Politics

[Rayvin 5183]

In fact, the Russians could actually nuke London, and then threaten to nuke everywhere else in the country if we retaliate. What then? We can't match that threat.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809]

46 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.

 

 

 

Actually there is no evidence Nuclear weapons stopped WW3 afterWW2 everyone was fucked and developed Nuclear weapons to put off the other guys. But the might of the Soviet union at its greatest did worse than a depleted NATO in Afghanistan. They knew they could never invade and win a conventional war. Similarly Vietnam put the USA off getting involved in mass invasions and occupation. Each was just ideologically opposed to the other. 

[Renton 21311]

17 minutes ago, NJS said:

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. 

 

Tell me how many countries have unilaterally disarmed? Is the answer none?

[Alex 34846]

53 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

Aye, just give yourself a chance of winning ffs

[Rayvin 5183]

1 minute ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

Actually there is no evidence Nuclear weapons stopped WW3 afterWW2 everyone was fucked and developed Nuclear weapons to put off the other guys. But the might of the Soviet union at its greatest did worse than a depleted NATO in Afghanistan. They knew they could never invade and win a conventional war. Similarly Vietnam put the USA off getting involved in mass invasions and occupation. Each was just ideologically opposed to the other. 

 

Fair points, I'm not well versed enough in the theory around nuclear weapons from that era to judge it one way or another. I just assumed Renton would be right on that.

[Renton 21311]

4 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

In fact, the Russians could actually nuke London, and then threaten to nuke everywhere else in the country if we retaliate. What then? We can't match that threat.

 

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here. I'm not talking about MAD. I'm talking about deterring conventional warfare. "Don't attack us or we will fuck you up". As a defensive tactic, much more effective than any matching conventional weapons we could afford. And despite what KCG claims, that's what stopped the Russian tanks rolling across Europe 40 years ago and still does. Nuclear deterrence has stopped large scale conventional war, period. 

[Rayvin 5183]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Tell me how many countries have unilaterally disarmed? Is the answer none?

 

What point are you trying to make here though. Germany could easily build nukes if it wanted them. The entire western world probably could at this point. You seem to be suggesting that there's an ideological difference between having nukes and choosing to get rid of them, and having the capability to produce them and deciding not to. And maybe there is, but I don't see it myself.

[Meenzer 15407]

8 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

In fact, the Russians could actually nuke London, and then threaten to nuke everywhere else in the country if we retaliate. What then? We can't match that threat.

 

Would sort out the house prices, anyway. I'm all for it.

[Rayvin 5183]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here. I'm not talking about MAD. I'm talking about deterring conventional warfare. "Don't attack us or we will fuck you up". As a defensive tactic, much more effective than any matching conventional weapons we could afford. And despite what KCG claims, that's what stopped the Russian tanks rolling across Europe 40 years ago and still does. Nuclear deterrence has stopped large scale conventional war, period. 

 

Again, I can see that statement logically. Although I would argue the EU has done quite a lot to assist with preventing conventional war in Europe between European states. Moreso than nukes. But with Russia I can see your point. At least up until the 90s. Now I'm really not sure. I think interdependence is far more valuable now.

[Renton 21311]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

What point are you trying to make here though. Germany could easily build nukes if it wanted them. The entire western world probably could at this point. You seem to be suggesting that there's an ideological difference between having nukes and choosing to get rid of them, and having the capability to produce them and deciding not to. And maybe there is, but I don't see it myself.

 

Erm, have you heard of the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? I mean, Germany perhaps could become a pariah state, but somehow I doubt they want to  

[Renton 21311]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Again, I can see that statement logically. Although I would argue the EU has done quite a lot to assist with preventing conventional war in Europe between European states. Moreso than nukes. But with Russia I can see your point. At least up until the 90s. Now I'm really not sure. I think interdependence is far more valuable now.

 

It is, yeah. But this is an insurance policy. I mean, what would happen if a nation state just went AWOL and left its neighbouring trading block to become an isolated state, for example? 

[Rayvin 5183]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Erm, have you heard of the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? I mean, Germany perhaps could become a pariah state, but somehow I doubt they want to  

 

True, they wouldn't. Because of the interdependence of their market with everyone else's.

 

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

It is, yeah. But this is an insurance policy. I mean, what would happen if a nation state just went AWOL and left its neighbouring trading block to become an isolated state, for example? 

 

 Well you would hope that said nation didn't have nuclear weapons, I guess.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

Fuck me what a ridiculous and pointless argument ^^^^^^^^^^^^.

[ewerk 30266]

14 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Erm, have you heard of the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? I mean, Germany perhaps could become a pariah state, but somehow I doubt they want to  

Yeah, it's not like they've got form for that sort of thing...

[Rayvin 5183]

2 minutes ago, Anorthernsoul said:

Fuck me what a ridiculous and pointless argument ^^^^^^^^^^^^.

 

And yet this is something the people of this country genuinely think matters at this election. I agree, ridiculous and pointless.

 

This election is about one thing only - whether or not the Tories will govern the UK for the next 10-15 years, and as an extension of that, how much of the country they can sell off to the Americans in that period of time.

[Monkeys Fist 42066]

In other news, Frank Dobson, former Labour Health Secretary, has pegged it. 
 

RIP

[NJS 4371]

25 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Tell me how many countries have unilaterally disarmed? Is the answer none?

Don't see how that matters - matching the status of Germany, Italy, Spain etc isn't the end of the world (no pun intended). 

[Renton 21311]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

And yet this is something the people of this country genuinely think matters at this election. I agree, ridiculous and pointless.

 

This election is about one thing only - whether or not the Tories will govern the UK for the next 10-15 years, and as an extension of that, how much of the country they can sell off to the Americans in that period of time.

 

10 to 15 years? 

[Gemmill 44398]

3 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

10 to 15 years? 

 

Can we keep this one to three pages please lads? 

[Rayvin 5183]

11 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

10 to 15 years? 

 

I mean, it's my assumption that if the Tories get away with Brexit, Labour will more or less collapse. I don't know who will emerge with control but I'm pretty damn sure the left and the centre aren't getting back into bed with each other for some time. Thus the Tories will continue to clear up, off the back of achieving a hard right fantasy, the effects of which will be delivered so slowly that people won't understand that things are becoming increasingly shit (much like austerity) and won't put the blame where it's due (much like austerity). Occasional moments of Brexit success will be feted as if they're hugely significant indicators of the wisdom of leave voters, and all bad news will be ignored for the 'national good'.

 

The Tories will consolidate their grip on social media and spewing toxic bile and lies across anyone and everything, and no one will be able to do anything about it because they hold all the institutional power with which to put in place regulations for its control.

 

My hope is that within 10 to 15 years, a new generation of young people come forward who can be mobilised around some kind of ambitious and forward thinking idea, or perhaps out of desperation in the face of climate change. But either way, lose this and we've got Boris for a decade at least IMO. Irrespective of who takes over Labour - and I personally hope it's a centrist, just so that we can underline the point that Labour's centrism isn't working any better against the shithousing of the Tories than Labour's left wing is. Which after the last decade, you'd think would be obvious. But alas.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Rayvin

[Meenzer 15407]

Party political thinking feels increasingly outdated really, doesn't it? Unfortunately the system seems geared to keep us on those lines.

[Rayvin 5183]

Just now, Meenzer said:

Party political thinking feels increasingly outdated really, doesn't it? Unfortunately the system seems geared to keep us on those lines.

 

Indeed.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

40 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

And yet this is something the people of this country genuinely think matters at this election. I agree, ridiculous and pointless.

 

This election is about one thing only - whether or not the Tories will govern the UK for the next 10-15 years, and as an extension of that, how much of the country they can sell off to the Americans in that period of time.

 

It's what the powers that be want people to be talking about, anything to distract them from what are the real issues at hand. That's how vast swathes of people are controlled.

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Anorthernsoul

[Alex 34846]

Tbf, Corbyn’s the one who makes it an issue. 

[Dr Gloom 21813]

just like his refusal to condemn the ira. 

"i condemn all terrorists"

or to condemn antisemitism in the labour party

"i condemn all forms of racism" 

etc etc