2017 GE 1

[NJS 4446]

18 minutes ago, Renton said:

Tbf as I've said many times, that's because you missed the cold war and don't seem to understand the mechanics of MAD. Nuclear weapons aren't supposed to be used, but they are an incredibly powerful deterrent. For the deterrent to work though, you have to be seen to be willing to use them, even if you're not.

 

I'd say nuclear warfare is still the number one risk to civilisation. The box has been opened though so we need to manage it. It's a very important issue imo. Does that make me an idiot?  

The cold war that effectively ended 35 years ago? 

 

Explain the scenarios where a deterrent would "work" - then explain in it terms of the 190 countries where the argument is meaningless. 

 

Morons stuck in the past who yearn for a Britain "ruling" the world. 

[Renton 22401]

Just now, NJS said:

The cold war that effectively ended 35 years ago? 

 

Explain the scenarios where a deterrent would "work" - then explain in it terms of the 190 countries where the argument is meaningless. 

 

Morons stuck in the past who yearn for a Britain "ruling" the world. 

The future is completely unpredictable. 

 

I'm one of the least nationalistic people there are. However, I understand how we arrived with the bomb through our scientific and industrial power, am a little bit proud of the science part Tbh. Once you have the deterrent, you don't unilaterally remove it without good reason. And I don't see any good reason.

 

And don't cite saving money cos that is bollocks. 

[Rayvin 5572]

I understand how MAD works, and I know you believe in it. I mean, Russia could destroy our entire country and we could only take out three of their cities, but even so I get how it's meant to work.

 

That said, we are currently not on the precipice of an international conflict that is likely to end up with them being used, at least not against us. So quite why people consider this to be a more pressing issue than the NHS and their quality of life in general is beyond me.

 

The other thing - why would anyone just nuke us for the hell of it? They wouldnt. We'd have to have literally invaded China or Russia or something.

 

[Tom 14021]

If anything we're becoming such an International irrelevance they'd probably leave us be.

[NJS 4446]

32 minutes ago, Renton said:

The future is completely unpredictable. 

 

I'm one of the least nationalistic people there are. However, I understand how we arrived with the bomb through our scientific and industrial power, am a little bit proud of the science part Tbh. Once you have the deterrent, you don't unilaterally remove it without good reason. And I don't see any good reason.

 

And don't cite saving money cos that is bollocks. 

Why isn't it an issue for Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain or any other civilised country?

 

The navy has been cut down to the bone over the last 30 years mainly to save money - why is trident different? 

[Renton 22401]

7 minutes ago, NJS said:

Why isn't it an issue for Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain or any other civilised country?

 

The navy has been cut down to the bone over the last 30 years mainly to save money - why is trident different? 

 

Because for obvious historical reasons (check which side of WW2 they were on) they were never allowed to develop nuclear weapons. If they had, what makes you think they'd engage in unilateral disarmament? Given nobody else has. 

 

Nuclear weapons by virtue of their massive destructive power are by far the most cost effective weapons. Then there's the spin offs of supporting highly specialised jobs. People quote trident as if its a one huge single one off cost. It's not, it's cost will be spread out over decades and is perfectly reasonable.

[Renton 22401]

31 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I understand how MAD works, and I know you believe in it. I mean, Russia could destroy our entire country and we could only take out three of their cities, but even so I get how it's meant to work.

 

That said, we are currently not on the precipice of an international conflict that is likely to end up with them being used, at least not against us. So quite why people consider this to be a more pressing issue than the NHS and their quality of life in general is beyond me.

 

The other thing - why would anyone just nuke us for the hell of it? They wouldnt. We'd have to have literally invaded China or Russia or something.

 

 

Because Corbyn has made an issue about it through his unilateral disarmament stance, since rescinded by the PLP who know its an absolute vote loser. If he hadn't made it an issue he could have concentrated on issues like the NHS. 

 

Can you or NJS predict the future? If we gave up our nuclear deterrent, and found ourselves at some point in the future where we needed them (as we did in the past), do you think we could just rearm ourselves over night? It would take decades as we'd have lost all our expertise. The UK is repeatedly guilty of losing our technological and scientific knowledge and at later points realising it was a mistake, nuclear power stations are a good example. 

 

 

[NJS 4446]

When did we need them in the past? 

 

Describe a scenario where they make sense. 

 

Do you think Russia ever considered the UK when it came to MAD? 

[ewerk 31587]

They do absolutely fuck all other than cost a fortune. It's an incredibly expensive form of willy waving.

[Ayatollah Hermione 14229]

1 hour ago, Renton said:

Tbf as I've said many times, that's because you missed the cold war and don't seem to understand the mechanics of MAD. Nuclear weapons aren't supposed to be used, but they are an incredibly powerful deterrent. For the deterrent to work though, you have to be seen to be willing to use them, even if you're not.

 

I'd say nuclear warfare is still the number one risk to civilisation. The box has been opened though so we need to manage it. It's a very important issue imo. Does that make me an idiot?  

 

Climate change is going to irrevocably change everything within 15-20 years. Nuclear warfare should be the last thing on any progressive societies mind which explains why our knuckle draggers are so obsessed with it.

 

As for it being a deterrent, in 15 years, the United Kingdom just isn't going to matter on a world stage. China and India will eventually become the super powers and we'll be some backwater shit tip island that only pops up every now and then to enter something shit into Eurovision.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Ayatollah Hermione

[Dr Gloom 22513]

12 minutes ago, ewerk said:

They do absolutely fuck all other than cost a fortune. It's an incredibly expensive form of willy waving.

 

Totally agree with this.

 

that said, not committing to ever using them is just another example of Corbyn refusing to try to win the election. He's had a great week and he's got all the momentum - all

he has to do is say he would use them. All he has to do is condem the Ira and he could put this stuff to bed. 

[Renton 22401]

16 minutes ago, NJS said:

When did we need them in the past?  The Cold war

 

Describe a scenario where they make sense. The Cold war. 

 

Do you think Russia ever considered the UK when it came to MAD?  Yes. 

 

Disagree with me if you like, just don't assume mine or anybody else's reason for wanting them is based on nationalistic pride, and don't call me a moron for having a different (majority shared) viewpoint. 

[Rayvin 5572]

2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

Totally agree with this.

 

that said, not committing to ever using them is just another example of Corbyn refusing to try to win the election. He's had a great week and he's got all the momentum - all

he has to do is say he would use them. All he has to do is condem the Ira and he could put this stuff to bed. 

 

Yep, but he believes in his principles so he can't. And anyway, the second he did the Tories would turn around and say you couldn't trust anything he says anymore.

[Dr Gloom 22513]

You can be principled in wanting to work towards disarmament while being pragmatic because you want to win an election. This is beyond corbyn and the main reason he will lose. 

[Christmas Tree 4920]

Still all going to boil down to whether the youth vote turns up.

[Dr Gloom 22513]

Don't rule out the shy tories 

[Dr Gloom 22513]

No one wants to admit they're a selfish twat but in the privacy of the voting booth...

[ewerk 31587]

I didn't see the show last night but did he commit to never using nukes?

[Christmas Tree 4920]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

I didn't see the show last night but did he commit to never using nukes?

 

Yes

[Dr Gloom 22513]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

I didn't see the show last night but did he commit to never using nukes?

 

He dodged the question but ruled out a first strike, said he would always want to seek a diplomatic solution. By far his weakest exchange. Just needed to say you could use them in retaliation and you end the debate. Instead he faced groans and indignation from the audience. 

[ewerk 31587]

Actually he didn't, he was consistent with his previous statements in that he wouldn't consider a first strike but a retaliatory strike would depend on circumstances.

 

"If we did use it, millions are going to die. You have to think this thing through," Mr Corbyn said. "I would decide on the circumstances at the time," he said.

 

Seems like a responsible approach to me.

[Renton 22401]

Corbyn is just one man, the majority of his parliamentary party disagree with him on this. He can be a leader, whilst respecting the majority view of the party. He doesn't expect everyone to go veggie, tee total, and manhole hunt does he? What am saying is the party can take a line which he may not personally agree with but supports anyway. Be a bit savvy and try to nullify it as a non issue and focus on the important stuff. He's failed to do this and it could cost him seats. 

[NJS 4446]

25 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Disagree with me if you like, just don't assume mine or anybody else's reason for wanting them is based on nationalistic pride, and don't call me a moron for having a different (majority shared) viewpoint. 

That was more aimed at the questioners last night but it is the overwhelming reason people support them and they tend to be the nostalgia junkies. 

 

If there's a sensible reason not based on an overinflated view of our place in the world then fair enough - I'm willing to see your skilled jobs view but much like BAE, I think those skills could be used for useful reasons m

[Tom 14021]

I'd bet the people focusing on Nuclear weapons this G.E aren't living month to month or worse. 

[Renton 22401]

1 minute ago, NJS said:

That was more aimed at the questioners last night but it is the overwhelming reason people support them and they tend to be the nostalgia junkies. 

 

If there's a sensible reason not based on an overinflated view of our place in the world then fair enough - I'm willing to see your skilled jobs view but much like BAE, I think those skills could be used for useful reasons m

 

You go too far the other way on nationalism though. Trivialising us as an irrelevance is stupid, we are still the 5th/6th biggest economy in the world (much bigger than Russia) and have a relatively large military presence. We are big players, although clearly diminishing.

 

I just see nuclear deterrence as an insurance policy given the chaotic state the world is in. If Trump can get elected, I want an independent nuclear deterrent from the US, for instance. To me its common sense, to most this board, obviously not.