Off Topic The Politics Thread

[rangercol]

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.

I agree that it's difficult to envisage a situation where we may be forced to use a first strike option, but in such a dangerous World and with nutters like Kim Jong on the scene, I want us to have every possible option at our disposal.

The World could look very different in the coming years, especially with that idiot Trump in charge of the US. He could easily leave everyone to their own devises where defence is concerned as he is so inward looking.
We may not be able to say "oh well, the US will take care of any nuclear threat". I think we need our own deterrent.

I would absolutely hate it if we were ever forced to use them, but I think that having nuclear weapons makes it less likely that anyone else will.
I'd like every nuclear weapon on this planet destroyed, but that ain't gonna happen, plus if it did, Russia would be the most powerful State on earth.

 

[KooPeeArr]

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.

Sounds interesting but still, for me, far fetched. While the prospect of Russia invading a country is very real, the idea of them planning to use nukes still doesn't because it would turn their war into a nuclear one which gives their homeland a much more immediate risk. It's such a huge psychological line to cross and doesn't benefit the aggressor to speculate in those terms. They would face less of a challenge using standard millitary means (with a NATO army being used as a last resort and political pressure and sanctions, for what they're worth, as a first wave, ineffective though that may be).

France (they still have a capability don't they?) would have to be completely passive too.

Russia do seem like a genuine threat to stability (it seems like Putin's been a God in his own mind long enough to get bored domestically and start scheming on a global level) but they would operate on as subversive level as possible to avoid deniability and all out war.

I can, partially, understand us not disarming altogether and giving the next government the option. I also accept we're not in stable enough times for all countries to feel safe enough to start widespread nuclear disarmament. Maybe in 50 years it'll end up that the security council holds a small arsenal against emerging threats but that's just a random thought.

 

[bobmid]

Horses for courses mate. I'm from Yorkshire it's all a bit different up here.

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.

I cant see anyone sorting the racial tensions out mate due to too many liberals and political correctness. And yes i know Corbyn is very liberal in these matters but I'm not voting on these issues. I'm voting as a working class family man with a disabled wife who uses the NHS due to her illness on a regular basis and sees the absolute decline in it. My sister and her husband are both nurses although the latter is quitting to manage a coffee shop due to a pay increase which says it all. My brother is a teacher as I've mentioned before. I've quit the job I loved with a passion and now do it on an evening basis due to financial restraints. The Tories offer me no reason to vote for them. Labour do UKIP do Lib Dems do. Won't be voting for the last two!!! I do however respect everyone's right to vote and try yet sometimes fail not to influence others . Thats the job of the politicians

 

[bobmid]

I also think the Tories will win. Their campaign has been nothing short of hilarious. Labour's is full of promises yet many manifestos promise what can't be delivered. Should settle it in a match at loftus road! No left or right wingers allowed.

 

[Sooperhoop]

Should settle it in a match at loftus road! No left or right wingers allowed.

The usual fayre then...

 

[TheBigDipper]

That was my quote, not Sooper's.

Yeah, I know. I didn't understand what you were on about until I saw my bad editing. Sorry!

 

[TheBigDipper]

Very interesting that you 'manipulate' quotes Dipper, I've never said anything of the sort. I think an apology is due...

Genuine mistake, not deliberate misquoting. Apology offered without reservation.

 

[sb_73]

Sounds interesting but still, for me, far fetched. While the prospect of Russia invading a country is very real, the idea of them planning to use nukes still doesn't because it would turn their war into a nuclear one which gives their homeland a much more immediate risk. It's such a huge psychological line to cross and doesn't benefit the aggressor to speculate in those terms. They would face less of a challenge using standard millitary means (with a NATO army being used as a last resort and political pressure and sanctions, for what they're worth, as a first wave, ineffective though that may be).

France (they still have a capability don't they?) would have to be completely passive too.

Russia do seem like a genuine threat to stability (it seems like Putin's been a God in his own mind long enough to get bored domestically and start scheming on a global level) but they would operate on as subversive level as possible to avoid deniability and all out war.

I can, partially, understand us not disarming altogether and giving the next government the option. I also accept we're not in stable enough times for all countries to feel safe enough to start widespread nuclear disarmament. Maybe in 50 years it'll end up that the security council holds a small arsenal against emerging threats but that's just a random thought.

Let's hope you are right. Think the scenario was that NATO troops were engaged with Russian troops in Lithuania (who had gone in to 'protect' Russian speakers') and were winning and had perhaps crossed into Russian territory (perhaps inadvertently, can't quite remember,frustration resulting from age), and Putin facing internal pressure has to demonstrate 'strength'. The whole thing relies on the level headedness of leaders and willingness of their subordinates to carry out their orders. Very fragile.

 

[bobmid]

Just nuke everyone.......erm on second thoughts. Seriously though, if we are even contemplating pushing the button on anyone then it's game over anyways regardless of who's in no.10

 

[sb_73]

I had missed the Tory manifesto pledges on the military. According to The Times it is to 'maintain the overall size of the armed forces'. They have dropped the promise to maintain the army at 82,000 (which they have failed to deliver on). Senior military officers and MoD officials are interpreting this as a further cut to the size of the army, to perhaps 65,000, as the navy and RAF are seriously under recruited, they haven't got enough people to run the kit they have.

As I have posted before, the Tory manifesto is a startlingly bleak and honest document. It anticipates continuing austerity (presumably because of the impact of Brexit) and a renewed emphasis on reducing the deficit as the main government priority. I'm betting taxes will go up, but we won't see anything in return for it in terms of public services, all debt servicing.

 

[rangercol]

I had missed the Tory manifesto pledges on the military. According to The Times it is to 'maintain the overall size of the armed forces'. They have dropped the promise to maintain the army at 82,000 (which they have failed to deliver on). Senior military officers and MoD officials are interpreting this as a further cut to the size of the army, to perhaps 65,000, as the navy and RAF are seriously under recruited, they haven't got enough people to run the kit they have.

As I have posted before, the Tory manifesto is a startlingly bleak and honest document. It anticipates continuing austerity (presumably because of the impact of Brexit) and a renewed emphasis on reducing the deficit as the main government priority. I'm betting taxes will go up, but we won't see anything in return for it in terms of public services, all debt servicing.

I am totally against the further cuts in our armed forces, although there is a case for smaller fighting capabilities in the times we live in.

My instinct is that Labour wouldn't be too keen to bolster our armed forces though.

 

[sb_73]

I am totally against the further cuts in our armed forces, although there is a case for smaller fighting capabilities in the times we live in.

My instinct is that Labour wouldn't be too keen to bolster our armed forces though.

If I have understood Corbyn correctly we would never be sending soldiers anywhere so might as well scale down to a Home Guard.

 

[kiwiqpr]

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!

So you don't know who you will be voting for but you already know who you won't be voting for

 

[sb_73]

Apparently Amber Rudd was 'aristocracy coordinator' for the film Four Weddings and a Funeral because her family were so well connected to dukes and earls. She got her mates (including her parents) paid £100 a day for larking around in the wedding reception scenes.

Just about managing.

 

[Sooperhoop]

Genuine mistake, not deliberate misquoting. Apology offered without reservation.

Fair enough, no problem...

 

[Steelmonkey]

There was a TV programme called 'World War Three:Inside the War Room', was on BBC4. Few clips but unfortunately not the whole thing on YouTube.

Did you see Deutschland 83 on C4 last year.....following a East German spy within the High Command at NATO, and only just managing to prevent a nuclear war? Only fictional, but it showed how close we could have come to mutual destruction.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need a nuclear deterrant, and, as has been previously stated, we are hardly likely to drop a nuke on ISIS, as that would only remove one head of the hydra, but there are still a few rogue nations that have nuclear capabilities. Trident is a big financial commitment, whoever is in charge, and locally to me (I can see the lights of Faslane and Coulport at night from my window, and often see the subs being escorted down the Clyde) the bases are a big employer. I don't fully understand why we have to replace Trident with something that is going to cost billions whilst we have a huge defecit in our budget, money that could be spent on NHS, education and conventional Armed Forces, but both Labour and Tories have committed to it. Is Trident defunct now (or in the near future), is the technology obsolete? Would the missiles not fly if required? Can the submarines be retro-fitted to reduce costs? I seem to remember us having Polaris prior to Trident, so it can't be too long ago that the system was already upgraded.

 

[Stroller]

Our Foreign Secretary and Brexit negotiator......

You must log in or register to see media

 

[rangercol]

Apparently Amber Rudd was 'aristocracy coordinator' for the film Four Weddings and a Funeral because her family were so well connected to dukes and earls. She got her mates (including her parents) paid £100 a day for larking around in the wedding reception scenes.

Just about managing.

A little unfair.

 

[sb_73]

A little unfair.

Couldn't resist mate. It's an interesting factlet though isn't it?

 

[Stroller]

A new poll of 18 to 24 year-olds registered to vote gives Labour a 52 point lead. Not a surprise, I suppose, that Labour would be more popular with young voters, but that is an astonishing lead for Corbyn. It's looking more and more likely that turnout will decide the outcome. If young people get off their arses, we could get a surprise result. The most recent Ipsos Mori poll was declared as a 5 point lead for the Tories, but that was after adjusting for likelihood to vote. The raw data had a 3 point lead for Labour.