Jeremy Corbyn

Chaos? I'd say it's brought absolute clarity.

Have any non nuclear country been nuked?

Er yes. Is that a trick question ?

[quote=ernie_lynch said]Have any non nuclear country been nuked?
Er yes. Is that a trick question ?

😆

I don't see the comparison, ninfan.

Murdering people doesn't tend to be in the terrascale, unless you're pressing a button on a consle...

More confirmation ^ that Ian Leslie has a point

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

allthepies - Member

ernie_lynch said » Have any non nuclear country been nuked?
Er yes. Is that a trick question ?

😀 x 2

Lazy and insulting to call any goal you don't like a 'nirvana fallacy'.

Lame. I've not seen anything to suggest that Corbyn thinks it's all going to be easy to create a perfect world. That's exactly what all this talk of discussion and compromise is all about.

The renewal of Trident and the question of whether or not HE would press the button are different things, since Trident 2 would outlast any PM.

amazing to see in the NS then too? with friends like that, who needs enemies!

Have any non nuclear country been nuked?
Er yes. Is that a trick question ?

Good one that, had me saying 'no' for a minute!

As the debate is framed in terms of the deterrence [ so other nations actually have to have nukes as well] so for the benefit of my pedantic friends *

Since we have had the deterrence have any non nuclear country been nuked?

We have had many pariah states and yet they survived without the deterrence

Either the deterrence does not work or it is awesome and works for all even the non nukes so we will be fine.

* ok fair point sloppy wording My brevity has hurt me again 😳

Since we have had the deterrence have any non nuclear country been nuked?

Why would a nuclear power [b]need[/b] to nuke a non nuclear country?

They can attack them with conventional weapons, safe in the knowledge that even if they could strike back, they dare not, because you could nuke them (perfect example being Saddam Hussein with his expected use of chemical weapons in 1991)

I have to say in all honesty that whilst I very strongly support the UK getting rid of all its nuclear weapons I would be terrified if Russia and China got rid of theirs.

I have no doubts whatsoever that had the US been the only country in the world to have nuclear weapons they would have used them in Vietnam (and possibly other conflicts - even if only tactical nuclear weapons).

The United States went into Vietnam precisely because it was a small poor third world country which they thought could easily be defeated.

The actual result was that Vietnam whipped their ass.

Vietnam was the greatest humiliation for the United States since the French fought their War of Independence for them.

I support unilateral nuclear disarmament for the UK. There is no need for British nuclear weapons. But I support multilateral nuclear disarmament for the nuclear powers that matter.

Eventually the world will become nuclear weapon free, I'm sure of that, there is no point putting off the date, building new generations of nuclear weapons, ignoring the non-proliferation treaty which we claim to support and insist other countries respect, or continuing to live with the risk of nuclear war - however small.

.What happens if JC doesn't get Labour policy changed how is his position as leader tenable?

Simple solution, he agrees in advance that should the UK find itself in a position where it could be forced to use it's nukes, he will resign his position so that someone with more psychopathic tendencies can assume the responsibility. I think everyone could agree on that given the near zero chance of that scenario ever occuring. Hell they could write it into the labour party constitution as far as I'm concerned.

There is no need for British nuclear weapons

As previously mentioned, the old enemy, France

As long as they have them, we need them.

There is of course a trick Jezza is missing - he could threaten Israel with destruction if they invaded the West Bank again- use the nukes for something good 😉

ernie_lynch - Member
....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.

I believe that too, but I also believe that one day a batshit mental individual will be in a position to push the button, and he/she is more likely to use them on a country which has nuclear weapons.

When you consider there's 1,000 sq mile exclusion zone around Chernobyl, there wouldn't be much of the UK left liveable for the 3 of us who survived.

never thought I'd say this, but can we get bullshiting thm back? Giggling thm is getting on my tits! 😆

What? You think if we don't have nukes France will invade?

R u SRS?

Epi you can't compare a core ejection to a properly designed nuke.

The United States went into Vietnam precisely because it was a small poor third world country which they thought could easily be defeated.

The actual result was that Vietnam [b]eventually[/b] whipped their ass.

At one point if the Americans had changed tactics slightly they could have won but their refusal to go in on the ground and hold territory with the consequent loss of American lives decided it in North Vietnams favour. Ho Chi Minh was prepared to sacrifice as many as it took to do the job.

They can attack them with conventional weapons, safe in the knowledge that even if they could strike back, they dare not, because you could nuke them (perfect example being Saddam Hussein with his expected use of chemical weapons in 1991)

They can attack them with conventional weapons, safe in the knowledge that even if they could strike back, they dare not, because you could nuke them (perfect example being Saddam Hussein with his expected use of chemical weapons in 1991)

When I saw this quoted by JY without attribution, I assumed it was a bit of chewy's nonsense. Well done, ninfan!

I'm fairly ambivalent on the whole nuke thing to be honest. The anti-nuke case is lost the tories will vote the replacement in anyhow, so we're getting them regardless. I do have one issue with the likes of the SNP stance on them though and that's that we would use the money to go on schools hospitals etc. No we wouldn't the generals, who are fairly non plussed about them at the moment would suddenly be telling us stories of the need for increased spending in for more dangerous parts of the miltary and they'd get all the spare cash.

So the choices available, have the completely useless nukes, well useful for a few jobs and a place on the security council, or have more investing in the army etc.

Marvellous. Just get on with it and renew them and shoosh about the whole thing, it's a distraction from other issues.

never thought I'd say this, but can we get bullshiting thm back? Giggling thm is getting on my tits!

Sorry Joe, but you have to laugh otherwise you would cry. British politics has descended to a level that it's hard to imagine was possible. Rather than be depressed at the sorry state, we might as well have a giggle. And it has become laughable now.

Need to check the odds from a few pages back. Time to open the short position again!

How is it a perfect example if you expected his use when we had nukes?

Saddam [i]threatened[/i] to use CW in the Gulf War (1)
we threatened retaliation up to and including nuclear
He didn't use them

Job Jobbed

You think if we don't have nukes France will invade?

Like its never happened before...

The actual result was that Vietnam eventually whipped their ass.

Well I'm sorry if you thought it took a long time, but Vietnam was a small poor third world country after all.

Ho Chi Minh was prepared to sacrifice as many as it took to do the job.

That's completely untrue. The original tactics which were developed under the advise and direction of the Chinese did indeed involve using high numbers of men sent in wave after wave, but early in the conflict it was realised that the appalling lose of life was not sustainable and the tactic (and advice from the Chinese) was abandoned.

The Vietnamese developed much more successful guerrilla tactics, the thinking being "if the Americans control the ground above we will control the ground below", and the Vietcong became renowned for their underground tunnel systems which included everything including 'hospitals', and from which they were able to carry out highly successful guerrilla warfare. The Americans responded with Agent Orange and carpet bombing.

B52 carpet bombing :

[img] [/img]

And its effect :

[img] [/img]

not questioning the act ernie as I agree, i would have thought what you just posted was common knowledge. But is that top image real? looks like cgi?

Have we done Yes Minister? It normally covered all the political stories.

teamhurtmore - Member
never thought I'd say this, but can we get bullshiting thm back? Giggling thm is getting on my tits!
Sorry Joe, but you have to laugh otherwise you would cry. British politics has descended to a level that it's hard to imagine was possible. Rather than be depressed at the sorry state, we might as well have a giggle. And it has become laughable now.

Need to check the odds from a few pages back. Time to open the short position again!

That was Agent Orange Ernie, sprayed on, not carpet bombed on. 😉

Sorry Joe, but you have to laugh otherwise you would cry. British politics has descended to a level that it's hard to imagine was possible

Wait - what? Descended? What the flippin eck was it like before, with Milliband vs Cameron?

A big fat game of what bollocks will vaguely convince enough people to get us in power whilst we do either nothing or butcher the state depending on who you are.

very good ian! ta 🙂

That was Agent Orange

not questioning the act ernie as I agree, i would have thought what you just posted was common knowledge. But is that top image real? looks like cgi?

It's US carpet bombing. If you think you can find a better pic of B52 carpet bombing of Vietnam fine.

The point that Sandwich makes is irrelevant anyhow......whatever tactics were used the fact remains that the US had its ass whipped in Vietnam and were humiliated. And I have no doubt that had the US been the only country in the world to have nuclear weapons they would have used them in Vietnam.

They proved their willingness to use nuclear weapons less than 30 years earlier when they were indeed the only country in the world to possess them. A fact which JY in his rush for 'brevity' apparently forgot 😉

Yes I forgot about the two bombs in Japan and god bless the oracle that is google

Saddam threatened to use CW in the Gulf War (1)
we threatened retaliation up to and including nuclear
He didn't use them

Job Jobbed

[quote=gofasterstripes said]That was Agent Orange
That smashed trees did it?

Use google images on the photo - all matches state it was agent orange.

That smashed trees did it?

You want better pictures of the effects of defoliants ?

Is this for real ?

Here are the effects of Agent Orange on a rubber plantation.......hope you like it

[img] [/img]

never let it be said i don't rise to a challenge! 😀

b52 carpet bombing vietman:

[img] [/img]

btwthe other image was cgi, you follow it back to google you end up on the deviant art site.

According to the US air force museum, that B52 was bombing Cambodia

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/196023/hitting-sanctuaries-cambodia.aspx (image 4)

I stand corrected! 😆

how's this?

I am not sure AO blasted the trees like that, I thought it was a herbicide.

Nonetheless it's horrible.

Not really sure why we're posting pictures of this horrific shit anyway...

I agree with JC - no reason to have or use weapons of mass destruction.

I've had a look but there's not many photo's of 'carpet bombing' over Vietnam.
I Googled 'Linebacker Raids', cos thats what they were named.

Thank you seosamh. I accept full responsibility for the poor use of pictures 🙂

The point I was making was that the US threw everything at Vietnam, no matter how horrendous the consequences - they were desperate to win. And you have to be pretty naive to believe that they wouldn't have used nuclear weapons if they had thought they could get way with it, as they had 20 odd years earlier. What stopped them was the knowledge that the USSR and China, Vietnam's allies, also possessed them.

And my further point was that while unilateral disarmament is a sensible for the UK multilateral disarmament more generally between West and East is the sensible way forward. In other words proper implementation of the non-proliferation treaty. The UK abandoning its nuclear weapons would be a step in the right direction and increase the pressure on others to do the same.

It would be to the UK's credit if it set an example, as other have before.

It's unlikely, impossible in fact, for that to happen under a Tory government.

agree entirely with that ernie.

EDIT: Should have read the previous page

The UK abandoning its nuclear weapons would be a step in the right direction and increase the pressure on others to do the same.

How would it increase pressure on other countries to do the same then?

Believe me I'd love to see EVERY country in the world say, 'right that's it, no more nukes, theyr'e banned, for everyone'.

What stopped them was the knowledge that the USSR and China, Vietnam's allies, also possessed them.

Hurrah, we're all in agreement, deterrence works

while unilateral disarmament is a sensible for the UK multilateral disarmament more generally between West and East is the sensible way forward. In other words proper implementation of the non-proliferation treaty. The UK abandoning its nuclear weapons would be a step in the right direction and increase the pressure on others to do the same.

thats a bit of a leap - I completely agree that multilateral disarmament is the goal (and what everyone has agreed to) its far more logical that the countries with the largest armouries reduce first, perhaps until we are all at a similar level, and then we all phase out together. One of the key important factors here being that the UK (and French) nukes guarantee that Europe cannot be left to 'stand alone' in the face of an attack (eg. by anything from a resurgent Russian federation to a possible future islamic caliphate)