General Election 2017

[midnight_rendezvous]

Multiple scenarios and multiple hypotheticals no doubt and all very complex.
Someone somewhere has probably done a hypothetical assessment of various scenarios.........any retaliation and protection measures break down though in the bloke in charge refuses to defend the nation.
With all the will in the world im thinking hypothetical scenarios about winning the PL will not be a massive talking point next season on NSC.........would love to be proven wrong on that account

I imagine they have. But JC never says he wouldn't defend the nation. He said he would use diplomacy to prevent these hypothetical scenarios taking place. Yes, he said he would not fire first but he never said he wouldn't defend the country. The likelihood of any of these scenarios occurring is minimal. Our attentions would be better placed debating things that are currently happening instead of things that may or may not happen in an 'end of days' scenario.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Its possible you only have seconds to make a decision what to do, organising a NATO conference may not be practical

Which suggests that every country in NATO should also have its own independent nuclear capability.

 

[severnside gull]

Refreshing to have a politician not lie about refusing to instigate or automatically reciprocate nuclear action.
I would actually sleep more comfortably knowing that frying a significant part of the population wasn't viewed as essential to winning votes, especially with what's going on across the Atlantic.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Talking about the DPRK as a threat to this country is moronic. The threats we face are from terrorist attacks from people like the daft prick who blew himself up in Manchester, not the Korean peninsula. That whole hypothetical was such a waste of time. If you think the DPRK are a genuine threat, then PM me and as someone that has researched and written a paper on the country, I'll be happy to put your mind at ease.

By the way, how much aid do we send there? Ask May, she'll know... Oh wait. I think that was the bigger story than all this nuke nonsense.

Hang on. Let me get this straight.

You think its more important whether a leader of this country will use our ultimate weapon to defend us............ or whether May knew the amount of aid we send to X country, when aid probably gets shared between numerous countries.

Really?

I'd e concerned if she did know how much each country gets from aid, rather than the overall amount we spend. You really expect her to know every minute detail on every expense!! Seriously, have a word with yourself!!!

If you think that's the bigger story, I think you should keep it to yourself if you want to maintain a shred of credibility!!

 

[TSB]

I imagine they have. But JC never says he wouldn't defend the nation. He said he would use diplomacy to prevent these hypothetical scenarios taking place. Yes, he said he would not fire first but he never said he wouldn't defend the country. The likelihood of any of these scenarios occurring is minimal. Our attentions would be better placed debating things that are currently happening instead of things that may or may not happen in an 'end of days' scenario.

As we've seen, they tend to lose the argument on the majority of current, domestic & realistic issues.
Hence why we're hearing all this shite about trident and nuclear war.
The Republicans tried the same route with Obama. Didn't go well.

It's a wonder that some of that Question Time audience manage to dress themselves in the morning. Typical Yorkshire.

 

[Eeyore]

This teacher, was he of advanced years, an 'ex' History teacher or simply an educator of Ancient stuff? Just wondering like. A lot of History is 'old'.

History is just one thing after another.

 

[tinycowboy]

He also did not confirm he was use them in retaliation.

So if North Korea's Ping Pong Plop sends one our way, he DID NOT confirm, despite being pressed quite hard on it, that he would be prepared to retaliate. Maybe he would after the 5th or 6th one comes our way, who knows.

In a nutshell, some people believe that this is an important question. Others believe that this issue is not a high priority as it is less likely than other problems (e.g. NHS funding, education, etc). These people therefore are less bothered by this question and are happy to ignore it. This may seem like madness to those who feel that security is of paramount importance (research has shown that such people are generally on the right wing of political thought). Personally, I have no interest in nuclear missiles and would sleep easily without them. If Kim Jong Un did develop a missile with sufficient range to destroy parts of this country, I can honestly say that my immediate concern would not be whether we should bomb them back or not - I think things would quickly escalate without any action on our part given that North Korea would have sent a missile over multiple airspaces between our two countries. I imagine that this may precipitate widespread multilateral military action against North Korea. Happy to hear your hypothetical thoughts, if you want to set them out?

 

[Javeaseagull]

Why is Corbyn continually asked if he would press the button? No British Prime Minister has ever faced this dilemma and none will. The control of Polaris is completely down to the Americans.
We all know the answer don’t we.

 

[Triggaaar]

If it happened, which I can't see how, it would come from Russia. In which case a few hundred would be sent on their way.

Not if Corbyn was in charge.

But JC never says he wouldn't defend the nation. He said he would use diplomacy to prevent these hypothetical scenarios taking place. Yes, he said he would not fire first but he never said he wouldn't defend the country.

He didn't say he wouldn't fire first, he said he wouldn't fire under any circumstances. Of course we wouldn't fire first FFS.

The likelihood of any of these scenarios occurring is minimal.

Indeed, but the likelihood is higher if you have a leader who says they won't retaliate. The whole point of a deterrent is that you would retaliate.

 

[seagulls4ever]

[tweet]870754944739008512[/tweet]

Your Foreign Affairs minister, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[ManOfSussex]

There does seem to be Conservative and Unionist Dickhead Takeover syndrome tonight - what would Clement Attlee do.................

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Refreshing to have a politician not lie about refusing to instigate or automatically reciprocate nuclear action.
I would actually sleep more comfortably knowing that frying a significant part of the population wasn't viewed as essential to winning votes, especially with what's going on across the Atlantic.

You call it refreshing, I call it worrying. I'm sure in the next day or so, Jeremy's handlers will get him to confirm he will use it is he had to.

The man is a dickhead. All he had to add to what he said was yes, as an absolute last resort, which is it. He has now told the world, if he is in power, Trident is not something for anyone to worry about. The whole ****ing point of it, to for other to worry about it, hence why there cannot be a nuclear war all the time there is a deterrent. He has just told the world under him the UK has no deterrent!!

Unless I was mistaken, it was a bit one of the first things he said, that he will pass a law that guarantees the rights of the EU citizens in the UK. Bravo JC, Bravo. Maybe you could have added, British living aboard.

So as I see it, he going to open his Brexit negations with, we are not going to walk away, no matter how bad a deal you give us, and we guarantee your citizens right to remain here.

Now, how much did you want from us, and what about the rights of British living in your countries.

And people are going to vote for this clown

 

[ofco8]

Blimey 550 pages.

Everybody I know has known from the moment the election was called who they were going to vote for next Thursday.

All the talk from mostly crap politicians for the past 6 weeks or so has not changed my mind one iota. They are all promising the electorate things that us, the tax payers, cannot afford.

 

[Scotchegg]

Hang on. Let me get this straight.

You think its more important whether a leader of this country will use our ultimate weapon to defend us............ or whether May knew the amount of aid we send to X country, when aid probably gets shared between numerous countries.

Really?

I'd e concerned if she did know how much each country gets from aid, rather than the overall amount we spend. You really expect her to know every minute detail on every expense!! Seriously, have a word with yourself!!!

If you think that's the bigger story, I think you should keep it to yourself if you want to maintain a shred of credibility!!

Sure you could definitely read that from my post if you failed at comprehending it I guess?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

NSC misquote, has happened before recently. Sorry.

They are all promising the electorate things that us, the tax payers, cannot afford.

Some more than others.

The Labour Party of JC - a hand out rather than a hand up.

 

[TSB]

Not if Corbyn was in charge.

He didn't say he wouldn't fire first, he said he wouldn't fire under any circumstances. Of course we wouldn't fire first FFS.

When?

 

[seagulls4ever]

Blimey 550 pages.

Everybody I know has known from the moment the election was called who they were going to vote for next Thursday.

All the talk from mostly crap politicians for the past 6 weeks or so has not changed my mind one iota. They are all promising the electorate things that us, the tax payers, cannot afford.

Well, unlike you, many on NSC have changed their mind given the vast differences conducted in 3 separate polls on the matter. The first had the Conservatives leading, and now they are far behind in NSC voting intention.

 

[Triggaaar]

When?

What?

 

[easynow]

In a nutshell, some people believe that this is an important question. Others believe that this issue is not a high priority as it is less likely than other problems (e.g. NHS funding, education, etc). These people therefore are less bothered by this question and are happy to ignore it. This may seem like madness to those who feel that security is of paramount importance (research has shown that such people are generally on the right wing of political thought). Personally, I have no interest in nuclear missiles and would sleep easily without them. If Kim Jong Un did develop a missile with sufficient range to destroy parts of this country, I can honestly say that my immediate concern would not be whether we should bomb them back or not - I think things would quickly escalate without any action on our part given that North Korea would have sent a missile over multiple airspaces between our two countries. I imagine that this may precipitate widespread multilateral military action against North Korea. Happy to hear your hypothetical thoughts, if you want to set them out?

What would happen if some country deployed space weapons that had...

 

[Triggaaar]

Blimey 550 pages.

Everybody I know has known from the moment the election was called who they were going to vote for next Thursday.

I won't vote for whom I thought I was going to vote for. I've voted differently on two of the NSC polls so far, and my final vote will probably be different to those two too.