Jeremy Corbyn

I prefer to agree with Varoufakis (at least on this point) since it is an inaccurate description of current policy.

Of course, but who will vote for the Tories if they call it by its proper name?. "Grind down the lower classes" doesn't win votes outside Eton.

You know sometimes something makes you uncomfortable but you are not really sure what it is ... ya, that feeling.

Have you wet your pants again?

What I don't understand is how countries such as Sweden, Japan, Brazil, and Canada, manage perfectly well without nuclear weapons.

They must save a huge fortune by not having nuclear weapons and the £billions spent on them having to be found.

If only we knew how they did it perhaps we could do the same ?

Ernie - balance of power. Surely you must be aware of these concepts?

jambalaya - Member

Trident. More chaos with Corbyn ruling out using it

One of the many benefits of Jeremy Corbyn being elected leader of the Labour Party is that Trident replacement is now an actually an issue, whereas before it was a complete nonissue outside Scotland.

People like jambalaya quite understandably find it irresistible to attack Corbyn over Trident which of course results in people discussing the merits or otherwise of Trident.

And we know from the experience in Scotland that when nuclear weapons/Trident becomes a political issue which is openly discussed people invariably tend to end up against nuclear weapons.

So may I personally thank you jambalaya for making sure that Trident remains an issue by constantly attacking Corbyn over it. I'm certain I speak for many when I say that those who yearn for a nuclear weapon free world are grateful to you.

jambalaya - Member

Corbyn saying nuclear weapons didn't help the US on 9-11. This oast comment will provide critics an easy to target to say Corbyn doesnt understand the difference between various threats to a countries security.

Certainly some dishonest people will twist his words that way. But that's the thing about dishonest people, they can twist pretty much anything you say into something completely different. So you either end up saying nothing, or you get on with it.

Yes molgrips, if we can manage to establish how that was achieved then perhaps we could follow the example of say Canada which withdrew all its nuclear weapons from deployment in the 1980s.

jambalaya - Member

Corbyn dodged any debate or decision on Trident as we can clearly see why.

Interesting. Epicyclo made the same deliberately disingenuous comment by posting this pic :

[img] ?oh=ddae070371ad7c9b6d98de11f073e63b&oe=5695BC11[/img]

In my response to him I said : [i]"I doubt that even jambalaya would make such as crass comment".[/i]

Oh how I underestimated you jambalaya.

What I don't understand is how countries such as Sweden, Japan, Brazil, and Canada, manage perfectly well without nuclear weapons.

Because Sweden, Canada and Japan are covered by the USA. Brazil did undertake to build its own weapons and allegedly could have one ready within 3 years if required. (NB: Sweden did start a nuclear weapons program post WW2 but abandoned it. Japan also considered it, but are banned under the post WW2 agreement, on the understanding USA will provide cover.)

Yes molgrips, if we can manage to establish how that was achieved then perhaps we could follow the example of say Canada which withdrew all its nuclear weapons from deployment in the 1980s.

Canada has never owned nuclear weapons, they did host US ones though, however they remained under joint US operational control.

Ukraine on the other hand [b]did[/b] own them, post the breakdown of the Soviet Union, and unilaterally disarmed - I'm sure you would agree that that was a good move on their behalf and has not affected their long term security... Oh 😳

Sweden, Canada and Japan are covered by the USA.

And I thought we had a "special" relation with the USA.....Bashtards!

Sweden did start a nuclear weapons program post WW2 but abandoned it

Yeah that's the point. The interesting word in that sentence is "abandoned", just like Canada abandoned its nuclear weapons, and the UK should also abandon its, in fact the whole world should.

And btw there is no chance of Brazil developing nuclear weapons - South America is a nuclear weapon free zone. Plus for their nuclear technology Brazil relies on its partnership with Argentina which is much more advanced than Brazil in nuclear technology.

[i]Yeah that's the point. The interesting word in that sentence is "abandoned", just like Canada abandoned its nuclear weapons, and the UK should also abandon its, in fact the whole world should.[/i]

I disagree....the more countries who have them, makes the world a safer place, not more dangerous.

Ah yes the NRA proposition only with bigger guns.

[img] [/img]

I disagree....the more countries who have them, makes the world a safer place, not more dangerous.

dragon - Member

JC doesn't get the nuclear deterrent at all, see when asked about whether he would push the button he replied.

JC: Would anybody press the nuclear button?

But that's not the point, the point is for it to work people have to believe you would.

You talk as if it's a 'proven' system that has been shown to be effective. As if someone was hovering over the button but at the last moment though "I'd annihilate 10s of millions of people which I'm happy to do, because they deserve it, but then they'd launch on me and I'd be dead (along with my whole country), so maybe I wont after all.

ninfan - Member

Ukraine on the other hand did own them........blah, blah, blah

And the Ukraine example shows just how powerful the case against nuclear weapons is. Ukraine has no regrets about abandoning it nuclear weapons.

The Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko less than 10 months ago :

[i]"Believe me that the strongest security in the modern world in the 21st century is supply, but not nuclear power"[/i]

[url= http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/239730.html ]Ukraine has no ambitions to become nuclear power again – Poroshenko[/url]

Yeah that's the point. The interesting word in that sentence is "abandoned", just like Canada abandoned its nuclear weapons,

On the basis that the USA provided cover, so they didn't give them up without some backup. I guess we could do the same, however, all would do is result in the USA putting theirs on our soil. While annoying them at the same time, as they want us to maintain ours as part of the US-UK agreement.

ninfan - Member

Ukraine on the other hand did own them, post the breakdown of the Soviet Union, and unilaterally disarmed - I'm sure you would agree that that was a good move on their behalf and has not affected their long term security...

You think that Ukraine would have excalated that situation to a nuclear level? No? Well then, no point in having a nuclear deterrant is there.

I'm sure you think it's a clever point but it just proves the futility of nuclear expenditure- the real threat that Ukraine faced couldn't be dispelled with nuclear weapons, having them or not made no difference. The first essential criteria for a strategic nuclear deterrant to work in this situation, is that your opponent has to believe that you're batshit mental enough to escalate a conventional dispute to a nuclear exchange.

You think that Ukraine would have excalated that situation to a nuclear level? No? Well then, no point in having a nuclear deterrant is there.

You think that Russia would have taken that risk?

I'm sure you think it's a clever point but it just proves the futility of nuclear expenditure- the real threat that Ukraine faced couldn't be dispelled with nuclear weapons, having them or not made no difference.

you don't know that - as the situation which arose may never had arisen had they had them - maybe you could point to the nuclear powers that [i]have[/i] been invaded to prove your point?

The first essential criteria for a strategic nuclear deterrant to work in this situation, is that your opponent has to believe that you're batshit mental enough to escalate a conventional dispute to armageddon.

No, they have to believe that you [i]just might[/i] be batshit crazy enough to do it - which seems to fit the Ukranian mentality quite well.

[url= http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/608818/Russia-war-threat-Army-battle-tanks-Putin-UK ]A calm measured, truthful, non-hysterical appraisal of the situation from a respected news souce[/url]

😆

Best security proposition for us would be a unified European Defence force....however the response to this will demonstrate why its unlikely.

A lifelong peace activist admits on radio that he wouldn't/couldn't initiate an attack that would kill millions of innocent civilians. And the news here is what? Surely the question we should be asking is whether a willingness to be a mass murderer should be a prerequisite qualification for the prime minister of a supposedly civilised and democratic country? I think I know what I would prefer.

A lifelong peace activist admits on radio that he wouldn't/couldn't initiate an attack that would kill millions of innocent civilians. And the news here is what?

Well the news here is that he's recently become leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.

I think we can all agree that the Labour Party not being led by a potential warmonger is newsworthy.

I think we can all agree that the Labour Party not being led by a potential warmonger is newsworthy.

I love reading this thread. It's like being back in the sixth form again. Keep up the good work 🙂

Best security proposition for us would be a unified European Defence force

Go on then explain why.

AD It gets funnier everytime you say it

[quote=binners opined]A calm measured, truthful, non-hysterical appraisal of the situation from a respected news souce

I liked this quote

A tank is more than a weapon system – it also makes a statement. And when you’re trying to reign in another country, it helps to be able to make a statement in this way. “

We could replace tanks with nukes and invite him in for the debate

He can join Ninfan on the Dr Stragelove benches

Just watched Corbyn on TV regarding the likely use of nuclear weapons if he was PM.

Good man.

If you knew the nukes were on their way, would you launch our own? Bad enough that our people will die, what's the point in killing millions more?

[quote=molgrips said]If you knew the nukes were on their way, would you launch our own? Bad enough that our people will die, what's the point in killing millions more?

Yeah, but you don't tell the other dudes that 😛

The brave new world of "straight talking, honest politics". That lasted a long time and look at the spinning ^ already.

If the tag line is true, then the result would be a straight admission of yes we have to address (properly) many areas of internal disagreement - Trident, tax, Syria, Welfare, EU, Heathrow, Nuclear power, HS2 etc. Instead confusion and spin already and to do this with deterrent is irresponsible.

What a shabby mess UK politics is in - next up Europe....

You can have no nukes - tick (si solum)
You can have nukes/deterrent and willingness to use - (awful) tick
You cant have nukes/deterrent and no willingness to use - pointless

ok - not nukes, but we indicated to our dear friends in the pampas that we would not use force to defend the Falklands. Hmmm, lessons from the Franks report????

Fail to learn the lessons of history...

That lasted a long time and look at the spinning ^ already.

Clarify - which bit is spin?

😀

stop it mol - we will all be getting giddy!

😀

TBF, we have had some straight talking..

Ms Eagle told the BBC "I'm surprised he answered the question in the way that he did",

the antidote to hyperbole - may be that is what the tagline meant?

When did the dirty digger buy the New Statesman?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-and-nirvana-fallacy

That wasn't rhetoric - I don't know what you're getting at.

f you knew the nukes were on their way, would you launch our own? Bad enough that our people will die, what's the point in killing millions more?

Said it before, say it again - it's [b]vitally[/b] important to remember that the sole role of the nuclear force in time of war was never to retaliate against Russia - it was to make sure that [u]whatever[/u] happened to the UK, France got utterley f'king toasted!

it was to make sure that whatever happened to the UK, France got utterley f'king toasted!

You've been watching too much Yes, Prime Minister. I find all this serious talk of whether he would use nuclear weapons quite surreal. It's pretty plain to anyone with half a brain that no prime minister would launch unless they were a psychopath. Keeping up the pretence on the basis of 'deterrence' is silly. So once again we're left with a ridiculous situation where the press are jumping on a non-story simply because it's Jeremy Corbyn and the fact that they need to fill airtime on their 24 hour news channels.

Keeping up the pretence on the basis of 'deterrence' is silly.

How does deterrence work then?

I find all this serious talk of whether he would use nuclear weapons quite surreal.

Buggered if I know. What has Trident deterred? What will it deter in the future?

Naff all.

How does deterrence work then?

I know exactly how deterrence works. Do you really think that a passing comment in a radio interview will embolden potential enemies and increase the chance of them attacking? Even if he was elected and then announced it as official policy, could a potential attacker be sure he wouldn't launch in retaliation? Would they be willing to risk it? The fact that the weapons exist is deterrence enough, whatever politicians say is largely irrelevant. It's refreshing really that he's willing to talk openly about it. Does that disqualify him from being PM? Of course it doesn't.

Buggered if I know. What has Trident deterred? What will it deter in the future?

That's like saying 'how many murders haven't happened because we have a police force?'

Have murders still happened? yes, oh, well, in that case the existence of the police and prison system clearly has no deterrent effect.

If you knew the nukes were on their way, would you launch our own? Bad enough that our people will die, what's the point in killing millions more?

🙄

Well it's obvious that the MAD doctrine is just basically a big game of bluff. A rather expensive big game of bluff.

And what Jeremy Corbyn says with regards to pressing the Doomsday Button is quite irrelevant.

As a sandal-wearing bearded vegetarian lefty you would without doubt expect him to claim that he would never press the button.

Bad people like the Russians and Chinese know this. But can he be trusted? Perhaps he's just bluffing? To say that he [i]would[/i] press the button would be too obvious - everyone would know that he was just bluffing.

As no can be completely sure whether or not Corbyn is bluffing, and since the consequences of a miscalculation are so horrendous, the Russians and Chinese simply won't take the risk.

And consequently MAD continues to reign supreme.

Mutually assured destruction has kept the peace and the world free of wars for 70 years, we should all be grateful to Jeremy Corbyn for his bit in keeping the bluffing game alive, and possibly guaranteeing another 70 years of world peace.

[quote=molgrips opined]That wasn't rhetoric - I don't know what you're getting at.

Dont worry Molly no one does as his posts continue to look more and more like chewks

That's like saying 'how many murders haven't happened because we have a police force?'

Have murders still happened? yes, oh, well, in that case the existence of the police and prison system clearly has no deterrent effect.

Cmon you are better than this

Have any non nuclear country been nuked?

Given that it is then hard to prove the deterrent works as no one has been nuked. What a terrible an\logy when we have real world comparisons to make

The comparison you make is so bad its not even laughable its just lamentable