Politics

[Dr Gloom 21924]

12 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

Is that what he's getting stick for? I thought it was the counter offensive notion. i.e. someone nukes us, Corbyn won't nuke back. Putting aside the fact that actually, once you get into that territory, the only purpose of the counter-nuke is revenge and massacre.

It’d be too late by then anyway. You just have to commit to being prepared to use them, otherwise the deterrent is pointless and you may as well scrap them 

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

Cyber wars.

[PaddockLad 17281]

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

 

Fair point

 

Is it fuck. There's a lot to criticise in urban Scotland but doing it from Northern Ireland displays an almost supernatural lack of self awareness

 

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by PaddockLad

[ewerk 30620]

The difference is that we have actually been bombed to fuck.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

The difference is that we have actually been bombed to fuck.

Yeah but you bombed yourselves so no sympathy.

[ewerk 30620]

Look at all the sweaties suddenly getting very narky.  

[Monkeys Fist 42459]

Keep yer kilts on lads, when the bombs do drop, we’re all equally fucked. 
 

 

 

 

 

[Monkeys Fist 42459]

14 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

 

 

 

Is it fuck. There's a lot to criticise in urban Scotland but doing it from Northern Ireland displays an almost supernatural lack of self awareness

 

 

I was talking to a bloke who worked on some of the missile sites in Scotland, he was Scotch, and he was saying that if it goes off, Glasgow will melt. 
This is him, on the left.

 

( Fuck knows who the other geezer is ). 

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

[Monkeys Fist 42459]

Is that real?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rayvin 5223]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

It’d be too late by then anyway. You just have to commit to being prepared to use them, otherwise the deterrent is pointless and you may as well scrap them 

 

We may as well indeed scrap them. It's a colossal waste of money. I mean who in their right mind is actually going to nuke the UK? Not even Russia is that antagonistic to us. Globalism, if we can manage to stabilise it again, will reduce such nonsense to nothing.

[Renton 21627]

33 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

We may as well indeed scrap them. It's a colossal waste of money. I mean who in their right mind is actually going to nuke the UK? Not even Russia is that antagonistic to us. Globalism, if we can manage to stabilise it again, will reduce such nonsense to nothing.

 

Funny, it was the notion of unilateral disarmament more than any other issue which led to Foot's disastrous 1983 campaign. 

 

Personally I do believe in having a nuclear deterrent for a variety of reasons. I think Europe needs one and don't think that should be solely down to France. With Russia's militaristic posturing and at least 9 countries having nuclear capability, why should the 6th largest economy and pioneer of the technology not have it?

 

Anyway, regardless, whatever you think this is a huge issue for Labour and why many people won't vote for Corbyn. His attitude on this is ludicrous and is another example of the perception he is not fit to govern. I actually find it hard to disagree (whilst acknowledging Johnson is even less fit to govern). 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Renton

[Rayvin 5223]

5 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Funny, it was the notion of unilateral disarmament more than other issue which led to Foot's disastrous 1983 campaign. 

 

Personally I do believe in having a nuclear deterrent for a variety of reasons. I think Europe needs one and don't think that should be solely down to France. With Russia's militaristic posturing and at least 9 countries having nuclear capability, why should the 6th largest economy and pioneer of the technology not have it?

 

Anyway, regardless, whatever you think this is a huge issue for Labour and why many people won't vote for Corbyn. His attitude on this is ludicrous and is another example of the perception he is not fit to govern. I actually find it hard to disagree (whilst acknowledging Johnson is even less fit to govern). 

 

Yes, our ability to protect ourselves from "zee Germans" by having nukes is of paramount importance in an age where our enemies no longer need to actually attack us, and can succeed by influencing elections, flooding social media with utter shit, and pushing right wing nationalists who they know will stand up against the globalist world order and achieve their strategic objectives without even firing a pistol, let alone a warhead.

 

But yes, it's a huge issue for Labour. That's primarily because people are fucking cretins, but we're covering well trodden ground here.

[PaddockLad 17281]

1 hour ago, Anorthernsoul said:

 

 

[Renton 21627]

9 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Yes, our ability to protect ourselves from "zee Germans" by having nukes is of paramount importance in an age where our enemies no longer need to actually attack us, and can succeed by influencing elections, flooding social media with utter shit, and pushing right wing nationalists who they know will stand up against the globalist world order and achieve their strategic objectives without even firing a pistol, let alone a warhead.

 

But yes, it's a huge issue for Labour. That's primarily because people are fucking cretins, but we're covering well trodden ground here.

 

There are arguments for and against having a nuclear deterrent, I can see both sides. For me their very existence has prevented us having WW3 already and this continues to be the case, they absolutely deter physical invasion. It has fuck all to do with cyber warfare or hijacking social media. 

 

To be labelled a cretin for having an honest, logical difference of opinion is pretty embarrassing on your behalf imo. Corbyn's position on this particular point is also untenable, again imo. Rather than call people cretins who disagree, perhaps you should focus on why Corbyn has been so hopelessly naive that he has ended up in this position. At best, it shows he is not a clever politician. 

[Dr Gloom 21924]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

 

We may as well indeed scrap them. It's a colossal waste of money. I mean who in their right mind is actually going to nuke the UK? Not even Russia is that antagonistic to us. Globalism, if we can manage to stabilise it again, will reduce such nonsense to nothing.

i'm inclined to agree. we probably should scrap it - we would have to ask the yanks first anyway - or at least scale back the investment in trident. 

[Dr Gloom 21924]

as for corbyn though - just say you'd hit the button and end the argument. we're building a new trident fleet. he allowed a free vote on it so just play the game and don't give them another stick to hit you with ffs

[Rayvin 5223]

4 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

There are arguments for and against having a nuclear deterrent, I can see both sides. For me their very existence has prevented us having WW3 already and this continues to be the case, they absolutely deter physical invasion. It has fuck all to do with cyber warfare or hijacking social media. 

 

To be labelled a cretin for having an honest, logical difference of opinion is pretty embarrassing on your behalf imo. Corbyn's position on this particular point is also untenable, again imo. Rather than call people cretins who disagree, perhaps you should focus on why Corbyn has been so hopelessly naive that he has ended up in this position. At best, it shows he is not a clever politician. 

 

I wasn't calling you a cretin man, are you about to vote for someone other than Labour because you think the nuclear deterrant is of paramount importance to the country at present? If not, then you're not a cretin. I am embarrassed though - to be British, mostly. Shame, cos a few years ago I remember being fairly proud of this country.

 

Yes, nuclear deterrents did a great job in staving off WW3 during the cold war. It's over now though. Has been for 30 years. The great protection has since become globalisation and the interdependency of markets.

 

 

[Rayvin 5223]

3 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

as for corbyn though - just say you'd hit the button and end the argument. we're building a new trident fleet. he allowed a free vote on it so just play the game and don't give them another stick to hit you with ffs

 

I do agree with this. It's the same as the anti-semitism issue. Neither issue is really a big deal for Labour in its objectives, at all, and his stubbornness comes only from a determination to remain true to some purist ideological position. So yes, press the red button, rout the anti-semites, and then get on with everything else. It really would have been the way to go.

[Gemmill 44901]

4 hours ago, ewerk said:

And sent out this morning to dodge questions on Russia and the cost of the Tory plan. Poor fucker didn't stand a chance. The audience were actually laughing at him come the end.

 

I'm telling you this is not accidental. There was an article somewhere this morning about how the Tories produce fewer BAME candidates than other parties. This is why. Cos they use them as fucking cannon fodder. 

[Renton 21627]

16 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I wasn't calling you a cretin man, are you about to vote for someone other than Labour because you think the nuclear deterrant is of paramount importance to the country at present? If not, then you're not a cretin. I am embarrassed though - to be British, mostly. Shame, cos a few years ago I remember being fairly proud of this country.

 

Yes, nuclear deterrents did a great job in staving off WW3 during the cold war. It's over now though. Has been for 30 years. The great protection has since become globalisation and the interdependency of markets.

 

 

 

Like most people who actually think about it, I consider the pros and cons of each prospective PM. On this for me, its definitely a con, but outweighed by virtually everything else. But what about people who take national security more seriously or who are more to the right than me? Could swing it away from him to Swinson or worse.

 

If the last few years have shown us anything, it's that the global order is nowhere near as stable as it looked 10 years ago. I'm glad we had the foresight to retain a deterrent, fuck knows where we are heading. 

[Rayvin 5223]

Just now, Renton said:

 

Like most people who actually think about it, I consider the pros and cons of each prospective PM. On this for me, its definitely a con, but outweighed by virtually everything else. But what about people who take national security more seriously or who are more to the right than me? Could swing it away from him to Swinson or worse.

 

If the last few years have shown us anything, it's that the global order is nowhere near as stable as it looked 10 years ago. I'm glad we had the foresight to retain a deterrent, fuck knows where we are heading. 

 

Those people would be cretins.

 

And if the last few years have shown us anything, it's that even with an absolute madman in charge of the US, the global order is still pretty fucking solid.

[Renton 21627]

6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Those people would be cretins.

 

And if the last few years have shown us anything, it's that even with an absolute madman in charge of the US, the global order is still pretty fucking solid.

 

They're not man, it's a canny important issue. And yeah, I certainly don't want to rely on the US for any of our defence going forward, fuck that. I think we need an independent deterrence more than ever in fact. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Renton

[NJS 4386]

Polaris  was never independent. I'm sure documents in the future will similarly reveal trident isn't. 

 

It's cock waving for little englanders. 

 

3 countries in nato have nukes give or take. All of the others are perfectly happy not to bother so maybe they don't have collective penis issues. 

[Rayvin 5223]

Just now, Renton said:

 

They're not man, it's a canny important issue. And yeah, I certainly don't want to rely on the US for any of our defence going forward, fuck that. I think we need an independent more than ever in fact. 

 

Defence from what? Who are we poised to be at war with?

 

If Russia decides to take out the UK, it's done. We can launch what, 2 nukes at them? They can hit us with 100. If the Americans decide to take the UK there won't even be a war, they'll just ask Johnson for the keys.

 

So who are these nukes meant to be protecting us from? I mean Russia, the USA, China - none of these countries actually even need nukes to take over the UK if they really wanted to. They'd just have to show up.

 

Anyone who won't vote for Corbyn based on nuclear weapons is willfully ignoring the digital nuking Russia is giving us on a consistent basis, and voting in the radioactive fallout. All of which is currently doing an incredible amount of damage to our country. But let's ignore that because someone, somewhere, for some reason, might lob a nuke at us. FFS.