Comrade Corbyn silly remarks / Trident

[Conniff]

I'm not sure what the army has to do with boats

[estellyn]

I am asking - What is there to discuss ??

 

Corbyn puts his views forward - I don't want trident, I won't press the button, and explains why.

 

People who disagree say what they believe - I want Trident, it's important to be there with finger on the button when needed and why.

 

The public listen and decide who they think makes the best points and whether they want someone who'll press the button, or someone who won't, and how important it is to them when stacked up against pros and cons of other candidates.

 

That's what there is to discuss.

[Old Cogger]

Nuclear Deterrent = that is what it is, it has saved this country and others for decades now since late 40s early 50s, he would not push the button anyway he is a Royal Stand back!

[obiter dictum]

That is the point

 

We have had nuclear weapons for decades, the cold war is no more.

 

Let the yanks and the soviets keep there nukes and keep the world on a counter balance.

 

The UK is no longer a world super power, those so called savages kicked us out and have their own democracy now

 

The simple fact is that we can no longer afford it and to take food out of a persons mouth to maintain this monstrosity in this day and age is a travisty

[Conniff]

Way off topic, tidied up.

[Guest]

Way off topic, tidied up.

 

ah, thought that clip was quite relevant ie re nuclear war. isnt that what you guys are posting about.

 

[Conniff]

No, nothing to do with nuclear war.

[Guest]

No, nothing to do with nuclear war.

 

what's it about then?

[citizenB]

TBH, I think this is a non thread anyway - Corbyn, like other leaders before him will say what his thoughts are - hopefully he will allow others to say what their thoughts are and then when the next election comes around, all these statements will be rehashed and the "people" will make up their minds.

 

I doubt very much that Corbyn will ever be Prime Minister - if he does, then again, IMHO - we are all doomed anyway.. so pressing buttons or not will be irrelevant.

[citizenB]

what's it about then?

 

Apparently it is to do with Corbyn saying that he wouldn't press the button if it were called for.. !!

[obiter dictum]

Corbyn will never be Prime Minister

 

He is exactly what the labour party needs at this moment with fresh ideas and a break from the Status Quo

 

People have had enough of the sleeze and spin. They appreciate his straight talking no nosense approach. He does not care who he upsets as he is not image conscious unlke all those other "Pretty Boys" in Parliament

 

Andy Burnham a word of advice

 

Get rid of all that Mascara, you are starting to look like the Rocky Horror picture show

Edited September 30, 2015 by obiter dictum

[Guest]

Apparently it is to do with Corbyn saying that he wouldn't press the button if it were called for.. !!

 

ie the issue of nuclear war

[citizenB]

ie the issue of nuclear war

 

Got an aspirin !

[Guest]

Got an aspirin !

 

[citizenB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33635441

 

I think Tony Blair pretty much sums it up in the article above.. Corbyn is a reincarnation of Michael Foot.. and look where that got them ?

 

Just for the record, I have no respect at all for Tony Blair.

[obiter dictum]

I used to see Michael Foot with his Dog on Hampstead heath quite often many years ago

 

Anyway

 

Who believes a singe thing coming from the mouth of that war criminal LIAR BLAIR

[tobyjugg2]

As unclebulgaria has stated

 

It is not up to Corbyn, he is not a dictator

 

The question of defence will be decided by the Cabinet/NEC/Party Conference/Delegates/CLP

 

Knowing Corbyn he will let the public decide through a Referendum

 

Its my understanding that the UK CANNOT (that is cannot - not will not) launch anything without the approval of the USA anyway, although its unclear whether the USA could launch our missiles without our OK.

 

Given that - I would have no great issues with it being got rid of as it stands.

I would rather we had an independent nuclear deterrent fully under our control (like France) if we have one at all.

 

If all we are is a base for American nuclear weapons, at our expense, then I fail to see the justification.

[unclebulgaria67]

Its my understanding that the UK CANNOT (that is cannot - not will not) launch anything without the approval of the USA anyway, although its unclear whether the USA could launch our missiles without our OK.

 

Given that - I would have no great issues with it being got rid of as it stands.

I would rather we had an independent nuclear deterrent fully under our control (like France) if we have one at all.

 

If all we are is a base for American nuclear weapons, at our expense, then I fail to see the justification.

 

I think that is correct. Each country can decide to launch nuclear weapons, but there are protocols within NATO that would apply in normal circumstances. But i think a PM does not have the power to press the button any way. I think a number of people are involved in giving their approval e.g defence secretary, head of armed forces.

 

I don't want the thread to go off the subject, but i cannot think of any situation that might occur where a PM and others decide to end the world by using nuclear missiles. So Corbyn is probably just being more honest, than other politicians.

 

But it is a big stick deterrent and may prevent conventional wars, if people think they could escalate. It depends on whether you believe in this deterrent factor. There have been many wars between countries since WW2, but not between the major countries holding nuclear weapons.

[think about it]

Do you know what?

 

Corbyn has acheived exactly what he set out to do. Regardless of your opinions of him and his views he's opened the discussion. He's put one of the biggest existential questions on the table and we're talking about it, even if only on the level of whether or not we agree with or even understand his viewpoint.

 

It raises a bigger question, are we so single minded as to wipe out mankind in an act of retaliation? If 'everyone' pushed that metaphorical button then mankind as it exists now would be in ruins. Are we going to perpetuate that by adding fuel to the literal fire and if so, what good would it do?

 

For the record, my opinion is that we ought to carry a deterrent but it would seem that since the early 2000's the 'face' and modality of war has changed from being country vs. country to ideology vs. ideology - big area weapons don't work so well when your next door neighbour could potentially be you worst enemy.

[Old Cogger]

Maybe he hopes India will do the work for him - yea The Moon has Blue Cheese on It. the Txxx, ban the bomber

[SabreSheep]

Did having a nuclear deterrent (That was sent to the warzone) Prevent non nuclear power Argentina invading the falklands?

[Old Cogger]

nuclear did not come into Galleitri equation! silly argument that one, have you ever been in a nuclear missile environment! if you had then you would know that it was a deterrent against bigger aggressors who happen to have dozens more than you, also the Yanks held the key to operational warheads if needed!

[tobyjugg2]

I think that is correct. Each country can decide to launch nuclear weapons, but there are protocols within NATO that would apply in normal circumstances.

 

You seem to have missed my point unclebulgaria,

It is my understanding that we physically CANNOT launch without US physical authorisation (ie they have to press a button too), unlike France who could.

Nothing to do with 'agreements' saying we won't. We CAN'T.

eg We press the button - nothing happens until the US says OK and presses their 'launch UK missiles' button..

 

To further detail

France has a truly independent nuclear deterren, the use of which is bound by agreements, but is their decision.

The UK has some US nuclear missiles which can physically ONLY be used if the US says so and physically authorises it. Hence is only actually a tool of US policy, not UK policy

[think about it]

Did having a nuclear deterrent (That was sent to the warzone) Prevent non nuclear power Argentina invading the falklands?

 

Obviously not, but I don't think for a moment that they thought we'd obliterate our own land in the name of saving face and the morality of bombing another country is an interesting one. I think it increasingly unlikely that they'll ever be used again (at least I hope...) but in the spirit of international willy-waving, being suitably equipped is not really a bad thing.

[obiter dictum]

The biggest threat to our social construct is not the Bomb

 

It is Cyber Terrorism

 

Power stations, transport, water supply etc, all can be turned off through the click of a mouse

 

The sooner we all grow up and acccpt this the better. Ths is the 21st century, not the 1950s. Though Bomb the Commi and my bomb is bigger than yours rhetoric is still evident