The point is that you never let international relations get so bad that the question ever arises. As Churchill, hardly a peacemonger, famously said: better "jaw jaw" than "war war".
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Indeed. As I said, nobody wants to use nuclear weapons (well, maybe a few crackpots in North Korea do, but even then I doubt it). Nobody wants international relations to get so bad that the question ever arises. I'd say that's a slightly separate issue.
That's a perfectly valid opinion and I'm sure Corbyn would probably prefer to stand on a platform of unilateral disarmament. I don't have a strong opinion on nuclear weapons and can understand those who think they're a waste of money. I'm not sure I totally agree but I get the point. However, Labour's policy is to have the weapons but the leader apparently isn't prepared to use them. That's an odd inconsistency and unquestionably DOES make them a waste of money.
If I was King I would spend the cash on a fail proof system to shoot them down before they got anywhere near us
Not tonight but she's been asked before and given the standard "Nobody wants to use them but I would be prepared to if necessary." answer.
here's a thought, this week the super powers of the world are dismayed that CO2 emissions may destroy the human race in 100 years, but still spend more money on a weapon system that could do it in 10 minutes?
I think a lot of young first time voters are going to be motivated to go out to the ballot box this time and that the election is impossible to call at this point.
It's a BS ploy to create jobs and pretend that it really matters. A prestige thing. All the big boys have them so we must.
The reality is if someone lets one off then everybody is dead. Doesn;t matter that we have one. IF NK manages to develop missiles to hit us are we going to retaliate and kill innocent South Koreans, Japanese etc? I doubt it.
Everybody in the world knows that no-one will ever sign their own death warrant (other than some maddos that think it gets them to their heaven.)
The episode of "Yes Prime Minister" where Jim Hacker decides to scrap Trident is a very good one. The Army chap loves the suggestion. Says it's the navy that are in favour because they're the ones that will carry them.
Must admit, I sort of get the idea of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, what I have never been able to understand though, is how many do you need! How many times do you need to kill everyone ( and all other life on this planet) ?
The question about nuclear weapons, and the unwillingness of some to stop talking about it, was the only area where I think Corbyn suffered.
The Tories and their pet media will have their sound bites from that part.
As has already been said, if we are in a situation where we need to retaliate, then we are already dead anyway.
And if it is about electing someone who will be prepared to first use NWs, then I wouldn't be voting for anyone.
The Tories and their pet media will have their sound bites from that part.
As has already been said, if we are in a situation where we need to retaliate, then we are already dead anyway.
And if it is about electing someone who will be prepared to first use NWs, then I wouldn't be voting for anyone.
You must log in or register to see media
Other pics of him at some rich looking school and out shooting pheasant.
I hate ****s like this
Last night's QT was a total stitch up.....
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/02/9-...ce-ask-29-of-questions-still-corbynwins-ge17/
https://skwawkbox.org/2016/12/05/lo...n-first-supporting-producer-might-explain-it/
The thing about nuclear weapons is that no one seems to understand the whole irony about them. For starters, no one is even going to use them and therefore it seems absolutely stupid to squander money on something that is never going to be used. In these days of "low-tech" terrorism, there are plenty of other ways for nutters to kill people.
The elephant in the room is obviously the fact that each political party is trying to maximise it's "green credentials" and it seems ridiculous for a political party to say one moment that we should limited our carbon footprint and limit harmful omissions whilst saying on the other hand that we would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. I suppose at least Trump is consistent in wanting to have both options available with which to destroy the planet .
The elephant in the room is obviously the fact that each political party is trying to maximise it's "green credentials" and it seems ridiculous for a political party to say one moment that we should limited our carbon footprint and limit harmful omissions whilst saying on the other hand that we would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. I suppose at least Trump is consistent in wanting to have both options available with which to destroy the planet .
Trump is unique among politicians, in that he makes no effort to hide the fact that his philosophy is based on contempt for others. The rest of them try to hide that.
Jeremy Corbyn is similarly unique in that his philosophy appears to be genuinely based on concern for others.