General Election 2017

[KVLT]

We wouldn't. That's the whole point. But then no one would attack us if they knew that we would retaliate. JC was pushed on it, and would not confirm that he would. Surely that is the whole point of a nuclear deterrent. To deter!

And what would a country achieve from preemptively attacking us with nuclear weapons? As I've already said it wouldn't be a precursor to an invasion, so it would only be to annihilate us. Where do you think that would leave the aggressor on the world stage? Is that not a deterrent in itself?

 

[easynow]

I agree that if JC would never use Trident, why have it - complete waste of money if it's not acting as a deterrent. However, as members of NATO, I'm not convinced that we need to own nuclear warheads ourselves, although we'd have to pay for the right to be protected somehow. If I did have a worry, it'd be that Trump would be happy to stand by whilst Putin did what he liked in Europe. If this was more likely to happen, I think there would be more of a case for a deterrent, but I really think we'd be completely up the creek by that point, unless our good friends in the EU come to our aid.

When you say good friends in the EU coming to our aid, you mean France? the only European state (other than the UK) to have a nuclear deterrent?

 

[Grizz]

Maybe he should have dropped that in tonight then, because (am I may be wrong) he stated the first thing he would do is guarantee the rights of EU's living here. Surely that's something to keep for the negotiating table isn't it? Especially when the people you are talking with have hinted they want to punish your country.
Maybe he should have said, the first thing I will negotiate is EU citizens remaining here, in return for British citizens remain in EU countries. But he didn't say that did he?

Well neither of them have given any specifics on negotiating Brexit terms, so any argument you level at Corbyn being a poor strategist or not being upfront can be equally levelled at May's door as well.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Let be honest though, this whole thread is a waste of time, because as someone pointed out earlier, if you take the results of our poll , at the moment it gives Labour a 300 plus majority, so its proves NSC is a bunch of ****wits when it comes to politics.

It's a bit like NSC from a few years ago, when us who wanted a return to 4-4-2 and a British Manager were called dinosaurs, and I think a poll put us in a minority of about 15%

Fast forward a few years and those vocal people in favour of tippy tappy football, and a 4-1-2-3--1-2-3-1---1 formation in favour for 4-4-2 suddenly lost their voices.

I predict a Tory land side, successful Brexit Negations and a much happier more united nation in 5 years time with a booming economy.

Could be wrong, but I would suspect that a lot of the vocal left on here at the moment will soon lose their voices or ability to type!!

If I am wrong, I'll be far more worried about the state on the country in 5 years time, then what anyone on here thinks!!!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

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.

I think we can be quietly confident that someone who has clearly stated he would like to see cuts to our army (2010) , thinks NATO is a danger to the world (2011), wants to unilaterally scrap our nuclear deterrent and said he wouldn't use it anyway (2015), considers our armed forces on a par with terrorists, boasts about opposing anti terrorist legislation since 1983 (plus of course honouring terrorists killed by our armed forces), inviting terrorists into parliament shortly after their organisation tried to murder members of our government ... is all things considered, probably not the person to rely on when it comes to defending our country.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Well neither of them have given any specifics on negotiating Brexit terms, so any argument you level at Corbyn being a poor strategist or not being upfront can be equally levelled at May's door as well.

Ah? Corbyn has stated he WILL leave with a deal, no matter what deal it is. May has stated she will walk away without a deal and deal with the EU on WTO rules. I think that alone you could argue make Corbyn a poor strategist.

You may as well go to a car dealer and tell him you will buy the car no matter what. I'll sure you'll get the best deal

 

[happypig]

Trident is a US deterrent, we can't use it independently, so what's the point?

Totally under UK control.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

 

[tinycowboy]

When you say good friends in the EU coming to our aid, you mean France? the only European state (other than the UK) to have a nuclear deterrent?

That's exactly what I mean although Germany have access to US missiles as well. I was also hoping for some armed forces too. Anything really.

 

[Buzzer]

I agree that if JC would never use Trident, why have it - complete waste of money if it's not acting as a deterrent. However, as members of NATO, I'm not convinced that we need to own nuclear warheads ourselves, although we'd have to pay for the right to be protected somehow. If I did have a worry, it'd be that Trump would be happy to stand by whilst Putin did what he liked in Europe. If this was more likely to happen, I think there would be more of a case for a deterrent, but I really think we'd be completely up the creek by that point, unless our good friends in the EU come to our aid.

I agree. I think right now NATO has never looked so weak. Trump has a very valid point about how they (and the UK to a much smaller degree) have been carrying all the other NATO members financially but his approach of lecturing others hasn't worked because there's no respect for him. I really wouldn't put it past him to threaten to return the United States to its 1930s position of grand isolation with regards Europe regardless of what Putin says or does. And for that very reason, we need our own deterrent more so now than at any time since NATO was founded.

 

[KVLT]

You may as well go to a car dealer and tell him you will buy the car no matter what. I'll sure you'll get the best deal

Or walk away with no car and not be able to get to work.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Or walk away with no car and not be able to get to work.

You could always get the bus if you walk away. No point in buying a car that doesn't work and leaves you in debt and stuck on the forecourt!

If you are going to get a car no matter what, they are not going to give you the best price, or the best car for that matter are they. So probably best not to state your end game, before you start talking is it!

 

[studio150]

I agree. I think right now NATO has never looked so weak. Trump has a very valid point about how they (and the UK to a much smaller degree) have been carrying all the other NATO members financially but his approach of lecturing others hasn't worked because there's no respect for him. I really wouldn't put it past him to threaten to return the United States to its 1930s position of grand isolation with regards Europe regardless of what Putin says or does. And for that very reason, we need our own deterrent more so now than at any time since NATO was founded.

An interesting position. I support your view that Trump may isolate America and withdraw its support from Europe and NATO. However I don't think Russia would use Nuclear weapons. I would see it very much a conventional weapons invasion on a country by country basis.
You may recall recall the issue being used in Yes Prime Minister many years ago, it is still relevant today

 

[dangull]

He should have just said he would press the button as a very last, last, last resort. Even if secretly he wouldn't in any circumstances. We would be all dead anyway, so he wouldn't receive any backlash.

 

[Grizz]

Ah? Corbyn has stated he WILL leave with a deal, no matter what deal it is. May has stated she will walk away without a deal and deal with the EU on WTO rules. I think that alone you could argue make Corbyn a poor strategist.

You may as well go to a car dealer and tell him you will buy the car no matter what. I'll sure you'll get the best deal

It's something we'll have to disagree on. I find it more reassuring that Corbyn and Fallon's tone towards all this is to work properly with the EU to extricate ourselves from it, rather than the May we'll tell them exactly what we want and they can like it or lump it approach.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The idea of Trident is an effective deterrent so that what you somewhat theatrically write is largely irrelevant. Deterrence works if your potential opponent thinks you are serious - it does not work if the opponent knows you are a weak link. Life being as it is, dictators will take advantage of what they perceive as weakness.

I might agree if I thought the only reason that Russia/Korea/Pakistan have not launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike is becaue they think we would retaliate.

But . .. that's bollocks. I don't think the only reason my neighbor hasn't come round at night and slit my throat is because he knows I have knives in my kitchen and would send my son round to kill his wife if he attacked me.

FFS.

No, no, no. This nuclear willy waving is complete bollocks.

Anyone wanting to attack and destroy us would not want to leave a nuclear wasteland here. What would be the point? No, if I had a desire to dominate I would find a cyber way of destroying our economy, or better still, making our economy subservient to theirs.

Anyway, blood an honour still resonate with some. Being a real man. Death or glory. Who dares wins. For my country. All good slogans for going over the top. And if the beardy weirdy doen't say 'yeah!', then let's beat him up.

 

[KVLT]

You could always get the bus if you walk away. No point in buying a car that doesn't work and leaves you in debt and stuck on the forecourt!

If you are going to get a car no matter what, they are not going to give you the best price, or the best car for that matter are they. So probably best not to state your end game, before you start talking is it!

That's fine if you're just talking about buying cars, but we're in a Brexit analogy where not having a car is a bad deal.

May's no deal in place of a bad deal IS a bad deal.

 

[KVLT]

It's something we'll have to disagree on. I find it more reassuring that Corbyn and Fallon's tone towards all this is to work properly with the EU to extricate ourselves from it, rather than the May we'll tell them exactly what we want and they can like it or lump it approach.

Absolutely this.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

rather than the May we'll tell them exactly what we want and they can like it or lump it approach.

Expect of course she has not actually said that as she.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

May's no deal in place of a bad deal IS a bad deal.

Agree. No deal is probably a bad deal. She has stated its a last resort and doesn't expect it to happen.

But no deal is better than a worse deal.

 

[spring hall convert]

Let be honest though, this whole thread is a waste of time, because as someone pointed out earlier, if you take the results of our poll , at the moment it gives Labour a 300 plus majority, so its proves NSC is a bunch of ****wits when it comes to politics.

It's a bit like NSC from a few years ago, when us who wanted a return to 4-4-2 and a British Manager were called dinosaurs, and I think a poll put us in a minority of about 15%

Fast forward a few years and those vocal people in favour of tippy tappy football, and a 4-1-2-3--1-2-3-1---1 formation in favour for 4-4-2 suddenly lost their voices.

I predict a Tory land side, successful Brexit Negations and a much happier more united nation in 5 years time with a booming economy.

Could be wrong, but I would suspect that a lot of the vocal left on here at the moment will soon lose their voices or ability to type!!

If I am wrong, I'll be far more worried about the state on the country in 5 years time, then what anyone on here thinks!!!

Another one that thinks this poll should reflect national opinion. I would have thought it was fundamentally obvious the demographics of the people completing this poll don't reflect the nation as a whole.

What it has illustrated is a massive shift from Tory to Labour over the course of campaign. I saw that here before it was represented in the national polls.

I've had a Tory majority of 50 in my head for a while now and it seems to be looking less and less an optimistic call by the day.

(And 2 of the managers that got promoted from the Championship this year were non British or Irish)