Jeremy Corbyn

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 – see letter in Guardian from Lithuanian ambassador

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.

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

Surely their entire role is to be a stooge for the country/government they represent?

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

I believe you were lecturing us on unwarranted unkind insults used to describe people whose views you dislike 🙄

@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 awfully 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 f**ked 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!”

Depends who it was really doesn’t it?

Really? You think some innocent civillians are ok to kill, and others aren’t?

I think you may as well fire back on a point of principle.

Better to NOT fire on point of principle, surely?

Four paragraphs of semantics around the word ‘stooge’ before you get to the final and (only) relevant sentence.

well as semantics relates to what words mean it is rather important seeing you used it poorly. Still you have a go at me because you dont like what the word stooge means- one wonders why you used it?

I don’t think I understand your mindset.

Its one where I know what words mean and use them correctly without insulting you for using it poorly.
Have you considered it as an approach in debate ?

great advert for leadership: “shit inbound, I’m orf!”

Its like a marriage they are in charge but id there is a spider in the bath its your job 😉

Its not a great and coherent position he has on this issue and the tories will beat him to death with it

Better to NOT fire on point of principle, surely?

No, its better to fire on point of principle, because they knew that was the inevitable outcome

you also make the mistake of believing that “all out” is the only form of attack or response, rather than “flexible response” whereby your response is proportionate to the attack.

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

True but is it any more absurd than saying you can’t be Prime Minister unless you are potentially willing to murder millions of innocent civilians by making a phonecall?

As Ernie said above, deterrence is a game of bluff. The players do not need to prove that they would launch, just the capability of doing so is enough. Jeremy Corbyn’s comments in a radio interview do not change that, so this entire debate is just another silly media-manufactured furore aimed at discrediting him.

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

A very strong letter.

The left wing hand wringers seem to be in denial about how dangerous modern Russia still is.

I agree with a lot of what Corbyn says but just cannot come to terms with his nonsense defense policy.

A lot of people thought Spitfires, Hurricanes and radar stations were expensive and a complete waste of money in 1937.

Better to NOT fire on point of principle, surely?

Better, yes. But a PM who knows his family is about to be inevitably vaporized by (say) Russia might well be unhinged enough by the situation to retaliate against Russia without working through the extra logical step of reminding himself that nuking (say) Russia actually means nuking Russian kids/families/people. Or maybe a situation could arise where by retaliating we could protect an ally. (Eg in say a parrallel universe with where in WW2 German had nuked us, maybe we’d have decided to nuke Germany back to protect Russia/Europe/Africa.)

The proof would be if any ‘letter of last resort’ ever said, ‘fire’. I thought some PMs *had* said to fire although I can’t find a source for that now.

There are far better cases against ‘independent’ nukes for the UK than “We’d never retaliate.”.

But by being Prime Minister there are many difficult decisions to make, that’s what you get paid for. No one wants to kill innocent people and in an ideal world no one would, but we aren’t in an ideal world.

Take Osama Bin Laden, JC still thinks he should have been tried in a court of law, now I accept that would have been the best ‘ideal world’ solution, but reality is the guy was barricaded in a house with a load of weapons, so you do what you have to do, to minimize casualties all around.

Wonder what JC’s response to the Iranian embassy would have been?

A lot of people thought Spitfires, Hurricanes and radar stations were expensive and a complete waste of money in 1937.

Herein lies the truth

Its important to remember that its not nuclear forces or conventional forces – nuclear weapons take up a small proportion of the defence budget (about 6%, possibly rising to about 9% with restructuring of conventional forces and introduction of trident replacement) conventional forces are hugely expensive (and lets remember that Jezza doesn’t see any reason why we need them either, presumably we shouldn’t have intervened in, say, Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Sierra Leone, or Cyprus?). Would a 10% bigger conventional military offer the type of deterrent effect that nuclear weapons have done in the past, and will continue to do so in the future?

Is not a policy of conventional weapons, with the terrible bombs raining down, with the missiles, with the aircraft, with the submarines, the torpedoes, with the tanks, also based upon threat of destruction and retaliation?

But by being Prime Minister there are many difficult decisions to make, that’s what you get paid for. No one wants to kill innocent people and in an ideal world no one would, but we aren’t in an ideal world.

Take Osama Bin Laden, JC still thinks he should have been tried in a court of law, now I accept that would have been the best ‘ideal world’ solution, but reality is the guy was barricaded in a house with a load of weapons, so you do what you have to do, to minimize casualties all around.

Wonder what JC’s response to the Iranian embassy would have been?

JC has dropped principles for political expediency over and over again in only a few days of leadership. He doesn’t appear to have any red lines at all. So I’ve no doubt if PM he would have cheerfully defended killing OBL without trial and taking the Iranian Embassy back by force. Consensus politics.

Is not a policy of conventional weapons, with the terrible bombs raining down, with the missiles, with the aircraft, with the submarines, the torpedoes, with the tanks, also based upon threat of destruction and retaliation?

Yes it is, which is why I don’t support that and instead would rather the 100bn be spent on health, education, clean energy and communications.

JC has dropped principles for political expediency over and over again in only a few days of leadership.

Go on then. Apart from the media-manufactured ones, name some.

Say tomorrow intelligence revealed that Russia was increasing military investment, what is the likely response?

Go on then. Apart from the media-manufactured ones, name some.

I started writing a list that began with Nato, Corbynomics, Trident but everything is up for grabs isn’t it? Can you name a couple of lines in the policy sand that he simply won’t compromise on? I’m struggling to think of anything.

On the EU and NATO he has changed his stance very quickly after becoming Leader.

On the EU and NATO he has changed his stance very quickly after becoming Leader

He’s always said he’d listen to his party. And he’s doing it.

Yes it is, which is why I don’t support that and instead would rather the 100bn be spent on health, education, clean energy and communications.

100 billion, spread over 35 years to 2050 (although the trident replacement in service cost is actually planned out to 2060) is an annualised average of about 2.9 billion

Government spending is about 750 billion a year, the NHS alone costs about 115 billion a year to run – 2.9 billion wouldn’t even cover the agency nurse bill. let alone leave anything left over for education, clean energy or communications.

the cost of Trident replacement is barely even a rounding error.

He’s always said he’d listen to his party. And he’s doing it.

I don’t feel strongly about the terminology we use. If we’d prefer to use “listen to his party” as a euphenism for ‘abandon he principles’ I’m happy with that.

Here, I’ll rewrite my post for you:

“JC has listened to his party for political expediency over and over again in only a few days of leadership. He doesn’t appear to have any red lines at all. So I’ve no doubt if PM he would have cheerfully defended killing OBL without trial and taking the Iranian Embassy back by force. Consensus politics.”

Now we’re all in agreement.

So the tories on here still dont like him then….what a revelation.

Later shall we discuss if the Lefties like Dave as who could predict that answer to that question.

I don’t like him, however, the Labour leader does matter as a stronger Labour party helps democracy works better. Look what that tool Blair got away with while the Tories imploded.

On that note, anyone notice Tom Watson completely ‘forgot’ to mention Blair and Brown in his speech the other day. Milliband and Smith got mentions, I find this airbrushing of history by certain sections of Labour weird. Are they trying to say Blair and Brown did nothing good for their party at all? In which case why did they support them for so long?