having an INDEPENDENT nuclear deterrent. If Putin or fatboy were to get armageddon silly with the UK, we don't have to say "can you wait while we check whether the USA will wipe you off the map if you launch against us ??" .
Your thought is not clear, what do you mean? Are you saying you would rather blow up the world and start a process that would see the end of the UK?
If the logic of nuclear deterrence was correct then surely we should insist that all countries have nuclear weapons as that would make wars impossible? There is obviously a massive problem with that so I have to conclude that the whole argument is flawed.
The argument is so flawed it makes no sense at all yet it has been accepted as the norm and Corbyn is doubted because he does not accept it. We are surrounded by right wing media and right wing governments. The general public is manipulated and lacking in foresight.
1. You mean make nuclear wars impossible. 2. The "massive problem" is that all countries do not have the financial/ technical means to independently develop their own capability.
I don't have a "position" . I have merely stated the fact that Trident means the UK has its own nuclear deterrent.
This is a debate if you don't have a position then it's pointless taking part. In any case you have no way of knowing if trident is independent of the USA and the fact that you call it a deterrent is a position.
I have entered this discussion on the basis of a comment you made about why the UK has Trident. "In any case you have no way of knowing if trident is independent of the USA and that fact that you call it a deterrent is a position." The fact I call it a deterrent is because that is its intent. Are you now going to claim that the words "intent" and "position" mean precisely the same thing ??
No I didn't - the UK policy is that possession of nuclear weapons deters ALL attacks https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...t/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know
"Myth 1. The nuclear deterrent is obsolete as it does not deter terrorism. The nuclear deterrent wasn’t intended to deter terrorists. The UK has policies and capabilities to deal with the wide range of threats we currently face or might face in the future. Our nuclear deterrent is there to deter the most extreme threats to our national security and way of life, which cannot be done by other means."
No I am going to claim that you accept the right wing position and clearly view it as the norm. I do not accept 'intent' as a fact as you claim. The only facts are that Trident is on UK soil and we pay huge amounts of money for it. All the rest of your statements are opinions not facts.
As nothing of the kind can be inferred from my comments, your claims on my statements are (how shall we put it) ... opinions not facts.
Yes my opinion of your facts is clear to see. Like the majority you are unable to differentiate between fact and opinion and accept the entrenched view as fact. I don't.
It's impossible for Britain to think of itself as a big player in the world if we have to buy our nuclear quote-unquote deterrent from the US at great expense. That's like believing you're a big name in the Premier League because you're signing cast-offs from top six clubs when they're (at best) half the player they were five years previously. So what would happen if Lockheed-Martin turned around and said they were putting America first in regards to Trident missiles and were refusing to sell another nuke to us? Would we have to go crawling, cap in hand, to the French? The Russians? The Chinese? That's the real logical fallacy of banging on about Trident: it exposes that we lack the skills and/or the infrastructure in this country to manufacture out own nuclear quote-unquote deterrent, an issue that does not affect the US, Russia, China, France, Israel or India - and at that point it becomes genuinely terrifying that we have politicians claiming this nation to be a nuclear power when we clearly are not, we're just a customer in the US's nuclear arms race.
In happier news, here is a list of the Tory donors for this election... Sir Henry and Lady Keswick – £150,000 [pdf]. Keswick’s company Jardine Matheson was linked to tax avoidance via Luxembourg and has numerous subsidiaries in tax haven Bermuda. Charles ‘Julian’ Cazalet – £10,000 [pdf]. Cazalet is a non-executive director of NHS private provider Deltex Medical Group. John Griffin – £900,000 [pdf]. Griffin and his private hire firm Addison Lee were caught up in a lobbying and tax avoidance scandal in 2012. David J Rowland – £200,000 [pdf]. The Canary conducted a major investigation into Rowland in 2016, and described his offshore tax affairs as “mind blowing”. Andrew E Law – £250,000 [pdf]. Law is a hedge fund owner whose firm Caxton Associates is registered in the US tax avoidance state of Delaware. Malcolm Healey – £100,000 [pdf]. Healey was fined by HMRC in 2015 for making £8.6m [pdf] by using a tax avoidance scheme. Bruce Hardy McLain – £100,000 [pdf]. McLain’s private investment firm CVC Capital Partners is currently embroiled in a £5m bribery and tax avoidance scandal involving Formula One. Ayman and Sawsan Asfari – £100,000 [pdf]. Ayman is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. He also runs oil company Petrofac, which avoids tax via Jersey. Rainy City Investments – £100,000 [pdf]. Owned by Peter and Fred Done, who were fined £800,000 by the Serious Fraud Office over money laundering allegations. Investors in Private Capital Ltd – £150,000 [pdf]. Owned by James ‘Jamie’ Reuben, family friend of George Osborne, it paid no UK corporation tax in 2014 [pdf p13], despite a turnover [pdf p17] of £35m. John C Armitage – £1m [pdf p4 and pdf p4]. Armitage is the founder of Egerton Capital, a hedge fund that enables tax avoidance for investors. JCB Service – £500,000 [pdf]. It’s owned by Anthony Bamford, who was not only named in the Panama Papers, but who operates JCB out of tax haven Bermuda. ***EDIT*** Oh, by the way, the Crown Prosecution Service had charged Craig Mackinlay, the Tory MP for South Thanet, for fiddling his election expenses.
Lovely. Reasons why I believe : 1. Political election costs should be mainly state-funded, and proportionate to the electorate who voted for your party at the last election. 2. Personal donations should be limited to say 50K max (far too little to really buy or claim influence) .
