Jeremy Corbyn

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 vitally 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 whatever 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.

Every prime minister would launch a retalitory strike. The fact you find it surreal is 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 would 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.

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

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

So JC won’t push the button because of his principles ,which is fine, but current Labour party policy is I understand pro Trident.What happens if JC doesn’t get Labour policy changed how is his position as leader tenable?

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 need 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 eventually 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)

You appear to be arguing its a deterrent when you attack someone else 😕
How is it a perfect example if you expected his use when we had nukes?

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 threatened 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 :

And its effect :

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!i never like to see anyone sad, but it kinda pleases me that you view corbyn as the anti christ! 😉

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 🙂