Corbyn’s childlike and simplistic argument? .....

[pastafarian]

"The government is in favour of replacing Trident at a cost of around £100 billion. This money would be enough to fully fund A&E services for 40 years, employ 150,000 new nurses, build 1.5 million affordable homes, build 30,000 new primary schools, or cover tuition fees for 4 million students."

Priorities, people...

Not going to happen
Even Corbyn has said if Trident was scrapped the 100bn cost(over decades) would be ring fenced to preserve jobs in engineering and the defence industry.

 

[spring hall convert]

But isn't the decision someone else's already? It's not ours. Britain is never going to be in a position whereby we are starting a nuclear war. That will be left to the Americans, the Russians and the Chinese. Not us. Bless us.

This is the key, key point that no one mentions. Can anyone realistically foresee a situation where we could use a nuclear weapon without ringing Washington first?

Seeing as the Americans have enough warheads to guarantee annihilation, what difference would Trident make? And if anyone thinks Putin's supposed threat to us is diminished by nuclear weapons, they need their head checking. Putin wouldn't touch us because he knows America would be involved, if the Yanks didn't get involved, Trident isn't going to put him off. The one way to guarantee global annihilation would be to nuke Russia.

 

[BigGully]

I really don't know how the Germans have survived without a nuclear deterent!

Nor the Spanish...

Italians.

Swedes, Norwegians, Portuguese...

etc.

Yeah down to us France and the USA ......................

Worth also adding the following GDP current prices:

USA 1st
China 2nd
United Kingdom 5th
France 6th
Russia 15th

Spanish 14th
Italy 9th
Sweden 25th
Norway 27th
Portugal 47th

Typically I think you are underestimating the role we play in global affairs, we are not the biggest hitter but a little bit higher than you give us credit for.

 

[glasfryn]

I'm having a few issues with my next door neighbour. It started when we repaired a fence after the winter storms of 2013 and half inched half an inch of his garden and has moved on to him occasionally tutting if the kids are loud on the trampoline or we are tardy with the weeding in the front garden. I'm thinking of spending all this month's salary on a massive fk off gun that I can ostentatiously display in the window just in case he's thinking of popping round with a knife any time soon. I'm sure the kids won't mind starving for a couple of weeks. After all, it's their safety I'm thinking of.

you could of coarse bomb him but then you will not have anywhere to live either
your post made me laugh on a bad day

 

[spring hall convert]

Harry Leslie Smith ‏@Harryslaststand 19h19 hours ago

"Nuclear weapons provide no more security for a nation than ubiquitous gun ownership does for individual American citizens #Trident"

Quite.

 

[glasfryn]

This is the key, key point that no one mentions. Can anyone realistically foresee a situation where we could use a nuclear weapon without ringing Washington first?

Seeing as the Americans have enough warheads to guarantee annihilation, what difference would Trident make? And if anyone thinks Putin's supposed threat to us is diminished by nuclear weapons, they need their head checking. Putin wouldn't touch us because he knows America would be involved, if the Yanks didn't get involved, Trident isn't going to put him off. The one way to guarantee global annihilation would be to nuke Russia.

exactly
we are their first line of defence, if we are to have neclear weapons then let them pay for them .............nah did'nt think so

 

[Hamilton]

They survived because barring the swedes they were members of NATO which did have a nuclear deterrent, as ive asked in other posts , would you , given the tendencies of the US to become very isolationist when it suits , trust them to use their nuclear deterrent to protect europe if it didnt suit them ? have you factored in all the possible algorithms of an aggressively expansionist china taking up all the american interests in the pacific theatre whilst a russian leader seeks to quell unrest at home by embarking on foreign adventures in europe ? there are literally thousands of possible scenarios , and i for one would feel far more comfortable with a big stick that deters possioble predators.

I have very little interest in what the American foreign policy is, short of the fact that it doesn't work. So, in answer to your question, I don't see our future relying on the Americans being prepared to use nuclear weapons on our behalf anymore than I see our future reliant on us defending ourselves against an expansionist Russia or China. The answer isn't as regressive as that, but I do believe we can cope perfectly well without Trident (and I never used to think that). And we'd still be members of Nato. Every one is a winner

 

[BigGully]

This is the key, key point that no one mentions. Can anyone realistically foresee a situation where we could use a nuclear weapon without ringing Washington first?

Seeing as the Americans have enough warheads to guarantee annihilation, what difference would Trident make? And if anyone thinks Putin's supposed threat to us is diminished by nuclear weapons, they need their head checking. Putin wouldn't touch us because he knows America would be involved, if the Yanks didn't get involved, Trident isn't going to put him off. The one way to guarantee global annihilation would be to nuke Russia.

Well this is key, we would have our own button for our own warheads.

Without it, could you ever see the USA contemplating ringing Downing Street, it offers some level of leverage which otherwise wouldn't exist.

 

[spring hall convert]

Which brings up another very important point. For deterrence to work, the enemy has to believe that the British Prime Minister really would press the mass-murder button. Tony Blair professed himself a committed Christian, to the extent of converting to Roman Catholicism. How likely was it that a truly devout Blair really would be prepared to murder countless millions of innocent men, women and children and ultimately face his God after committing the most disgusting act of mass genocide in world history? If you don't believe your enemy is actually prepared to do this, there is no deterrent.

You mean that devout Catholic that started an illegal war based on dodgy intelligence to support an allies oil grab?

Of all our recent PM's I reckon Blair was the nutter most likely to press the button.

 

[Hamilton]

Yeah down to us France and the USA ......................

Worth also adding the following GDP current prices:

USA 1st
China 2nd
United Kingdom 5th
France 6th
Russia 15th

Spanish 14th
Italy 9th
Sweden 25th
Norway 27th
Portugal 47th

Typically I think you are underestimating the role we play in global affairs, we are not the biggest hitter but a little bit higher than you give us credit for.

Not at all.

As I said in a previous post, our biggest deterrent we use every single day. It's called London. Financial and cultural haven for Russians, Saudis, Qataris, Chinese etc etc. It's their back garden. Far more powerful than Trident.

 

[spring hall convert]

Well this is key, we would have our own button for our own warheads.

Without it, could you ever see the USA contemplating ringing Downing Street, it offers some level of leverage which otherwise wouldn't exist.

This attitude is ridiculous. The horse has already bolted, we have NO influence on major global affairs. It would be better for all of us if we stopped pretending we did and started protecting ourselves from the real, tangible threats that exist in the world.

 

[sparkie]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/lithuania-is-safer-with-nato-mr-corbyn

Lithuania is safer with Nato, Mr Corbyn


Letters

Sympathy for the victims of imperialism is a noble sentiment. But I am puzzled that Labour’s new leader feels this so keenly when Asia, Africa and Latin America are concerned, but seems so unaware of the past, present and future of imperialism on the European continent.*Lithuania*has in living memory experienced imperialism through occupation, linguistic and cultural oppression, the destruction of civil society and public institutions, rape, looting, deportation and mass murder. The perpetrators of these crimes have not been punished. Nor has Russia, the successor state to the Soviet Union, apologised or paid compensation. Instead it praises our oppressors as heroes and justifies Stalin’s destruction of half of Europe as geopolitical necessity.

This is not just a historical injustice; the Kremlin continues to menace its former victims – countries which it should treat with especial sensitivity and respect. It has invaded Ukraine and Georgia, seizing territory and creating puppet states. It wages economic warfare against neighbouring countries, and runs a venomous propaganda campaign portraying them as failed, fascist and friendless. Russia’s fast-modernising military rehearses conventional and nuclear attacks against Nato allies.

Jeremy Corbyn says nothing about this. Instead he blames us for trying to defend ourselves. Our countries were not, as he seems to believe, forced or lured into Nato as part of an American global power grab. We were pounding on the door of the alliance, demanding to be let in, because we feared that Russia might one day become what it is now: a threat.*Those of us in Nato are delighted that the alliance is now fully engaged in our territorial defence, and we are delighted and grateful that Britain is taking a leading role in this. We are glad for our part to contribute to the security of the UK – in cyber-defence, strategic communications, energy security, intelligence, counter-terrorism, combatting organised crime, and with other capabilities.

I invite Mr Corbyn to visit my country, to see the progress we have made since recovering our sovereignty after the fall of the evil empire, and the threats that we face from its successor. We would welcome his sympathy and support as our citizens try to regain the legality, liberty, dignity, security and prosperity so cruelly taken from us in the past, and which people in the United Kingdom are so fortunate to enjoy.
Asta Skaisgirytė
Lithuanian ambassador




I truely hope this 'useful idiot' never rules our country.

 

[BigGully]

You mean that devout Catholic that started an illegal war based on dodgy intelligence to support an allies oil grab?

Of all our recent PM's I reckon Blair was the nutter most likely to press the button.

This is the point out of all the nutters in recent history and I think Russia and China have had their fair share, no one seems to have come close to pressing it.

Can you imagine one nutter wanting to impose himself on quite a reasonable neighbour and the nutter is the only one with the trump card.

 

[alfredmizen]

This is the key, key point that no one mentions. Can anyone realistically foresee a situation where we could use a nuclear weapon without ringing Washington first?

Seeing as the Americans have enough warheads to guarantee annihilation, what difference would Trident make? And if anyone thinks Putin's supposed threat to us is diminished by nuclear weapons, they need their head checking. Putin wouldn't touch us because he knows America would be involved, if the Yanks didn't get involved, Trident isn't going to put him off. The one way to guarantee global annihilation would be to nuke Russia.

Yes, I can , they've left us to fend for ourselves in ww2 until their hand was forced by the germans declaring war on them , they also got threatened us with economic ruin if we didnt abandon our little adventiure in suez, if anyone thinks american policy isnt first and foremost for the benefit of america, they need their head examined , theyd kick us into touch as soon as it suited them.

 

[spring hall convert]

This is the point out of all the nutters in recent history and I think Russia and China have had their fair share, no one seems to have come close to pressing it.

Eh? What was the Cuban Missile Crisis then?

 

[Seagull on the wing]

"The government is in favour of replacing Trident at a cost of around £100 billion. This money would be enough to fully fund A&E services for 40 years, employ 150,000 new nurses, build 1.5 million affordable homes, build 30,000 new primary schools, or cover tuition fees for 4 million students."

Priorities, people...

Agree....priorities...what is the point of having 150,000 new nurses,funding A&E,,building all those homes,new schools,student fees if you cannot defend the country first. What is the point of having a government leader reluctantly accepting a nuclear shield then declaring he would never use them...it's the threat of using them that makes them effective.
I watched all the Labour party conference and it made it clear that Corbyn has changed his mind several times on his policies already...OK agree that his party has forced him too,but he stated on immigration that we should do more as we are the 4th richest nation...than on finance declares that DC and Gordon Osborne are ruining the economy...he declares that we stop being racist...then he condems Israel. Still glad he got in power,though suspect come the Labour revolution he will no longer be at the helm,it was noticeable that not one former Labour Leader attended the conference.
Nuclear weapons costing 100billion...yes,that's for 30 years...3 and a third billion a year...EU cost more.

 

[alfredmizen]

I have very little interest in what the American foreign policy is, short of the fact that it doesn't work. So, in answer to your question, I don't see our future relying on the Americans being prepared to use nuclear weapons on our behalf anymore than I see our future reliant on us defending ourselves against an expansionist Russia or China. The answer isn't as regressive as that, but I do believe we can cope perfectly well without Trident (and I never used to think that). And we'd still be members of Nato. Every one is a winner

you have very little interest in american foreign policy , but we could cope without trident because we'd be members of NATO, righto, blinkered doesnt even begin to cover it

 

[BigGully]

This attitude is ridiculous. The horse has already bolted, we have NO influence on major global affairs. It would be better for all of us if we stopped pretending we did and started protecting ourselves from the real, tangible threats that exist in the world.

That is utter b******s.

We remain the 5th richest nation and to think that we have no influence on global affairs is breathtakingly naive or typically inwardly sneering.

Of course the USA are the biggest hitters and although I agree I sometimes wonder if we ever impose any real influence on some of their actions, I am sure there are many many times we actually do.

Some things do happen globally that are driven by other nations and we would have enough clout to be instrumental in many of those.

 

[Hamilton]

you have very little interest in american foreign policy , but we could cope without trident because we'd be members of NATO, righto, blinkered doesnt even begin to cover it

The last line was clearly a joke.

As I clearly state - American foreign policy doesn't work. Yes that does interest me (I guess I shouldn't have tried to employ sarcasm). However, our possession of Trident really won't change American foreign policy or anybody else's. The proof of that lies in the fact that our possession of Trident to date has had little impact on what is happening on the international stage. So, there has to be another way.

 

[BigGully]

Eh? What was the Cuban Missile Crisis then?

Exactly and they didnt and it was over 50 years ago.