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

[DataPoint]

……. “The hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons held by the USA were no help to them on 9/11”.

My argument? – Had France possessed them in 1940 – they would have not been occupied by the Germans.

Why don’t people get it? – Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. Their very existence means they will never be used and countries that possess them will never be occupied.

Hitler had nothing to lose by occupying France – he wasn’t faced with the potential consequential loss of all his great cities that would have made his strategy unbearable and pointless.

55 million people died in the 2nd world war – that sounds like “mass destruction” to me! Dozens of countries and territories were occupied. 100’s of millions of civilians were terrorised, abused and subjected including finally the Germans themselves. A free France would almost certainly have prevented much of the horror!

We’re all humanists Jeremy – none of us want or like conflict – but in the completely and unlikely scenario of an enemy force, sometime in the future, crossing Hadrian’s Wall from occupied Scotland with the intention of invading England, I just want to have the ultimate means available to deter them.

I can’t envisage any other circumstance when they would be used - but I consider that alone a price worth paying for!

 

[Hampster Gull]

I would prefer they had never benn invented but they have, its not possible to go back. We must now stop their proliferation and seek to minimise the numbers held by those countries that do have them. But it is now our role to act as a deterent

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

It's ridiculous and naive comments, like this, from Corbyn that show how detached from reality and dangerous he is.

 

[Machiavelli]

……. “The hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons held by the USA were no help to them on 9/11”.

My argument? – Had France possessed them in 1940 – they would have not been occupied by the Germans.

Why don’t people get it? – Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. Their very existence means they will never be used and countries that possess them will never be occupied.

Hitler had nothing to lose by occupying France – he wasn’t faced with the potential consequential loss of all his great cities that would have made his strategy unbearable and pointless.

55 million people died in the 2nd world war – that sounds like “mass destruction” to me! Dozens of countries and territories were occupied. 100’s of millions of civilians were terrorised, abused and subjected including finally the Germans themselves. A free France would almost certainly have prevented much of the horror!

We’re all humanists Jeremy – none of us want or like conflict – but in the completely and unlikely scenario of an enemy force, sometime in the future, crossing Hadrian’s Wall from occupied Scotland with the intention of invading England, I just want to have the ultimate means available to deter them.

I can’t envisage any other circumstance when they would be used - but I consider that alone a price worth paying for!

Corbyn's argument might be "childlike and simplistic", but I prefer those to ones that are fundamentally wrong. Just saying.

 

[sparkie]

Corbyn is an idiot when it comes to foreign policy.

One of Putin's "useful idiots".

Corbyn states we don't need nuclear weapons as the cold war is over.

He chooses to ignore an agressive, expansionist russia with it's eye on invading the Baltic states, issuing threats including use of nukes, ruled by a kleptocratic crook in the Kremlin.

And Corbyn wants us to disarm our nukes, and leave NATO.

"Useful idiot" indeed.

 

[Hamilton]

This really is a sideshow created by the media to keep them occupied. They must be very bored.

I'd imagine Labour will vote to keep Trident - not that we need it - and then it will all be academic anyway.

Corbyn is merely saying that he wouldn't push the button. Good, I don't want him to. If he or any other prime minister ever did, then we'd all be fried within a few minutes anyway, so what's the point?

This is all handily deflecting from some of the issues that we should be focusing on - jobs, fair pay, taxation of corporations etc. but that's not as interesting to the sensationalist media as a pointless story about pushing the red button. The news editor that came up with that angle must be oh so ever so pleased with themselves. Meanwhile, we're again not talking about the issues that matter.

 

[Nibble]

I like Corbyn, best thing to happen to Labour in decades but it is odd he is using as a pursuader to vote for Labour that he would never launch a nuclear attack. Well, no other UK party leader has either.

 

[mikeyjh]

……. “The hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons held by the USA were no help to them on 9/11”.

My argument? – Had France possessed them in 1940 – they would have not been occupied by the Germans.

Why don’t people get it? – Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. Their very existence means they will never be used and countries that possess them will never be occupied.

Hitler had nothing to lose by occupying France – he wasn’t faced with the potential consequential loss of all his great cities that would have made his strategy unbearable and pointless.

55 million people died in the 2nd world war – that sounds like “mass destruction” to me! Dozens of countries and territories were occupied. 100’s of millions of civilians were terrorised, abused and subjected including finally the Germans themselves. A free France would almost certainly have prevented much of the horror!

We’re all humanists Jeremy – none of us want or like conflict – but in the completely and unlikely scenario of an enemy force, sometime in the future, crossing Hadrian’s Wall from occupied Scotland with the intention of invading England, I just want to have the ultimate means available to deter them.

I can’t envisage any other circumstance when they would be used - but I consider that alone a price worth paying for!

It may be childish and simplistic, but it is entirely true and far more relevant to 2015 than something that happened 75 years ago.

 

[Bold Seagull]

……. “The hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons held by the USA were no help to them on 9/11”.

My argument? – Had France possessed them in 1940 – they would have not been occupied by the Germans.

Why don’t people get it? – Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. Their very existence means they will never be used and countries that possess them will never be occupied.

Hitler had nothing to lose by occupying France – he wasn’t faced with the potential consequential loss of all his great cities that would have made his strategy unbearable and pointless.

55 million people died in the 2nd world war – that sounds like “mass destruction” to me! Dozens of countries and territories were occupied. 100’s of millions of civilians were terrorised, abused and subjected including finally the Germans themselves. A free France would almost certainly have prevented much of the horror!

We’re all humanists Jeremy – none of us want or like conflict – but in the completely and unlikely scenario of an enemy force, sometime in the future, crossing Hadrian’s Wall from occupied Scotland with the intention of invading England, I just want to have the ultimate means available to deter them.

I can’t envisage any other circumstance when they would be used - but I consider that alone a price worth paying for!

Your argument should ask what would have happened if Hitler had them as well? Would there actually have been annihilation because clearly he wasn't a rational man, and neither was Stalin for that matter. Someone else having them may not have been a deterrent to them, it would have been a statistical calculation on who would suffer the most. They'd have accepted the consequences to their own people if they thought their own strike would have given them an advantage.

As a nuclear deterrent we've gone from 5 nuclear powers when 187 countries signed the 1968 non-profileration treaty, to a suspected 9 today. The deterrent hasn't made the world safer, it's made the world want more of them. With some 4000 active nuclear warheads across the globe at anyone time, if anyone did use one, we're basically ****ed, Corbyn being prepared to press or not press the button is likely to be irrelevant, a lot of us won't be here to know whether we had our vengeance on some other civilian population or not. It is the paradox of the deterrent.

 

[BigGully]

This really is a sideshow created by the media to keep them occupied. They must be very bored.

I'd imagine Labour will vote to keep Trident - not that we need it - and then it will all be academic anyway.

Corbyn is merely saying that he wouldn't push the button. Good, I don't want him to. If he or any other prime minister ever did, then we'd all be fried within a few minutes anyway, so what's the point?

This is all handily deflecting from some of the issues that we should be focusing on - jobs, fair pay, taxation of corporations etc. but that's not as interesting to the sensationalist media as a pointless story about pushing the red button. The news editor that came up with that angle must be oh so ever so pleased with themselves. Meanwhile, we're again not talking about the issues that matter.

But isnt that exactly the point, its the deterrent that would stop us being fried and ultimately never needing to push the button anyway, but as soon as you take away that deterrent then that decision becomes someone elses.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Our nuclear deterrent is neither independent or crucial in the security of our country. It's a colossal waste of money. Trident is an expensive status symbol and nothing more. We get a seat at the top table for some things and we can walk around under the delusion that people actually give a crap about what we think. I think it has been pointed out that the best part of 200 countries on the planet do not have nuclear weapons and they get along just fine, just as we would without trident.

 

[GOM]

It may be childish and simplistic, but it is entirely true and far more relevant to 2015 than something that happened 75 years ago.

Some will never learn from history.

 

[sparkie]

Ukraine's 'prize' for giving up all it's nuclear weapons was a worthless piece of paper 'guaranteeing' it's sovereignty and borders, and a russian invasion from the east.

 

[Leyton Gull]

Bloody waste of time and money. Why didn't we get nuked just after I walk out of a WC trap on my first day at work, only to discover I was actually in the Ladies?

 

[Hamilton]

But isnt that exactly the point, its the deterrent that would stop us being fried and ultimately never needing to push the button anyway, but as soon as you take away that deterrent then that decision becomes someone elses.

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.

Our best deterrent at the moment is being a peaceful financial haven.

We're not in the race here.

 

[sparkie]

Our nuclear deterrent is neither independent or crucial in the security of our country. It's a colossal waste of money. Trident is an expensive status symbol and nothing more. We get a seat at the top table for some things and we can walk around under the delusion that people actually give a crap about what we think. I think it has been pointed out that the best part of 200 countries on the planet do not have nuclear weapons and they get along just fine, just as we would without trident.

Well, if Ukraine hadn't given up it's nukes, it's unlikely Putin would have invaded, so at least 1 of those 200 didn't "get along just fine"

 

[Bold Seagull]

But isnt that exactly the point, its the deterrent that would stop us being fried and ultimately never needing to push the button anyway, but as soon as you take away that deterrent then that decision becomes someone elses.

What you have to ask yourself, is whether our 200 or so warheads is the deterrent, or whether our allies 5000 warheads are?

How do we sit at diplomatic tables saying to countries they cannot develop their own when we are renewing the effectiveness of ours? Is it enough that the US and France have nuclear arsenal's greater than ours to protect the interests of the West, and to provide security and the deterrent - or do we stand alone in making a deterrent?

There is a real debate to be had about this, and at the moment it is just yes or no, without really talking about the why. Simply saying it is a deterrent isn't enough for me. Perhaps we do need it, but so far it is a very simplistic debate.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Well, if Ukraine hadn't given up it's nukes, it's unlikely Putin would have invaded, so at least 1 of those 200 didn't "get along just fine"

Yep Russia will be at our door the moment we give up Trident I'm sure.

 

[Stat Brother]

I'm thinking this point:-

My argument? – Had France possessed them in 1940 – they would have not been occupied by the Germans.

is a little naive and facile?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Well, if Ukraine hadn't given up it's nukes, it's unlikely Putin would have invaded, so at least 1 of those 200 didn't "get along just fine"

It didn't bother Leopoldo Galtieri...