Forum menu
Dimbleby let her get away with it a bit.
Tory media ? 😀
Absolutely agree I'm just thinking how it'll play in the media/ public.
He pulled it back slightly with the talk of frigates, aircraft carriers etc
Dimbleby pushed him on nukes Q more than he pushed May on any question.
And ALL he did on the 'button' question
Nice euphemism. Lets just be clear what that means, which is the deaths of millions of people and the destruction of civilisation in another country, and more importantly HERE, as it will result in inevitable retaliation. But still yeah, lets just carry on like it's a schoolyard fight.
As someone on twitter just said, debating a hypothetical nuclear war is much easier than figuring out how to fund the NHS or solve homelessness.
It shouldn't be easy to come to an abrupt decision
In case you hadn't noticed it's one of those situations where an abrupt decision is exactly what you [b]will[/b] have to make
and more importantly HERE, as it will result in inevitable retaliation.
Committing to no first use I think the audience, and most people, wouldn't have any problem with, it was when he tried to fudge the issue of retaliatory use that he dug himself into a nuclear-bomb sized crater
Neither May nor Corbyn 'smashed it'.
Both performed to a similar level - some direct answers, some evasion & some uncomfortable moments.
Can't see tonight's performance causing any elector to change their mind.
At the end I knew no more than I did at the beginning.
In case you hadn't noticed it's one of those situations where an abrupt decision is exactly what you will have to make
Maybe in the public's Hollywood version of good versus evil.
It's the measure of a person if your focus is on war rather than peace.
As an aside these IRA and Red button questions are getting quite intolerable. They've been in every debate as the media wranglers know they inflame single cell organisms.
In case you hadn't noticed it's one of those situations where an abrupt decision is exactly what you will have to make
No it's one of those situations where everyone just dies or suffers a long and prolonged period of horrific suffering and/or starvation. If it it satisfies your warped sense of machismo though then carry on.
it was when he tried to fudge the issue of retaliatory use
Lifelong peace activist admits not wanting to murder millions of people shocker! I love how nuclear weapons bring out the real men. Congratulations.
No it's one of those situations where everyone just dies or suffers a long and prolonged period of horrific suffering and/or starvation.
More scaremongering, there have been literally hundreds of nuclear explosions, and nobody has died (for a very long time)
In 1946, no one died
In 1947, no one died
In 1948...
People are worried annoy if Corbyn will kill millions in our defence??
My worry is far more immediate and needs correcting immediately. Not hypothetically!
I'm worried about the people ding NOW due to Social Care falling apart and an NHS that is barely holding together at the seams. I've experienced it first hand helping others with social and health care issues.
That tragedy happening NOW.
MAY DOESN'T give a damn about that. Not a blink of sleep lost over it I'm sure.
I'll take my chances on being nuked if it means I get to see my friends and family being cared for NOW and in the future in this country.
Over time I've gone from thinking Corbyn is a joke to thinking he is the only hope we have.
I can't imagine anyone that ever thinks they will need the NHS (most of us)even contemplating voting Conservative. I just can't comprehend the mentality.
More scaremongering, there have been literally hundreds of nuclear explosions, and nobody has died
WTF are you talking about? Let me just check, but you do realise the difference between setting off hundreds of nuclear bombs over populated cities and isolated detonations in the middle of Siberia or the pacific ocean? Don't you?
@mattyfez: Corbyn is also well paid and has a (non-contributory?) gold-plated pension.
Both will receive substantial 're-settlement' payments when they leave parliament based on their length of service; all MPs receive these payments
Heavily subsidised restaurants and then expenses.
The whole issue of MPs benefits should be discussed - and challenged. Do they deserve the benefits they receive?
John McDonnell's pension pot is approx £1.5 million; I am not commenting about him specifically, just using publicly available information about him to make a point about MPs generally
There are many others with similar size - or larger - pension pots.
It would be interesting to know the total pension liability for the outgoing parliament and past MPs which we, the public, are paying for.
So @dazh, just to be clear, if in 5yrs time North Korea decided to nuke London, you'd be quite happy for our PM to pick up the phone and say 'i say old chap, that wasnt very sporting, would you like to pop over for tea to discuss things?'
@aracer - Imagine, a political party that is happy to drop a leader if they're not doing the job.IMagine how different things might be this time next week if Labour had the balls to do that
The tories can't drop may though, the hour is too late, and she's not fit for office.
So @dazh, just to be clear, if in 5yrs time North Korea decided to nuke London
If that happens we've already lost. You do realise that don't you?
The whole issue of MPs benefits should be discussed - and challenged. Do they deserve the benefits they receive?
If they do a good job then arguably yes, being accountable for an entire nation and it's future is a heavy task.
May seems to be be treating the job like a short term contract. A stepping stone to retirement.
A real priminister would undoubtedly understand that thier choices would have long lasting effects long after they are out of office, and act accordingly.
May lacks vision. Infact she doesn't, she just doesn't care. Why would she?
If that happens we've already lost. You do realise that don't you?
How? Londons gone - what's to stop them then setting about Nuking Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on?
Unless you are willing to retaliate, you are nothing more than a compliant victim.
How, Londons gone - what's to stop them then setting about Nuking Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on?
Christ we're through the looking glass now. I can't even be bothered replying with anything sensible. It's like talking to a psychopathic simpleton.
Loses argument, resorts to abuse
Very momentum
@Poopscoop I've been on a similar journey regarding Corbyn's fitness. He's improved at the same rate that the opposition has seen things **** up.
PS I also agree with him about the nukes. Problem is that for the red faced fat men, they aren't very good thinking logically.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/leader-of-uk-must-be-prepared-to-kill-everyone-20151001102480 ]mash[/url]
ninfan - Member
Loses argument, resorts to abuseVery momentum
You mean a bit like a retaliatory nuclear strike?
Interestingly talking to a couple of Labour activists today they are incredibly upbeat.
Right or wrong they think Labour are going to significantly out perform the polls.
It surprised me. And it seemed both genuine and considered.
John Major's letters of last resort to nuclear submarine captains in the event of a nuclear strike on the UK taking out the government:
in no circumstances should nuclear weapons be deployed against civilian targets - on the basis that to do so after an attack would be a futile act of vengeance that would wreak unacceptable levels of harm on a civilian population. And that any government that would launch such an attack on the UK would most likely be a dictatorship and it would be immoral to make their people suffer for the acts of an unaccountable leadership.
Loses argument, resorts to abuse
Ok, for argument's sake, if London, and the 10 million people (or whatever it is) living in it is destroyed and we manage to destroy the enemy before they can destroy any other cities (which will obviously never happen), it's all ok, we'll just carry on as before. 🙄
The nuke argument is absurd, and shouldn't be given any traction.
Yes we should have a couple of nukes, but the whole principle is that it's mutually assured destruction. They won't ever be used as all who have them know the consequences. That's the whole point.
Baiting someone about whether they'd push the button.. Well if you've got several ICBM's heading towards your country, then you don't have much to lose, you'll be dead in a few hours anyway.
It's a stupid hypothetical scenario.
Londons gone - what's to stop them then setting about Nuking Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on?
Because it is highly unlikely that we would get to take turns. If you go nuke you go big and hit them all at once.
Hence retaliation is revenge by a population, mostly from beyond the grave, and largely pointless in terms of trying to ensure the survival of humanity..... .
How? Londons gone - what's to stop them then setting about Nuking Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on?
nuking them back will guarantee that they will hit Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on.
Absolutely. It´s treating people like fools.rone - Member
They've been in every debate as the media wranglers know they inflame single cell organisms.
Why won´t you kill millions of people mr Corbyn..I mean come on..
Anyone with half a brain should see that Corbyn is miles away the better choice. Guess we'll find out soon enough just how many single cell organisms populate the electorate.
Hmm, I think a lot of Labour activists are getting a little carried away.
I still think we'll get beat, but not by as much as initially predicted.
Both looked tired tonight, but May seemed pretty composed for a change.
Corbyn didn't come across well on Trident, failed to make his point.
May was pretty weak on everything, but will have gone down well with the Mail readers.
I doubt it's made much difference, but it may have given Theresa a little of her confidence back.
😐
[quote=ninfan ]@aracer - Imagine, a political party that is happy to drop a leader if they're not doing the job.
IMagine how different things might be this time next week if Labour had the balls to do that
Yeah, there might still be a PM who couldn't do her job.
[quote=seosamh77 ]Guess we'll find out soon enough just how many single cell organisms populate the electorate.
About 51.89%
re - the red button question.
Surely the only sensible response is to bounce it back and to question the red-faced person asking, "Would you REALLY be happy to give that order and kill those [b]faceless[/b], [b]foreign[/b], innocent civilians?"
Ninfan, would you be happy to give that order?
i think you picked the wrong person to ask there
[quote=frankconway ]Neither May nor Corbyn 'smashed it'.
Both performed to a similar level - some direct answers, some evasion & some uncomfortable moments.
Can't see tonight's performance causing any elector to change their mind.
At the end I knew no more than I did at the beginning.
That seems to be pretty much how the BBC is summarising it (I have to admit I didn't watch, really CBA watching any more of them).
The thing is, given how how the Tories are trying to portray this election, isn't May supposed to completely smash JC in such situations?
[quote=Junkyard ]i think you picked the wrong person to ask there
In both cases - that would have been a stupid thing for Corbyn to do given the answer is obvious. Any alternative answer requires empathy...
Junkyard - lazarus
i think you picked the wrong person to ask there
Yup, just (vainly) hoping for a straight answer for once...
Do I remember right that corbyn held Germany up as an example investing in youth vocational training... or something along those lines
Ninfan, would you be happy to give that order?
Hell Yes*
Deterrence only works if you are not just willing, but guarantee to, carry through with the threatened response
Nuclear deterrence works precisely because the outcome is so dreadful. The very inevitability of annihilation is exactly what saw us through the most peaceful period in Europe's history (while all the while Corbyns ilk told us it would drive us to war)
(* Or should that perhaps be 'Hell yes I'm tough enough?)
(* Or should that perhaps be 'Hell yes I'm tough enough?)
No, it should really be: "Hell yes, I'm stupid enough"
What is the ****ing point of nuclear weapons? You can't use Trident on military targets without massive collateral civilian casualties, and to think about using them on a city is a completely brain-dead notion.
There is no way to justify a first strike against a country, and a retaliatory second strike is even more stupid as the damage will already have been done so there's no way you can justify killing, maiming, and horrifically injuring millions of civilians just because their crack-pot leader launched an attack from their bunker. Why would you think the average civilian was responsible and deserved punishment?
You can skip to 7min for the comedy of the nuclear response scenario. It would seem that in 30 years we have managed to stand still.
The very inevitability of annihilation is exactly what saw us through the most peaceful period in Europe's history
#ninfact! 😆
Worth a watch for all the nukes saved us lot. The cost was very nearly much higher.
Diplomacy saved the world.
Forced institutionalisation of the disabled is the latest wheeze from Tory hq.
How can any right thinking person defend these murderous monsters
Forced institutionalisation of the disabled is the latest wheeze from Tory hq.
How can any right thinking person defend these murderous monsters
It very much appears to be a case of "I'm alright Jack"
Nuclear weapons.
Corbyn won't be able to get rid of them. We're not going to get nuked within the next 5-10 years. North Korea have a few targets to hit before they get to London.
There are far bigger issues we face over the next few years.