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

[Hamilton]

Because they rely on NATO, including the UK, USA and France, who all have................nuclear weapons?

 

[alfredmizen]

proof indeed that youve lost the argument.

 

[Hamilton]

proof indeed that youve lost the argument.

Proof indeed that I'm enjoying myself

 

[spring hall convert]

The irony is that you are saying lets hide behind the USA from the threat from China and Russia, the one nation you seem to hold the most contempt for. (you might not, but many from the left do).

I think you forget that as on a previous thread Americans demand tipping for services rendered, so they would demand, quite rightly some levy for their unilateral defence of Europe, so we would have a stake in those warheads anyway.

I assume you wouldn't expect the west to chuck in all their nuclear cards, USA included would you ??

We already pay this levy and we have Trident. That's the reality of the situation.

 

[BigGully]

We already pay this levy and we have Trident. That's the reality of the situation.

Yes, whether we bin it or not we will have our finger prints all over it, its just empty posturing unless you genuinely believe the West should give up any nuclear capability whilst China, Russia, Pakistan have it and others clamber to try and get it.

It needs greater ideology than just wanting the hardware off our shores, but whilst those countries have it then it is always a flawed position.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Splendid. The OP has just made a convincing argument for every single one of the world's 195 countries to possess nuclear weapons. That way, everyone would be so much safer. And the British armaments industry would surely be booming! However…

Well if all of the 195 countries had rational governments with a basic understanding of self preservation yes it is a convincing argument and everyone would be safer, but back in the real world we have the non proliferation treaty.

Not only did the USA's possession of nuclear weapons fail to deter the 19 Saudi jihadists of 9/11 (how could it have, since they all wanted to die anyway) but our own country's possession of nuclear weapons did nothing to deter General Galtieri from invading the Falklands in 1982. Was Thatcher actually prepared to press the nuclear button? Galtieri, correctly, assumed not and carried on invading.

Who ever thought or claimed nuclear weapons could prevent attacks from irrational nutjobs, silly argument. The nuclear deterrent is a weapon of last resort not a guarantee of safety from attack from everything or everyone. Galtieri was detterred from invading the Falklands when we had a submarine patrolling the South Atlantic as it was virtually undetectable and had the capability of sinking the entire invasion fleet. Only after we withdrew it did he think it was a good time to invade. A good example of needing a submarine based weapon system to deter an aggressor, shame we unilaterally withdrew it.

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.

Yes they do, which is why it is so incredibly stupid of Corbyn to say he never would and also completely destroys any point in having 'an open and democratic' debate within the Labour party. Good answer if your a maveric backbencher preaching to the converted not so good as Labour Leader/possible future PM speaking to the nation/world.

So who is our enemy? Russia? Does anyone seriously think that Vladimir Putin would want to fire his nuclear weapons at the UK? Why would he do that? What would remain to be worth occupying, with the capital and the country rendered poisonously uninhabitable for decades?

Who is our enemy now? In 10 years? In 25 years? In 50 years ? Will all future enemies want to occupy us or just be content with wiping us out. Can we all have a look in your crystal ball to guarantee our future safety ?

A growing number of senior British military figures have admitted that in the 21st-century possession and deployment of nuclear weapons can confer no actual military advantage. These are weapons of a Cold War past which have no value against the threats we are facing today. Will Islamic terrorists be deterred? Where do you even begin to point your weapons when the enemy is a bunch of religiously-inspired ideas held by madmen scattered across the globe?

Back to the crystal ball, a guarantee of no more Cold War's or knowing who tomorrow's enemies are going to be please.

Only six countries in the world actually possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, Britain… And of course Israel. But we're not allowed to mention that. All the other 190 countries in the world see no need for them. Where is Switzerland's deterrent? Australia's? How can all those 190 countries be so stupid as to live in such danger of attack and invasion? Or is it just possible that nuclear weapons only work against the other five countries that possess them? In which case, disarmament is the only solution.

Pakistan, North Korea, India also have a nuclear capability. Some of the 190 countries see no need for them and some are actively trying to acquire them. Multilateral disarmament is a noble aim but only achievable if all nations are truly committed to the eradication of the weapons.

No, the only enemies who would undoubtedly like to fire nuclear weapons at the UK are the madmen of Isis who, if they got their hands on them would be delighted to aim Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at all and sundry. They most certainly would not be deterred by the thought that they would face annihilation themselves. It's in their job description to welcome it.

A good argument for stopping more countries acquiring nuclear weapons and keeping tight controls on those that do have them.

Jeremy Corbyn's stance on the Trident debate is based on straightforward logic, accompanied by a lifelong revulsion for the idea that the job of a British Prime Minister is to be willing to commit a disgusting act of mass murder and contribute to extinction of our planet. Despite the efforts of our great British media, support for his stance appears to be growing.

Jeremy Corbyn's stance is based on his life spent as a rebellious back bench MP preaching simplistic answers to the converted. Not good enough now he is Labour Leader wanting to become PM.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The irony is that you are saying lets hide behind the USA from the threat from China and Russia, the one nation you seem to hold the most contempt for. (you might not, but many from the left do).

I think you forget that as on a previous thread Americans demand tipping for services rendered, so they would demand, quite rightly some levy for their unilateral defence of Europe, so we would have a stake in those warheads anyway.

I assume you wouldn't expect the west to chuck in all their nuclear cards, USA included would you ??

Hide behind America - are you joking? They're pulling our defence strings to this very day. Our entire defence spending is based on what they want us to do and the size of force they want us to have. As soon as we cut defence spending who sticks their oar in!? . The majority of our own intelligence is shared with them. They've said the 3 most important things they want from Britain is intelligence, a well equipped military force and nuclear capability. Whether we have Trident or not, we are firmly tied to the US.

The other critical thing is that Trident cannot be maintained without the Americans. We simply don't have the expertise or know how and Trident relies on the US for it to be operational. If the US withdrew it's support, simply put there would be no Trident.

 

[lawros left foot]

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?

This, we had nukes in 1982, it didn't stop Argentina.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Who ever thought or claimed nuclear weapons could prevent attacks from irrational nutjobs, silly argument. The nuclear deterrent is a weapon of last resort not a guarantee of safety from attack from everything or everyone. Galtieri was detterred from invading the Falklands when we had a submarine patrolling the South Atlantic as it was virtually undetectable and had the capability of sinking the entire invasion fleet. Only after we withdrew it did he think it was a good time to invade. A good example of needing a submarine based weapon system to deter an aggressor, shame we unilaterally withdrew it.

That wasn't a nuclear armed sub - and the idea of Trident is that no one knows where they are! It was well known that Thatcher was advised to keep more ships down there, but given the state of the economy and the cuts she was making, she left the Falklands effectively unguarded. The irony of this is that if we weren't spending so much on a nuclear deterrent, we'd have had the funds to maintain a conventional navy presence down there which would have prevented the war.

 

[alfredmizen]

This, we had nukes in 1982, it didn't stop Argentina.

To compare the Falklands , which was to all intents and purposes a small local conflict where nuclear weapons were NEVER going to be an option ( no disrespect to the blokes who fought in it smudge !) to the global geopolitical machinations of various alliances and countries and their perceived future territorial ambitions , shows a childlike grasp of nuclear strategy.

 

[BigGully]

Hide behind America - are you joking? They're pulling our defence strings to this very day. Our entire defence spending is based on what they want us to do and the size of force they want us to have. As soon as we cut defence spending who sticks their oar in!? . The majority of our own intelligence is shared with them. They've said the 3 most important things they want from Britain is intelligence, a well equipped military force and nuclear capability. Whether we have Trident or not, we are firmly tied to the US.

The other critical thing is that Trident cannot be maintained without the Americans. We simply don't have the expertise or know how and Trident relies on the US for it to be operational. If the US withdrew it's support, simply put there would be no Trident.

The gist of your comment seems reasonable, we have aligned ourselves with the USA a country we share common values, enemies and historical and current military partnerships, plus they are the worlds superpower, so good friends to have.

I think though your example is the wrong way round, I cannot see why the Americans would ever consider withdrawing the partnership of Trident rather more a Labour government withdrawing theirs, thats the debate here.

 

[sparkie]

This, we had nukes in 1982, it didn't stop Argentina.

Jesus H Christ On A Bike Wept.

For the 3rd time...

UK nuclear deterence has never included launching a nuclear strike if a CROWN DEPENDENCY is invaded.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The gist of your comment seems reasonable, we have aligned ourselves with the USA a country we share common values, enemies and historical and current military partnerships, plus they are the worlds superpower, so good friends to have.

I think though your example is the wrong way round, I cannot see why the Americans would ever consider withdrawing the partnership of Trident rather more a Labour government withdrawing theirs, thats the debate here.

No of course they wouldn't, it is an excellent arrangement for them to effectively have a satellite nuclear capability for which they supply the warheads, the technology, most of the maintenance etc. the missiles themselves can only be serviced in the port of Georgia. This is far from an independent defence system we could use when we please. We pay through the roof for a capability another country wants us to have.

 

[Braggfan]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/leader-of-uk-must-be-prepared-to-kill-everyone-20151001102480

 

[Triggaaar]

Corbyn is merely saying that he wouldn't push the button.

Then I don't ever want him as leader.

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?

The point is that any potential enemy that wants to destroy Britain should know that we absolutely would push the button, if we had to.

I'd imagine Labour will vote to keep Trident

Genius. So with Corbyn in charge, we'd have the expense of paying for Trident, without having the one thing that it's supposed to provide.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

That wasn't a nuclear armed sub - and the idea of Trident is that no one knows where they are! It was well known that Thatcher was advised to keep more ships down there, but given the state of the economy and the cuts she was making, she left the Falklands effectively unguarded. The irony of this is that if we weren't spending so much on a nuclear deterrent, we'd have had the funds to maintain a conventional navy presence down there which would have prevented the war.

Never said it was - If memory serves I think it was a nuclear powered conventionally armed submarine with the capability of destroying any potential invasion force with conventional weapons. It might have been conventionally powered but that's not the issue. My point being if your opponent knows you have a superior weapon system operating in the South Atlantic, capable of obliterating your forces it deters aggression and it did. Would the money spent on a Nuclear deterrent really be spent on conventional forces ? Or on tax cuts, or on x policy to help with re election , bit of a cynic!

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Good timing, Vladimir Corbyn...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/609055/North-Korea-nuclear-strike-direct-Britain-war-Jeremy-Corbyn-Trident-deterrent

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Only six countries in the world actually possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, Britain… And of course Israel. But we're not allowed to mention that. All the other 190 countries in the world see no need for them. .

In it's short existence, how many wars have Israel been involved with
a) before it had nuclear weapons to defend itself?
b) after it had nuclear weapons to defend itself?

Did having nuclear weapons ensure it's security from foreign invaders or have other countries that are traditionally opposed to it's very existence gone to war with Israel seeking to invade and destroy it despite of these weapons ?

 

[attila]

I've always found that in politics childlike and simplistic is the way to go. It cuts through all the bullshit

 

[alfredmizen]

I've always found that in politics childlike and simplistic is the way to go. It cuts through all the bullshit

Thats probably been the key to your great success at it.