Forum menu
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?
Because the other country is a danger and may strike us was the 'thinking' from some of the audience last night. We should clearly strike them first just in case.
So while it is wrong and causes national upset for a person to kill 20 people in the UK it is fine for the UK to kill many millions of innocent people in another country because we don't like that country.
So while it is wrong and causes national upset for a person to kill 20 people in the UK it is fine for the UK to kill many millions of innocent people in another country because we don't like that country.
We're British don't you know.
So while it is wrong and causes national upset for a person to kill 20 people in the UK it is fine for the UK to kill many millions of innocent people in another country because we don't like that country.
If we write 'love from manchester' on the side, that makes it ok.
As ever, nail on head even if a bit dated.
The very inevitability of annihilation is exactly what saw us through the most peaceful period in Europe's history
this is rubbish and not borne out by the historical record. The existence of these weapons has almost caused us to come to the brink of war several times.
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov ]Russian system falsely detect weapons launch...[/url]
I can't believe that Corbyn isn't willing to rush headlong into nuclear war, what a tool
I can only imagine Ninfan and the Question Time arsehole never watched "Threads" or "When The Wind Blows"
Sooner or later, right wing mentally will carry the same scorn as drink driving, smoking, overt racism...
I always find the pro-nuclear argument a bit of a weird one and it surprises me that so many support it. Only 9 countries globally have nukes so i guess these guys who are shitting their pants about not having a deterrent are pretty limited on holiday destinations!
I see more risk in living in a country that has a deterrent. It paints a massive target on your back.
193 people in a room. 9 have guns but they aren't all mates. A couple are a bit unhinged but they hate the others with the guns the most. It kicks off between the dudes with guns. Who dies first?
I'd expect everyone with a gun to get shot pretty quickly with minimal casualties amongst everyone else.
I think Corbyn showed great restraint in not telling that audience member that he's an idiot. He knows that he has to placate the tin foil hat uk majority to an extent to stand any chance of getting a decent labour presence in commons.
ninfan - Member
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?)
Thank you. The answer I expected. Clarifies a lot.
FWIW, being happy to remotely condemn thousands to death is not tough in any way. Could you do it if they were all in line in front of you and all you had was a knife?
Now imagine if all 193 folk had guns. No one would fire because they'd be mown down by the others.
If nukes are so good at preventing war then we should be handing them out to all other countries.
Now imagine if all 193 folk had guns. No one would fire because they'd be mown down by the others.
Indeed, this explains why the rate of death and injury, either accidental or intentional, in the US is so low. Oh wait
The thing is nukes are for people fighting yesterday's war - folk who are stuck in the past.
They ain't much use against suicide bombers (not cutting police by 20,000 might help a little) and if I was a general looking to take Britain out I'd use the internet to go after major infrastructure and possibly financial institutions (finance first to destabilise then infrastructure for the coup de grace). That way I leave the country reasonably intact but in a position I can do what I want with it.
Brexies seem to love them but like I said, stuck in the past.
[img] 
?oh=fadbd1242e842058c2f1ae66e096e9af&oe=59DDD942[/img]
Is that Chatty Dead JHJ?
I think Corbyn showed great restraint in not telling that audience member that he's an idiot
I am completely biased towards Corbyn but the way he handled the questions (and actually answered some of them) was far more impressive than the contempt based responses that May was giving.
I don't think she actually answered any questions either and avoided every one of them. It is clear that someone has told her to stop saying Strong and Stable though as don't think she said it once in 45 minutes.
Is that Chatty Dead JHJ?
These days I'm not sure whether to give you a straight yes or no answer, or a rambling load of bollocks which furthers the interests of my financial backers and media chums.
kerley - Member
It is clear that someone has told her to stop saying Strong and Stable though as don't think she said it once in 45 minutes.
And "The most important election of my lifetime" has disappeared too.
"Magic money tree" did make a few appearances though...
Song by the Beatles that was I think
"Magic money tree" did make a few appearances though...
How is a magic money tree any different from quantitative easing? Other than having a less hokey name.
"I'll make point clear on this........ it's Chatty Death, from Horrible Histories"
Ninfan is Adam Murgatroyd, and i claim my £5
It's horrible futures we should be more worried about...
I can only imagine Ninfan and the Question Time arsehole never watched "Threads" or "When The Wind Blows"
Not my proudest fap!
Ps. Yes, I have, and the War Game (which knocks Threads into a cocked hat) and even the entirety of Resan (The Journey) which you had probably never even heard of, so there!
I make you right Adam, I've never heard of Resan
For those who are critical of Jeremy Corbyn for his stance on using nuclear weapons, have you really thought through what this would actually mean? Have you thought through how the scenario would unfold or what the actual outcome would be?
For those who think it would be okay to use these weapons I would implore you to watch the very harrowing and realistic 1980’s drama “Threads”
[url=
The reality of a nuclear situation is more likely to escalate from a regional conflict, Syria for example, where a tactical battlefield weapon, a low yield nuclear tipped artillery round or a portable nuclear device, is used on an opposing military target. This would lead to a battlefield exchange of tactical weapons before any strategic ICBM are brought into play.
And let’s be clear about this, when the western coalition have had boots on the ground in the Middle East these units have been deployed.
The most scary thing is that tactical battlefield weapons are under the control of the senior military officer commanding the unit and they do not have to get Presidential or Governmental permission to use them if they are in a serious cluster**** situation.
We like to refer to our Nuclear arsenal as “The Deterrent” but I ask you, what has it ever deterred?
Did it stop Argentina invading British Sovereign soil? Did it ever stop the Korean war or Vietnam? Did it stop Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait? Did it stop aircraft being flown into the WTC?.. No! Conventional wars still rage all across our planet.
It deters nothing. In fact it does 2 things.. first the financial cost of these abominable systems causes all of our lives to be poorer, and secondly makes our world all the more dangerous as nation tries to outdo nation with their capability.
When the Manhattan Project was completed in 1945 and the US exploded Trinity, Oppenheimer remarked that it brought to mind words from the Bhagavad-Gita: "Now I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
So when you are critical of Mr Corbyn and his stance on nuclear weapons, take a step back and think for a minute and then be glad that there is someone who wants to be rational, who wants to be thoughtful, and who wants us, as humanity, to step away from the Brink from where there would be no return.
+1
The BBC aren't going to show any nuclear holocaust dramas for a while. They'll not even play the no. 1 single at the moment.
We like to refer to our Nuclear arsenal as “The Deterrent” but I ask you, what has it ever deterred?
Did it stop Argentina invading British Sovereign soil? Did it ever stop the Korean war or Vietnam? Did it stop Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait? Did it stop aircraft being flown into the WTC?.. No! Conventional wars still rage all across our planet.
Thats like saying that we should disband the police and prison system because there's still crime.
In case you hadn't noticed we don't 'just' have a nuclear deterrent, we have a wide variety of military specialities and capabilities, aimed at a vide variety of different threats, all work on the deterrent effect, all deterring against different things, and all capable of some pretty horrible and brutal effects if utilised to their full capability.
I'll give Corbyn his due, he's as committed to getting rid of all of them as he is nuclear weapons, however utterley bonkers, unrealistic and utopian that is.
The real hypocrisy is in those who think that somehow nuclear weapons are 'special' and any more terrible than conventional weapons
Thats like saying that we should disband the police and prison system because there's still crime.
Almost every country in the world has police and prisons. Almost none have nuclear weapons.
That's not a great analogy.
Brexies don't do thinking about things.
Almost every country in the world has police and prisons. Almost none have nuclear weapons.
Yet still they haven't successfully deterred all crime
Let's disband them, see where you are then!
You of course also forget that it's not just a few countries that have Nuclear weapons, because [b]all[/b] NATO countries live under the same shield of protection offered by three of them.
Of course ninfan less drastic penal regimes tend to lead to less crime don't they.
Death penalty correlating to more violent crime for example.
This analogy isn't going well for you is it?
This analogy isn't going well for you is it?
I suspect there'll be a change of subject coming up very shortly. It's not like ninfan has ever accepted he's wrong before, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.
If no country in the World had nuclear weapons, would North Korea be developing them? I very much doubt it. The only reason they are is to prove they are a nuclear superpower, which is the standard the US, UK and Russia et al have set. Ergo, nuclear armament breeds nuclear armament.
the ninfan bot isn't about being right, just winding up 'lefties'
What about the countries that aren't in NATO and don't have nukes - shouldn't we be supplying them in order to ensure their security against attack?
The real hypocrisy is in those who think that somehow nuclear weapons are 'special' and any more terrible than conventional weapons
I'll just leave this here...
Of course ninfan less drastic penal regimes tend to lead to less crime don't they.
Death penalty correlating to more violent crime for example.
Correlation ? causation
I'll give Corbyn his due, he's as committed to getting rid of all of them as he is nuclear weapons, however utterley bonkers, unrealistic and utopian that is.
That's a lie.
Unless you'd like to provide evidence, of course.
Ninfan - I'll give you that. It's circumstantial evidence nothing more. But there is a good body of circumstantial evidence and at some point that becomes compelling.
Of course if you ninfan had nukes then no one would be safe because deterrents only work against rational enemies.
Personally I thought nukes were an excellent Cold War weapon. Rational for, unusable expensive weapon - stopped countries investing in weapons they could use to the degree they might have. But that's the aggressive pacifist in me.
Anyway I'll leave you to your twisted world view for now.
That's a lie.
Unless you'd like to provide evidence, of course.
[i]No more nuclear weapons. No more nuclear wars. No more wars. A world of peace.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every politician around the world instead of taking pride in the size of their Armed Forces did what Costa Rica have done and abolished their Army, and took pride in the fact they don't have an Army.
And that their country is near the top of the global peace index. Surely that is the way we should be going forward.[/i]
Will that do you?
So, like I said, yes, he is absolutely as committed to getting rid of them as he is to nuclear weapons
Of course, utopia must be a very nice place to live
Nah, not really.
As you say, it's a vision of his own personal utopia, not a policy commitment.
Still, crack on.