Corbyn was presented with the question 'if we were under threat from nuclear attack, would you press the button first?'. The answer is no, of course, but he couldn't say that. By pressing the button first (as May has stated she would), you ensure mutual destruction. The point is, surely, how could we possibly arrive at a situation where a nation state was bent on destroying Britain? And, if that doomsday scenario could possibly be envisaged, shouldn't we be doing everything we could to avoid it, rather than saying to ourselves 'we'll be ok, we've got nukes'? I can already feel Col's fingers twitching at the keyboard with a response regarding Islamic fundamentalists, and I would agree that they are our biggest current threat, but I would have to ask where we should point the nuclear missiles to wipe these bastards out? Indeed, can anyone tell me who we would fire them at in any first strike situation?
Wow, I clicked on a random YouTube music vid and got the Tory attack ad. I closed it down immediately, as I would imagine everyone does with all ads. Seems a bit desperate to me. Hope it cost them a fortune.
I think it would be very likely, despite the Labour conference backing Trident, that if Labour formed the next government that they'd scrap it based on the grounds that they have to find the funds for their election promises. No point in spending multi-billions on a deterrent that wouldn't be used. This is even more likely if the SNP are anything to do with decision making...
Wantage constituency mate. Although I don't live particularly close to Wantage. In 2015 the Tories won with 31k votes to Labours 9k. It would take a 19% swing for Labour to take it. Ain't gonna happen.
There was a TV programme* a few months ago which played out a scenario with real politicians and senior (retired) military people. Russia provokes unrest and then invades a Baltic state (just like Ukraine), which as a NATO country we are committed to defend. Can't remember the exactly the way it played out, but it became certain that the Russians were going to nuke a variety of European cities (Berlin, Copenhagen, Warsaw I think). Britain was carried along on the US coattails the whole way. The politicians were, not unanimously, in favour of using our weapons. The most senior military man was not in favour, on the grounds that the civilian deaths involved were unjustifiable and that the US would use theirs anyway, our arsenal is irrelevant. All seemed terrifyingly plausible to me. This was before Trump, who as an isolationist might well just say 'nothing to do with us'. I posted on this earlier on this thread, but I don't think anyone was interested in the debate (fair enough). While I don't have a problem with technology that exists, cannot be uninvented, and is, of itself, nothing to do with morality, I can be persuaded either way on whether the UK needs its own nukes. The only circumstance I can imagine supporting their use is a limited nuclear strike to prevent a big nuclear war. Which of course would be a massive gamble that it would work, and I can't really see the UK leading this approach, more likely to support the US so the moral blame is shared (the use of the weapons, rather than the weapons themselves, is where morality comes in). With a 'no first use policy' (I think only India and North Korea have this policy) we really don't need these weapons, so it is pointless us keeping them if Corbyn is PM. So for me a practical decision. What I am 100% convinced of is that the existence of these weapons, which in itself is a horrible risk, has saved millions of lives in preventing conventional wars between major powers. How quickly would the Cold War have descended into fighting without this terrible deterrent? Europe would have been a wasteland in the fifties. Just heard Irritable Bowel Smith 'debating' Ed Millillilliband on the wireless. The ultimate tallest dwarf contest, Ed wins by a short head. * tracked it down, called 'World War Three:Inside the War Room', was on BBC4. Few clips but unfortunately not the whole thing on YouTube.
Fair enough Bob. It's a personal thing for me, in that I can't vote for people who openly wanted defeat for the British State. I don't believe they feel any differently today.
Like you, I'll be voting with my conscience. I still don't yet know who I'm going to vote for. It won't be the Conservatives, because - even if I believed they want the best for everyone, I don't agree with their method of getting it, it doesn't work and I think it really does only benefit those who can already look after themselves. They continue to do so via their support of the Conservative Party. Additionally, my local Conservative MP is an odious person who is the epitome of a cynical self-serving politician. My vote won't affect the result where I live, I'm sure, but anyway... I'm still expecting the Conservatives to form the next government. No idea about the majority. Theresa May will be replaced quickly if it doesn't increase much. It feels weird that so many people will cast their vote for a local MP on the basis of wanting the PM to be Mrs May, yet not have any control over her staying in power post-election, and possibly not getting what they voted for. Vote May, get Johnson? Doesn't bear thinking about. Vote for policies not personalities!
Would we be on "the coattails of the US or would we simply be carrying out our obligation to NATO? We'd have to leave NATO if we followed your argument. I'm sure that would please many on here, but not me. As you rightly point out, NATO and the threat of mutual destruction saved us from another huge conflict, especially in the 50s, 60s.
That was my quote, not Sooper's. The three "personalities" at the helm of this extremely left wing Labour party are people I wouldn't trust to implement policies. Both parties have some decent policies imo, but as I keep saying, for me it's a choice of ****ty or ****tier.
Yep. However, can you trust Labour to sort out the racial tensions you've described recently? Or is it a case (understandably in some cases) of "anyone but the Tories" (which is why many parties aren't offering candidates, just to get rid of the Tories)? I'm not a fan of the Tories in many ways and May has hugely disappointed me, but this is a really crap election choice imo.
Good point, but realpolitick would indicate that he alliance would be led by the US, which has about 50% of NATOs coventional forces (second biggest, discounting nukes, is ........Turkey) and the vast majority of its nuclear weapons. I suppose the majority of NATO members would have to say no to a US strategy, and then we would have to decide where our 'special relationship' leaves us. Actually I think the risk is the opposite at the moment - European NATO members want to do something about Russian aggression somewhere (not necessarily nuclear) and Trump simply says 'not our problem'.
I don't know about that, but I'm sure lots of people will mark their cross against their Conservative candidate next Thursday whilst thinking... "I'm a nice person. I love my family and my dogs. I'd like to vote to make my country a fairer place, but we just can't afford it (Mrs May and the media told me so) and Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser who won't push the button." Without true facts and proper debate... (sigh)
Really? You couldn't be more wrong. Nuclear weapons would make no impact on Islamic terrorists etc. Pretty obvious that!
This is the same argument as the remainers who say "people didn't know what they were voting for" in the referendum, whereas poll after poll suggests that the majority of voters aren't as thick as you suggest.
Of course they wouldn't. It's this 'first use' thing that bothers me. May and Fallon have both said that they would press the button on a pre-emptive strike, but I just can't envisage any scenario where that could be justified.
Very interesting that you 'manipulate' quotes Dipper, I've never said anything of the sort. I think an apology is due...
