Jeremy Corbyn

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

Well don't you think it's a tad harder to make the case for the full implementation of the non-proliferation treaty when you are not fully complying yourself? Don't you think it's a tad harder to make the case against nuclear weapons when you got the latest version yourself despite not even needing them?

The UK getting rid of its nuclear weapons won't suddenly make the world nuclear free but it will do two things, firstly it will save us a hell of a lot of money (we haven't got much apparently), and secondly it will say to others "we've got rid of ours, now it's your turn to do something to rid the world of most horrific WMDs in human history".

The world with less nuclear weapons is a better safer place than a world with more nuclear weapons.....every little helps, as they say.

when you are not fully complying yourself?

How are we not fully complying with the NPT?

I'd like to see the UK abandon the Trident Nuclear programme or Quadrant if it is to upgraded but unfortunately I feel it's a bit late for us as a Nation to start wearing Daisy chains in our hair and start dancing round half naked with all the other peacefull Nations who don't want to harm any one else.

The reality is that no other Nation is seeking to abolish Nuclear weapons in fact it's quite the opposite, so why put our once great Nation out there as an example of Humanity when in reality we have pissed off just about every Nation on all continents at some point or another including our closest neighbours Scotland Wales and Ireland. One mans ideology echoed by others is nothing short of a dictatorship, he has his views and like him or loathe him he is going to weasel himself into a position of great power to express those on the people of this country.

Personally I think the bloke is a spineless coward who sucks up to which ever Terrorist organisation is En Vogue at that moment in an attempt to not get bullied, a lot like a wimp In the school playground.

He's got a couple of weeks tops before he steps down. Either that or take him to the Tower of London and seperate his head from his body before he does actually commit treason.

Yeah I know you repeatedly trot out the Tory line that the non-proliferation treaty is being fully implemented ninfan, but it's nonsense of course. But hey, what's new?

but it's nonsense of course

[u]You[/u] are the one that alleged the UK wasn't fully complying

Go on then

how?

OK Ro5ey - yours at 490!

Sounds good on paper Ernie but not every country with nukes has a stable government/someone who isn't a fruitcake in charge, & as I've said, I don't trust any politician in the whole wide world. But that's probably just me being me.

Personally I think the bloke is a spineless coward who sucks up to which ever Terrorist organisation is En Vogue at that moment in an attempt to not get bullied, a lot like a wimp In the school playground.

He's got a couple of weeks tops before he steps down. Either that or take him to the Tower of London and seperate his head from his body before he does actually commit treason.

& this, he's dangerous basically.

The reality is that no other Nation is seeking to abolish Nuclear weapons in fact it's quite the opposite

There's plenty of examples of nations abandoning their nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons programmes, or putting their nuclear weapons beyond deployment capabilities, or committing themselves not to developing them.

There are plenty of countries in the world which are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons, even small insignificant countries such as Argentina, but they realise that the world would not be safer place for them, in fact they fully recognise the stupidity of them. We should too.

Personally I think the bloke is a spineless coward who sucks up to which ever Terrorist organisation is En Vogue at that moment in an attempt to not get bullied, a lot like a wimp In the school playground.

Well that's convinced me.

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just voicing my opinion. Just like everyone else, I just don't think abondoning our subs and Nuclear capability will bring about world peace. I think the lunatics who are running the asylum will sell off the hardware to the highest bidder in a foolhardy attempt to broker Middle East stabilisation. With all good intentions I'm sure after all the Nobel Peace Prize has to go to some one next year, meanwhile the de stabilised nation who purchased the shiny kit hasn't ruled out the UK as an enemy and totally dis regards the peace process as the deal that was brokered behind the arms trade was to start looking for and drilling Oil & Gas.

I'm sure the Argentines love being associated with being small and insignificant. 1982,
Moving on to present day and they are still wanting the Falkland Islands. Maybe that will make them that bit bigger.

There are plenty of countries in the world which are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons, even small insignificant countries such as Argentina, but they realise that the world would not be safer place for them, in fact they fully recognise the stupidity of them.

Are you suggesting that its impossible that a small, insignificant country such as Argentina would suffer a sudden change of government?

Perhaps to a fascist military Junta?

stranger things have happened...

If, as you say, they are [i]perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons[/i] then doesn't it make your suggestion that we ought to disarm unilaterally even more foolish?

Are you suggesting that its impossible that a small, insignificant country such as Argentina would suffer a sudden change of government?

Perhaps to a fascist military Junta?

Please answer with reference to ****stan and their two [ or is it three i forget] military coups as a nuclear state and show your working

If you must troll ernie at least try and make sense as that is both a straw man [ he never said that did he] and also wrong as well.
Making up straw men that dont even prove your point is especially tragic

they are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons then doesn't it make your suggestion that we ought to disarm unilaterally even more foolish?

more reading I found interesting. This time on the game theory of nuclear threat.

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

they are not making them so we are not at risk from them nuking us with weapons they dont have.

But Ernie's point was that they easily [u]could [/u]if they wanted to

all it takes is a sudden change in government

Nobody is suggesting that nuclear weapons could [u]stop[/u] a coup, that would be silly - the issue is clearly that in the event of a coup, they could go down the line of making them, because, like Ernie said, they could do it easily...

at which point, our decision to disarm unilaterally would have been proved to be downright 'king foolish.

This is the problem with nuclear disarmament, its utopian - the technology is there and understood, you can't put it back in the bottle - if nobody had them, then the first country with a fascist junta to secretly make one could hold the rest to ransom. and as Ernie concedes, a great many countries [i]could[/i] make them. disarmament increases instability rather than reducing it.

Yes a little country with one nuke could hold the world to ransom

Probably ask for 1 million dollars I would imagine
Was I meant to take what you said seriously ?

[img] [/img]

If, as you say, they are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons then doesn't it make your suggestion that we ought to disarm unilaterally even more foolish?

Well using that logic makes what you said less than hour ago really foolish.

ninfan - Member

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.

Posted 58 minutes ago # Report-Post

If you believe in multilateral disarmament and that "we all phase out together" how would you deal with a "fascist military Junta" ?

Make your mind up geezer........do you want multilateral nuclear disarmament or do we need nuclear weapons to deal with a nuclear armed Argentina ? You can't have it both ways.

Btw according to what has been reported only last week in newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph there is the prospect of the military taking power in the UK, should people vote incorrectly next general election.

So it might be a good idea to get rid of nuclear weapons in case of what might happen in the UK in the future, although it's obviously to late in the case of the next few years.

And you are probably unaware that due to the completely different situation in Argentina today, and indeed throughout South America, there is no reasonable prospect of any military coup. There is for obvious and understandable reasons far greater determination and safeguards to prevent such an occurrence in Argentina than there is in the UK.

Indeed it's probably fair to say that a military coup is more likely in the UK than in Argentina.

EDIT : Btw, a successful military coup in South America would require, as always, full approval and support from the United States. US influence South America is pretty much nonexistent these days, unsurprisingly.

all it takes is a sudden change in government

No, it would require a change in law (and more than likely the constitution, I'm not sure) it would also require violating signed international treaties. And of course it would require a nuclear weapons programme.

A "sudden change in government" wouldn't make Argentina nuclear armed ffs.

Have we done Yes Minister yet?

You understand the difference between

the goal

the goal

And you are probably unaware that due to the completely difference situation in Argentina today, and indeed throughout South America, there is no reasonable prospect of any military coup.

no reasonable prospect? between now and 2050?
phew - can I you PM me details for where to get one of those crystal balls you bought please?

And of course it would require a nuclear weapons programme.

like you said: [i]There are plenty of countries in the world which are [u]perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons[/u], even small insignificant countries such as Argentina[/i]...

Yes ninfan I am fully aware that Argentina is capable having a nuclear weapons programme. That doesn't take away the fact that "all it takes is a sudden change in government" is a ridiculous comment with regards to Argentina having nukes.

I really ought to stick more rigidly to my rule about not wasting my time arguing with you ninfan.

I really ought to stick more rigidly to my rule about not wasting my time arguing with you ninfan

Like deterrence, threats only have value if there is a realistic chance of them being carried out. 😉

So anyway, why would anyone:

a) Attack

or

b) Invade

the UK?

[quote=teamhurtmore said]
Like deterrence, threats only have value if there is a realistic chance of them being carried out.

😆

Of course not the Queen would not allow it and she controls the armed forces of the entire world.

So anyway, why would anyone:
a) Attack
or
b) Invade
the UK?

To benefit from our vast mineral, agricultural and energy resources. Oh, hang on...

Well my arguments with ninfan are about as common as my arguments with Chewwy THM, so I would say it's more than just a case of bluffing. It's hard to argue with someone whose posts you mostly ignore.

Although your comment amused your number one fan on here so perhaps you were being satirical 🙂

Does anyone think Cameron or Milliband would use nukes?

Does anyone think Cameron or Milliband would use nukes?

Against who and why?

Well at least neither have given the game away by saying that they wouldn't.

Cameron would as he is nasty, mean and vindictive like all Tories 😉

I dont think anyone will ever use them first but they will probably all use them to retaliate.

Cameron, like all tories, would Nuke first Scotland, then the North, just to prove a point (as we all know, they have to test any of their evil and destructive plans on Scotland first, just like with the poll tax) They obviously wouldn't Nuke the South, as it might impact on house prices, Calais is a fair bet, but nowhere else in France as it might impact on Champagne supplies - they would obviously Nuke Germany, because, they're well, German - and of course they would Nuke Africa in order to destroy Aids and Ebola (but not South Africa, obviously, because they have too many friends there)

Of course, the other issue is that in the new, democratic Labour party, policies are decided on by the party, not the leader - so when the party decides that they will keep nuclear weapons as a last resort, what does the leader do? Back the new, democratic party line? or just ignore it and, like a petulant teenager, refuse to do it?

Corbyn's partisan internationalism is going to keep on hurting him - [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/lithuania-is-safer-with-nato-mr-corbyn ]see letter in Guardian from Lithuanian ambassador[/url]

Ouch! - that letter is really something, a quite remarkable intervention for an ambassador.

No Ferrero for Jezza then.

One wonders who wrote the letter for him.

Back the new, democratic party line? or just ignore it and, like a petulant teenager, refuse to do it?

See my earlier comment. He reluctantly accepts the party decision to keep trident, but is clear that he wouldn't authorise it's use, and that if the circumstances arose, he would resign his position so someone else could step in who could make an 'objective' decision. It's really that simple.

Does one? I don't. Seems a bit insulting to suggest that the Lithuanian ambassador is a stooge.

The more I read comments on this thread about the usage or not of nuclear weapons, the more I start to think I must be stupid, and have completely misunderstood the principle of MAD...

See my earlier comment. He reluctantly accepts the party decision to keep trident, but is clear that he wouldn't authorise it's use, and that if the circumstances arose, he would resign his position so someone else could step in who could make an 'objective' decision. It's really that simple.

This scenario is absolutely begging for a representation in a Fast Show sketch. Imagine the confusion and rising panic as Jeremy is the only person near enough the red button to make the decision in the 2 minutes we have until the missiles hit. Laugh as deputy Tom Watson staggers along the corridors in a slapstick fashion trying to reach Jeremy before the chance is missed. Cry as terrorist sympathiser John McDonnell has a last minute moral conversion and decides he can't press the button either.

[quote=dazh said]he would resign his position so someone else could step in who could make an 'objective' decision. It's really that simple.

When would he do that though and who would that "someone else" be ?

Shouldn't the ultimate decision to press the button sit with the democratically elected Prime Minister ? If he were going to defer that decision to someone else then that chain of command should be made clear at a General Election.

Seems a bit insulting to suggest that the Lithuanian ambassador is a stooge

Stooge - a subordinate used by another to do unpleasant routine work.

I assume this includes get told of by foreign countries when you do bad etc as in when we call in the ambassador to moan at them for their countries acts.

I am sure its more important than that in general that ,however, they are a stooge.

He did not write it without authority and he may well not even have written himself or been ordered to write it.

Either way pretty damning and an interesting view

terrorist sympathiser John McDonnell

@JY 'pick your battles'. Four paragraphs of semantics around the word 'stooge' before you get to the final and (only) relevant sentence.

Also, pretty odd to suggest that serving your country makes you a stooge? I don't think I understand your mindset.

Quick edit: re terrorist sympathiser, pretty hard to see why that is an insult given what the man is proven to have said and done. Potentially could argue that he has had a Damascene conversion since his appearance and apology on question time, but still doesn't make my accusation unjustified.

See my earlier comment. He reluctantly accepts the party decision to keep trident, but is clear that he wouldn't authorise it's use, and that if the circumstances arose, he would resign his position so someone else could step in who could make an 'objective' decision. It's really that simple.

Has he actually said this? Sounds [i]awfully[/i] like spin put out there by his supporters to paper over the cracks...

This scenario is absolutely begging for a representation in a Fast Show sketch

If someone fires nukes at us, is it actually to anyone's advantage to obliterate them too?

Depends who it was really doesn't it? But that's not the point is it, the fact you can nuke them prevents them firing them in the first place.

TBH if you've just seen half your country go to up in a mushroom cloud of horrific, grim death than I think you may as well fire back on a point of principle. The human race is ****ed whatever the outcome.

and that if the circumstances arose, he would resign his position so someone else could step in

great advert for leadership: "shit inbound, I'm orf!"