be utterly foaming at the mouth stupid to not realise that if the US NATO etc found out that NK had developed a viable nuke that they would ever let it leave the ground.
The fact that NK, Iran etc continue to develop nuclear weapon technology just show how NATO nations that have nuke is simply not a deterrent, they know we wouldn't use them as it would be game over for millions of innocent people, on with sides.
The utterly useless nukes sit in their silos for decades costing billions that could be spent on far more effective areas that would improve people's lives.
 
Surely if May doesn't know where any of these caps are going to be set at then it's impossible to know if the manifesto budget can balance? Like that just seems really obvious.
 
Zefan said:
I see nuclear weapons as more of a political tool than a military one nowadays. We have generations of people who lived through the cold war and the very real threat of nuclear war. Unfortunately they seem to be a more active portion of the electorate. I believe once they are gone we will find politicians can get away with winding nuclear capability down without facing political suicide.
Click to expand...

I agree totally, but the only way it'll happen is if each country does it at the same time, and not unilateral action.
 
So basically they will green paper any of the iffy policies once elected then probably just go ahead with what was originally proposed anyway.

Not really a commitment to anything
 
Did she really just try to put Labour down with reference to costings in their manifesto?! What a clanger. That chuckle from the crowd says a lot.

:edit: for those not familiar, the expenditure plans in the Conservative manifesto were largely un-costed. To point fingers at the Labour manifesto - that went to the effort of calculating pretty accurate costings - is laughable, hence the laugh from the crowd :p
 
TM is so duplicitous. Answering a question about school funding, claims she wants all school kids to have an equal opportunity, that's why you intend to bring back grammar schools, where immediately you direct a large proportion of the funding to the gifted pupils, and those left behind in comprehensives don't get the support to reach the same attainment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom