Off Topic The Politics Thread

[sb_73]

"Not being able to imagine any circumstances where using our bombs would happen" is a very good thing. But you're right - they cannot be uninvented, and therefore it's important to me that we have a stake in the game. It sends a far bigger message than the payload itself, it says "We're taking national security as seriously as is possible". Whereas scrapping it all sends an equally clear message out - whether or not someone is a threat that can be countered with a nuclear response.

In what circumstances would you use them, Chaz? Genuinely, your opinion, not what may or may not be likely.

I could see myself using battlefield tactical weapons if my army was being wiped out, but not against a power that could wipe my country out. The country destroying weapons I can't find a situation where it would make sense, apart from revenge. You wouldn't use them against a non nuclear power unless you wanted to be an eternal international pariah, makes no sense to use them against terrorists unless you want to make more terrorists.

The balance of terror is what has worked. Trouble is that depended on relatively sane people being in charge. Now we have North Korea, Pakistan, China, Israel if it feels itself under existential threat, India which may go dodgy at some stage. The risk is actually much higher than for most of the Cold War.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

On nuclear weapons, let's put it like this. North Korea is a pain in the arse. I wouldn't have put it passed the US to have had another go at them, through the device of South Korea...except for one small point...

North Korea have their own nuclear weapons

So now no one wants to upset them, especially the UN. And the US and North Korea are like two pugnacious men holding each other by the testicles, one saying to the other:

"We're not going to hurt each other, are we?"

 

[Chaz]

100% agree. We seems to have imported a practice of intolerance to differing views, banning rather than relishing a well debated argument. I say imported, because many of the zealots who try to prevent free speech in universities are Islaamic who feel their faith is being disrespected merely by opposing views being aired. There are also, of course, the feminazis who, irony of ironies, proscribe speakers like the feminist Germain Greer. I'm pleased to see my alma mater, Southampton Uni, is one of the more enlightened and least fascist in this respect.

And as for the Cecil Rhodes statue, I shall be outraged if it is removed. Rhodes was of his time - his approach and those of his contemporaries at the height of the British Empire, are now seen as what they were - wrong. [though, with humour, I do quite like this quote from him - Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life It neatly sums up the hubris of his attitude, but I may quote it at the start of the Six Nations ]

You cannot reinvent history. Rhodes was not a mass murderer - unlike say, Stalin or Hitler - so let his statue remain as evidence of Victorian times and misguided reasoning.

Now you see, I have a problem with that stance.

You say Rhodes was of his time, which is correct. You go on to say that we now see that they were wrong. I disagree.

By saying that the prevailing attitudes, behaviours, viewpoints, actions etc. of historical figures was wrong is to attempt to reinvent history. Something you state cannot happen. And I'm gonna deliberately invoke Godwin's Law as an example.

We can very happily state that Hitler's aims, attitudes, tactics were all wrong, because we said they were wrong at the time. Saying that now doesn't change anything.

But what of Bomber Harris? What of the US dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were they seen as wrong at the time? Of course not. But now - much as Leigh Day and PIL are trying to do with Kenyan nationals vs the Army - they are deemed heinous.

Who's to say what our actions will be seen as in fifty years time? Will we be wrong to be attempting to defeat ISIS? Will the action to retake the Falklands in 1982 be seen as wrong?

In my view, you simply cannot redefine rights and wrongs from centuries ago by today's accepted standards and declare someone a wrong'un, because it's simply not a true reflection of their actions and attitudes at the time. All you can do if these actions and attitudes would not be acceptable today, is to vow not to repeat them.

Leave the past where it is. Which means leaving Rhodes' statue where it is. Please don't fall into the trap of reinventing the past under the guise of supposedly not doing just that...

 

[Chaz]

In what circumstances would you use them, Chaz? Genuinely, your opinion, not what may or may not be likely.

I could see myself using battlefield tactical weapons if my army was being wiped out, but not against a power that could wipe my country out. The country destroying weapons I can't find a situation where it would make sense, apart from revenge. You wouldn't use them against a non nuclear power unless you wanted to be an eternal international pariah, makes no sense to use them against terrorists unless you want to make more terrorists.

The balance of terror is what has worked. Trouble is that depended on relatively sane people being in charge. Now we have North Korea, Pakistan, China, Israel if it feels itself under existential threat, India which may go dodgy at some stage. The risk is actually much higher than for most of the Cold War.

I really can't see any circumstances. But the benefit of having them is far more than the ability to use them, as i explained above.

Battlefield tactical nukes are a dodgy area for me. Whether they are just low-weight, high yield shells or larger missiles, their use needs to be controlled by the commanders on the battlefield, and not by their political masters, because they would need to be used in response to specific threats on an ever changing landscape. I can't see political leaders of any colour handing over the keys, so I doubt they could ever be used effectively.

The phrase 'balance of terror' is a very accurate one. The effects of being hit by a nuke far outweighs the benefits to be gained from firing one, and that fear of the effects of reprisal has kept the weapons in their lockers for seventy years.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Now you see, I have a problem with that stance.

You say Rhodes was of his time, which is correct. You go on to say that we now see that they were wrong. I disagree.

By saying that the prevailing attitudes, behaviours, viewpoints, actions etc. of historical figures was wrong is to attempt to reinvent history. Something you state cannot happen. And I'm gonna deliberately invoke Godwin's Law as an example.

We can very happily state that Hitler's aims, attitudes, tactics were all wrong, because we said they were wrong at the time. Saying that now doesn't change anything.

But what of Bomber Harris? What of the US dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were they seen as wrong at the time? Of course not. But now - much as Leigh Day and PIL are trying to do with Kenyan nationals vs the Army - they are deemed heinous.

Who's to say what our actions will be seen as in fifty years time? Will we be wrong to be attempting to defeat ISIS? Will the action to retake the Falklands in 1982 be seen as wrong?

In my view, you simply cannot redefine rights and wrongs from centuries ago by today's accepted standards and declare someone a wrong'un, because it's simply not a true reflection of their actions and attitudes at the time. All you can do if these actions and attitudes would not be acceptable today, is to vow not to repeat them.

Leave the past where it is. Which means leaving Rhodes' statue where it is. Please don't fall into the trap of reinventing the past under the guise of supposedly not doing just that...

Fair point, but if something isn't wrong it must be right, mustn't it? By that argument, what you are saying is that, to take an extreme example, slavery was right, but would not be acceptable today.

What I'm saying is, that if you denude a country of its assets, as Rhodes did, it is wrong, and was wrong at the time, but he did it, and so he is evidence of Victorian misdoings - but you can't pretend it did not happen. His statue is testament to this

 

[Uber_Hoop]

I think he was talking about the 'real' living wage not the government renamed minimum wage. I think it would be interesting for companies with publically traded shares, perhaps not for small companies.

I suspect people accept earning the minimum wage because they have to, they would be amenable to getting more.

There are much more powerful arguments against this idea which are more to do with how the share market works, which would require global agreements to overcome, which ain't going to happen. The man made fiction of joint stock companies now of course has an unconscious life of its own, giving us things like global recessions which we can't control.

Publically? For ****'s sake, Stan, get your act together!!!

 

[sb_73]

Publically? For ****'s sake, Stan, get your act together!!!

That's an odd one, I've always had mild dyslexia with that word and used the spell check. Just done it again and that what it says, but it doesn't look right. Blame Apple.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Publically? For ****'s sake, Stan, get your act together!!!

That one passed me by too. Blimey, Uber, you have eagle eyes. No self-respecting poster can relax when you're around

 

[Chaz]

Fair point, but if something isn't wrong it must be right, mustn't it? By that argument, what you are saying is that, to take an extreme example, slavery was right, but would not be acceptable today.

What I'm saying is, that if you denude a country of its assets, as Rhodes did, it is wrong, and was wrong at the time, but he did it, and so he is evidence of Victorian misdoings - but you can't pretend it did not happen. His statue is testament to this

Yes, slavery is an extreme example, and as such one of the most difficult things to fit into my framework. However...

Many influential people were saying at the time that slavery was wrong - unfortunately far more people were either benefiting from it or were racist enough to accept it as 'normal'.

Attitudes to slavery and your nation's involvement will vary depending on where you live. In the UK, slavery effectively stopped far earlier than most people realise, being pretty much replaced with feudalism and indentured serfdom as early as the 12th century. It was only in the US that the demand for slaves as possessions continued and indeed grew unabated, and sadly Britain played their part in the trade. There's some comfort to be gained from knowing that - despite our involvement in, and subsequent endorsement of, the Atlantic slave trade - Britain was the world leader in its abolishment.

What I guess I have trouble with most - and this is where slavery fits in alongside Rhodes' actions, and also alongside those of so many others now seen as 'wrong' - is that people think we need to be constantly apologising. We as a 21st Century nation didn't strip Africa of it's people and resources, much as we didn't embark on crusades, instigate apartheid, invade nations and claim their subjects as our own, or anything like that.

The past - good and bad - is the past. We should learn from it, but we should not change it or change the way events are viewed and judged.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

That one passed me by too. Blimey, Uber, you have eagle eyes. No self-respecting poster can relax when you're around

I'm prune to the odd mistake myself.

 

[kiwiqpr]

If it wasn't for the slave trade who would the cops get to practice live firing on

 

[Stroller]

OK... Several reasons why Trident isn't just preferable, but essential:

Firstly, we have a commitment to NATO to maintain a nuclear deterrent - and one that is independent of the US. In order to remove it, we'd need to leave NATO, and the relationships run far deeper there than with Europe. Our NATO commitments predate the organisation itself, and run back through centuries of international treaties and agreements, including the commitment to act when Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the commitment to act when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914, all the way back to when Belgium as a nation was set up after the Battle of Waterloo. Britain does not, and certainly should not, throw away those commitments lightly, because they are ingrained in our national identity.

Secondly, it's all part of the balance we have on 'our' side of the old Cold War fence. If the only countries in the world that had warheads were the US and Russia, it only takes one idiot to end the world. But because we have our own, completely separate force, there are protocols to go through that prevent any one rogue moron thinking that pressing the button is simple. And the fact that the retaliatory strikes could come from anywhere - with no means to prevent them - is part of what has prevented Russia from the same course of action.

Thirdly, consider this: Do I think the world has changed? Yes. Do I think that there are new enemies that need different tactics? Of course. Am I as naive as those who believe that all of the old enemies have gone away? No. Some of the actions of Putin over the past few years show he is certainly a dangerous ally to have, and one that could easily revert back to potentially hostile enemy.

Those are the reasons why having a fully independent nuclear deterrent that cannot be used or abused by any foreign power is essential. And that's exactly what Corbyn should understand. The problem is, he's been a shouty voice out on the edge for so long, he doesn't realise that now he's on the platform, he has to actually consider the whole picture. He's still acting like a peripheral activist, and that's completely unbecoming of an opposition leader and wannabe Prime Minister.

What Corbyn does understand is that spending £170 billion on something that is completely useless as a deterrent against the real threat we currently face - international terrorism - is an enormous waste of money. Opposing it is entirely becoming of his position. What many find so refreshing about Corbyn is that he doesn't find it necessary to moderate his views for fear of frightening Daily Mail readers. The Labour party should be able to support the junior doctors, should be able to advocate re-nationalisations, and should be able to oppose wasting money on useless weapons. It's called opposition.

 

[sb_73]

Yes, slavery is an extreme example, and as such one of the most difficult things to fit into my framework. However...

Many influential people were saying at the time that slavery was wrong - unfortunately far more people were either benefiting from it or were racist enough to accept it as 'normal'.

Attitudes to slavery and your nation's involvement will vary depending on where you live. In the UK, slavery effectively stopped far earlier than most people realise, being pretty much replaced with feudalism and indentured serfdom as early as the 12th century. It was only in the US that the demand for slaves as possessions continued and indeed grew unabated, and sadly Britain played their part in the trade. There's some comfort to be gained from knowing that - despite our involvement in, and subsequent endorsement of, the Atlantic slave trade - Britain was the world leader in its abolishment.

What I guess I have trouble with most - and this is where slavery fits in alongside Rhodes' actions, and also alongside those of so many others now seen as 'wrong' - is that people think we need to be constantly apologising. We as a 21st Century nation didn't strip Africa of it's people and resources, much as we didn't embark on crusades, instigate apartheid, invade nations and claim their subjects as our own, or anything like that.

The past - good and bad - is the past. We should learn from it, but we should not change it or change the way events are viewed and judged.

Agree that we should learn from the past, but we can certainly change the way we view it and judge it, even though our views and judgements may not always be correct. We are on the tricky ground of moral relativism here, which can be used to justify anything past and present, on the grounds of different standards, cultures etc. So, by their standards, the Aztecs were totally correct in ripping out the hearts of living human sacrifices.

By the standards of the time, it may have been OK for Rhodes to say stuff like this:

"I contend that we are the first race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives.", which is probably why he was Hitler's favourite Englishman. But it wasn't ok for him to be gay, which he almost certainly was.

Also the 'standards of the day' that we tend to pick are not universal standards, they are the standards of the ruling elite. The captured slaves, the exploited and dispossessed Africans, the Aztecs victims may well not have shared them. So it becomes a 'might is right' regression.

We may not need to apologise for the past but we certainly need to understand how it shapes peoples opinions today. The British tend to be big on freedom and independence (applied to ourselves not others), we draw that from our history and it's fair enough. Nearly every black person in the Americas is there because their ancestors were forcibly kidnapped and sold by white men - it's part of their heritage and it must, even subconsciously shape their view of the world. A sizeable proportion of the population of South Africa lived and suffered through apartheid, a system Rhodes helped establish. It's not ancient history.

Having said all that the attempts to erase Rhodes from history are stupid.
.

 

[Chaz]

What Corbyn does understand is that spending £170 billion on something that is completely useless as a deterrent against the real threat we currently face - international terrorism - is an enormous waste of money. Opposing it is entirely becoming of his position. What many find so refreshing about Corbyn is that he doesn't find it necessary to moderate his views for fear of frightening Daily Mail readers. The Labour party should be able to support the junior doctors, should be able to advocate re-nationalisations, and should be able to oppose wasting money on useless weapons. It's called opposition.

I addressed this above. Having the national will to hold our security as we do sends a clear message. Throwing it away also sends a clear message. And you seem to be saying there's only one threat. Care to back that up with some sources?

 

[Chaz]

Agree that we should learn from the past, but we can certainly change the way we view it and judge it, even though our views and judgements may not always be correct. We are on the tricky ground of moral relativism here, which can be used to justify anything past and present, on the grounds of different standards, cultures etc. So, by their standards, the Aztecs were totally correct in ripping out the hearts of living human sacrifices.

By the standards of the time, it may have been OK for Rhodes to say stuff like this:

"I contend that we are the first race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives.", which is probably why he was Hitler's favourite Englishman. But it wasn't ok for him to be gay, which he almost certainly was.

Also the 'standards of the day' that we tend to pick are not universal standards, they are the standards of the ruling elite. The captured slaves, the exploited and disposed Africans, the Aztecs victims may well not have shared them. So it becomes a 'might is right' regression.

We may not need to apologise for the past but we certainly need to understand how it shapes peoples opinions today. The British tend to be big on freedom and independence (applied to ourselves not others), we draw that from our history and it's fair enough. Nearly every black person in the Americas is there because their ancestors were forcibly kidnapped and sold by white men - it's part of their heritage and it must, even subconsciously shape their view of the world.

Having said all that the attempts to erase Rhodes from history are stupid.
.

There's a, lot there, but the key I pick out is "might is right". Not always, however, history is written by the winners, which I guess you meant. Aggressors are often seen as the bad guys, so might is not always right -unless that might ultimately prevails.

 

[sb_73]

When I lived in Italy I paid for myself to learn Italian. It wasn't that difficult because I was surrounded by the language the whole time, though I was using English at work. Two weeks of half a day lessons was enough.

Then again no one threatened to deport me if I didn't learn it.

 

[finglasqpr]

When I lived in Italy I paid for myself to learn Italian. It wasn't that difficult because I was surrounded by the language the whole time, though I was using English at work. Two weeks of half a day lessons was enough.

Then again no one threatened to deport me if I didn't learn it.

For 2 reasons.

1. You're not a woman.

2. You're not muslim - I think.

 

[Peter Damage]

What Corbyn does understand is that spending £170 billion on something that is completely useless as a deterrent against the real threat we currently face - international terrorism - is an enormous waste of money. Opposing it is entirely becoming of his position. What many find so refreshing about Corbyn is that he doesn't find it necessary to moderate his views for fear of frightening Daily Mail readers. The Labour party should be able to support the junior doctors, should be able to advocate re-nationalisations, and should be able to oppose wasting money on useless weapons. It's called opposition.

Everything sorted in Ukraine now is it? Putin become a budhist? Absolutely certain there are no budding dictators capable of seizing control at a major power suffering economically over the next 2 decades or so? Fancy telling me Saturdays lottery numbers?

Nuclear weapons are like an insurance policy, if you don't need to use them then, great

 

[Stroller]

I addressed this above. Having the national will to hold our security as we do sends a clear message. Throwing it away also sends a clear message. And you seem to be saying there's only one threat. Care to back that up with some sources?

I don't think I said that there was only one threat now did I? I said the 'real' threat is international terrorism.

As for sources, I borrowed the phrase from this bloke......................


Back in 2009 Field Marshall Lord Bramell, former head of the Armed Forces, and two senior Generals wrote to The Times and denounced Trident as ‘completely useless against modern warfare’,

“Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism … Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics.”

As Jezza pointed out, all of the USA's nuclear weapons couldn't prevent 9/11.

 

[sb_73]

For 2 reasons.

1. You're not a woman.

2. You're not muslim - I think.

I think I'd have to be a married woman Muslim to be on the receiving end of this particular bit of very specific discrimination.

It's a bizarre bit of thinking. Let's hope the Spanish don't apply it to British retirees.