Corbyn about to be sectioned methinks?

[Two Professors]

China is known to have a carrier-buster.Ground launched ballistic missile accurate enough to hit aircraft carrier battle groups with nuclear weapons.Guess what stops them using them?

 

[portslade seagull]

China is known to have a carrier-buster.Ground launched ballistic missile accurate enough to hit aircraft carrier battle groups with nuclear weapons.Guess what stops them using them?

Corbyn white feathers or flags?

 

[BeardyChops]

China is known to have a carrier-buster.Ground launched ballistic missile accurate enough to hit aircraft carrier battle groups with nuclear weapons.Guess what stops them using them?

Common sense?
Electronic espionage is more effective?
The fact that they want to trade with the West?
The fact that they have nothing to gain by doing so whatever the deterrent?
The fact they have have no need or desire to bust any carriers?

 

[ROSM]

As I've said before, it's not always the message that's the issue, but rather the presentation.

No action in Syria is a position I agree with, but I wasn't happy with the way corbyn handled it.

Trident is a tough question, I have sympathy with those who think we don't need it, however JCs background as someone who has criticised UK military in the past, it's easy for people to make the (ludicrous) jump to him being unhappy to have military.

There is a lot wrong with Israel 's actions and reaction yet his answers allow him to be painted as antisemitic

Then we have the Falklands - a subject he should really go nowhere near his position of recognising Argentinian rights yet he rolls out an answer that makes it so simple to be painted as unpatriotic

At a time where the tory government is so inept it should be simple to score goals against them. But labour aren't doing that. Public ratings are getting worst and when half the people who voted labour in the last election don't think you're doing a good job then it's not a great position to be in.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Apologies if repeated:
not seen much, but the usual black and white schoolboy rhetoric on this thread...

RE: keeping the fleet but not arming them. This seems like a fudge to show the doubters within his party/country that while/if he is in power he would stand by his principles, but when/if the next person got in, it could be easily and relatively cheaply reversed.

 

[drew]

That wasn't my intention, you're going to have to elaborate.

It just seemed a little odd to create a world where everbody has given up nuclear weapons except the one country (leader) you wouldn't want to have them, in the first place.

Were you asking 'would you be happy if only Russia (one country) developed NW', probably not.

Beyond that I don't see your point.

Then I can only conclude you are an idiot.

Nobody in their right mind wants to use nuclear weapons but the fact is that we have them and you cannot simply erase the knowledge of how to build them. We could unilaterally give them up and hide under the umbrella of the US and their arsenal. What if they went the same way as did every Nato country. Then what is there to deter someone like Putin from trying to expand his borders further. The likes of Estonia, Latvia etc would be bricking it. What is there to stop him going further if he chose to. We can use conventional forces but then he sends one missile into London and we surrender.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

China is known to have a carrier-buster.Ground launched ballistic missile accurate enough to hit aircraft carrier battle groups with nuclear weapons.Guess what stops them using them?

Common sense?

 

[Stat Brother]

Then I can only conclude you are an idiot.

Nobody in their right mind wants to use nuclear weapons but the fact is that we have them and you cannot simply erase the knowledge of how to build them. We could unilaterally give them up and hide under the umbrella of the US and their arsenal. What if they went the same way as did every Nato country. Then what is there to deter someone like Putin from trying to expand his borders further. The likes of Estonia, Latvia etc would be bricking it. What is there to stop him going further if he chose to. We can use conventional forces but then he sends one missile into London and we surrender.

Clearly it's not worth having this debate with you.
It's a shame that you not fully explaining your hypothetical situation makes me an idiot.

It could have been interesting, c'est la vie.

 

[glasfryn]

Then I can only conclude you are an idiot.

Nobody in their right mind wants to use nuclear weapons but the fact is that we have them and you cannot simply erase the knowledge of how to build them. We could unilaterally give them up and hide under the umbrella of the US and their arsenal. What if they went the same way as did every Nato country. Then what is there to deter someone like Putin from trying to expand his borders further. The likes of Estonia, Latvia etc would be bricking it. What is there to stop him going further if he chose to. We can use conventional forces but then he sends one missile into London and we surrender.

if he sends one missile into london we are royaly ****ed ......................it might take a few weeks but we are still ****ed
as they would be if we done the same.
its called MAD
mutually assured destruction
and thats the reason why we should not have them, billions spent on destroying one another for what

 

[GT49er]

To go along with his new style aircraft carrier.


View attachment 71574

Could do a job ..................................................

 

[Sussex Nomad]

and thats the reason why we should not have them, billions spent on destroying one another for what

A bit of a giggle?

 

[yxee]

if he sends one missile into london we are royaly ****ed ......................it might take a few weeks but we are still ****ed
as they would be if we done the same.
its called MAD
mutually assured destruction
and thats the reason why we should not have them, billions spent on destroying one another for what

But surely you agree with the concept of a deterrent- that destruction is less likely if both sides have the same weapon than just one side. Do you disagree?

 

[drew]

if he sends one missile into london we are royaly ****ed ......................it might take a few weeks but we are still ****ed
as they would be if we done the same.
its called MAD
mutually assured destruction
and thats the reason why we should not have them, billions spent on destroying one another for what

If he sent a bomb to London, I doubt that that would affect us unless the prevailing winds sent the cloud our way.

The point I was making that if only one side has them then that side has a considerable advantage. If they chose to expand their borders there is nothing we can do. The fact that both sides have them means it acts as a deterrent. In an ideal world we wouldn't have them and maybe the answer would be the star wars project suggested during Regan's reign. If there was a fail proof defence against them then that would render them redundant.

 

[BBassic]

Gosh......are you suggesting that nuclear weapons could be dangerous ? Who would have thunk it ?

Next you will be telling us that smoking is harmful.

No, I'm stating that reading that book will enlighten you on how the mechanisms designed to stop those things from detonating accidentally or launched in error can and, if you subscribe to the laws of probability, will go wrong.

 

[Two Professors]

Common sense?
Electronic espionage is more effective?
The fact that they want to trade with the West?
The fact that they have nothing to gain by doing so whatever the deterrent?
The fact they have have no need or desire to bust any carriers?

You obviously have very little knowledge of what goes on in the grown-up world.When you go to big school,ask your teachers if they can show you where the South China Sea is,and ask why it is so strategically important.Till then,stick to colouring in!

 

[BeardyChops]

You obviously have very little knowledge of what goes on in the grown-up world.When you go to big school,ask your teachers if they can show you where the South China Sea is,and ask why it is so strategically important.Till then,stick to colouring in!

Your original rhetoric and your playground insults don't really add weight to what could be a decent argument.

Yes the area has growing problems, and China would be very happy to see the end of the US presence so it could to assert its authority even more than it already is.
However, to suggest that the only reason China hasn't used a carrier buster is because someone might fire a nuke at them is first order thinking.

 

[dik]

To be honest any concept of nuclear weapons, especially Trident, is insane. Corbyn by saying just leave the warheads off is fantastic, after all aren't these designed never to be used?

 

[glasfryn]

But surely you agree with the concept of a deterrent- that destruction is less likely if both sides have the same weapon than just one side. Do you disagree?

we have had the deterrent since the 50's and never yet had to use it, 184 other countries and stated do not feel the need to have nuclear weapons, as I have said before the MAD syndrome comes into it at some stage, why in Gods name would I or you for that matter care if a few Russians are collected up in the corner of their country with **** all to live on for a few months maybe years, we will all be gone and will not be able to rattle our sabres any longer.

If he sent a bomb to London, I doubt that that would affect us unless the prevailing winds sent the cloud our way.

The point I was making that if only one side has them then that side has a considerable advantage. If they chose to expand their borders there is nothing we can do. The fact that both sides have them means it acts as a deterrent. In an ideal world we wouldn't have them and maybe the answer would be the star wars project suggested during Regan's reign. If there was a fail proof defence against them then that would render them redundant.

one missile on London would eventually kill everyone in the UK.
days,weeks,who really cares, what will you do throw rocks at them, our nuclear subs will be gone as well and even if they are not you and I will never know if they delivered their payload.
radiation sickness is incurable you know .......there will be no doctors or nurses or even hospitals
a very sad senario ..............but thats nuclear war for you.

 

[drew]

one missile on London would eventually kill everyone in the UK.
days,weeks,who really cares, what will you do throw rocks at them, our nuclear subs will be gone as well and even if they are not you and I will never know if they delivered their payload.
radiation sickness is incurable you know .......there will be no doctors or nurses or even hospitals
a very sad senario ..............but thats nuclear war for you.

Where the hell did you read that? I think you've been had by the scaremongers! One missile will not kill all in the UK. If the situation escalated then we might be killed by other missiles but one will not be enough.
.

 

[drew]

To be honest any concept of nuclear weapons, especially Trident, is insane. Corbyn by saying just leave the warheads off is fantastic, after all aren't these designed never to be used?

He's not saying that. He's saying the missiles will be conventional warheads.