The leading opposition political party in UK is declared a threat to national security.
78 replies, posted
How is any of that out of context? The only one that is arguably is the 'friends Hamas' one. The first is very slightly misplaced, but he is still essentially equivocating the death of a terrorist to 9/11, regardless of how you spin it. There is not even any spin on the last two.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
Corbyn supporters are remarkably thin-skinned. Which is typical of the far-left and its history of colossal failure and their repeated inability to accept responsibility.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48682883]How is any of that out of context? The only one that is arguably is the 'friends Hamas' one. The first is very slightly misplaced, but he is still essentially equivocating the death of a terrorist to 9/11, regardless of how you spin it. There is not even any spin on the last two.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
Corbyn supporters are remarkably thin-skinned. Which is typical of the far-left and its history of colossal failure and their repeated inability to accept responsibility.[/QUOTE]
what about cameron? burning a £50 note in front of a homeless man, travelling to luxurious meetings paid for by pro-apartheid lobbyists, fought the minimum wage . are you willing to accept 'responsibility' for his actions or is he a changed man? i'd rather vote for someone that has knowledge and understanding of hamas than someone who is entirely out of touch with reality.
what left wing failures are you referring to? democratic socialism is visibly successful in any country that has adopted it.
i'm also a big fan of the ISIS propaganda. what would scrapping our military do to help strengthen isis? is our one air strike a week [I]really[/I] that helpful? can we seriously claim that [I]we[/I] are the solitary defenders against a militia that exists halfway across the continent from us?
whats more dangerous? mentally ill submarine workers who have access to nukes protected by bike locks or ISIS? and to think, we're paying out of the asshole for the former. the tories are suckers and don't even know it.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48682648]corbyn -is- a threat to national security (if he gets in, which he won't)
He wants to leave NATO and end Trident. How is that not a threat to national security?[/QUOTE]
Those are his personal beliefs, lets wait till the party sets out policies before getting worried shall we?
[QUOTE=Bobie;48682930]what about cameron? burning a £50 note in front of a homeless man, travelling to luxurious meetings paid for by pro-apartheid lobbyists, fought the minimum wage . are you willing to accept 'responsibility' for his actions or is he a changed man? i'd rather vote for someone that has knowledge and understanding of hamas than someone who is entirely out of touch with reality.
what left wing failures are you referring to? democratic socialism is visibly successful in any country that has adopted it.
i'm also a big fan of the ISIS propaganda. what would scrapping our military do to help strengthen isis? is our one air strike a week [I]really[/I] that helpful? can we seriously claim that [I]we[/I] are the solitary defenders against a militia that exists halfway across the continent from us?
whats more dangerous? mentally ill submarine workers who have access to nukes protected by bike locks or ISIS? and to think, we're paying out of the asshole for the former. the tories are suckers and don't even know it.[/QUOTE]
That's because we should be more involved against IS. Whilst Iraq and Afghanistan will be seen as the effects of hawkish and misguided foreign policy in the future, Syria and (earlier) Rwanda will be seen as the costs of inaction.
Funny you call Cameron out of touch with reality, because the sad thing is that Corbyn manages to be equally so. There is no movement in Britain begging for socialism or the far left beyond the frenzied lefties attending his rallies. The non-voters aren't a legion of socialists who will lead him to inevitable victory in the next election. Britain is actually the most capitalist and most consumerist country in the whole of the EU in its perspective. His ideas are actually more out of touch than Cameron, the former Etonian Bullingdon boy. That's Corbyn for you.
Britain is currently doing better than any 'social democratic' country in the world at the moment, that is not my point, because Corbyn and McDonnell are far to the left of European Social Democracy in reality in their personal beliefs. I'm more referring to socialism in Venezuela and Cuba (and their apologism for it) and the 1983 election. It'll never be the fault of the left wing, they'll always have someone to blame but themselves, whether it be the media or the evil SDP traitors or whoever they blame, it won't be themselves when the election is a disaster, and there will be calls for a Jeremy 2, a Jeremy 3 and 4.
I personally don't oppose changing to another system, with better security and at a cheaper cost, but I want us to keep our nuclear capabilities. Corbyn isn't interested in doing that.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jsm;48682950]Those are his personal beliefs, lets wait till the party sets out policies before getting worried shall we?[/QUOTE]
The Party Leader's personal beliefs will always have substantial influence, regardless of whether they are an authoritarian leader in their own party like Blair or Thatcher or a more consensus based one like Cameron or Major. This is why I'm worried about his personal beliefs.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48683014]I personally don't oppose changing to another system, with better security and at a cheaper cost, but I want us to keep our nuclear capabilities. Corbyn isn't interested in doing that.[/QUOTE]
Personally I still don't see the point in having nuclear capabilities at all, if it ever comes to nuclear war we would all be screwed and I'd rather we just lose outright than kill more people just to spite them.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48682883]Corbyn supporters are remarkably thin-skinned. Which is typical of the far-left and its history of colossal failure and their repeated inability to accept responsibility.[/QUOTE]
Man, I do wonder how anyone on the right can breathe when you all seem to have your mouths so firmly clasped around your own dicks to think making comments like this are actually going to get anything fucking done.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=HighOnSinz;48683062]Personally I still don't see the point in having nuclear capabilities at all, if it ever comes to nuclear war we would all be screwed and I'd rather we just lose outright than kill more people just to spite them.[/QUOTE]
Our status as a "nuclear power" is pretty fucking set in stone anyway. The fact we have managed to produce and maintain such weapons for as long as we have means that we are known to be capable of getting a hold of that shit.
We're a pretty important part of the global economy anyway, an attack on any of the superpowers or bigger players in the global economy would just fuck whoever attacked over more than one would expect. We aren't going to get nuked any time soon, and sure as shit don't want to be nuking anyone in the foreseeable future.
[QUOTE=HighOnSinz;48683062]Personally I still don't see the point in having nuclear capabilities at all, if it ever comes to nuclear war we would all be screwed and I'd rather we just lose outright than kill more people just to spite them.[/QUOTE]
Our nuclear weapons provide a small reason for second thought when we get nuked, though I fully understand your perspective. I still like the idea strongly for international prestige.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48683066]Man, I do wonder how anyone on the right can breathe when you all seem to have your mouths so firmly clasped around your own dicks to think making comments like this are actually going to get anything fucking done.[/quote]
I'm not in government, its not my job to get things done, so I can be as rude as I like about Corbynites unless I'm rude enough to get banned here. It's not my job to be conciliatory.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48683082]Our nuclear weapons provide a small reason for second thought when we get nuked, though I fully understand your perspective. I still like the idea strongly for international prestige.[/QUOTE]
I have always held the belief that the UK has nuclear weapons purely to "buy" its way into being a super power. Without nuclear weapons what standing do we really have on the world stage?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48683082]Our nuclear weapons provide a small reason for second thought when we get nuked, though I fully understand your perspective. I still like the idea strongly for international prestige.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
I'm not in government, its not my job to get things done, so I can be as rude as I like about Corbynites unless I'm rude enough to get banned here. It's not my job to be conciliatory.[/QUOTE]
When you think of nukes as a badge of "prestige" i'm pretty sure you've ruled out anyone taking your arguments seriously
[QUOTE=Jsm;48683092]I have always held the belief that the UK has nuclear weapons purely to "buy" its way into being a super power. Without nuclear weapons what standing do we really have on the world stage?[/QUOTE]
We're still a major economy, even if we aren't dominant. We play a leading role in NATO and sit on the UN Security Council as a permanent member. We are a reluctant member of the EU. We're the closest allies of the most powerful country in the world, the US, even if our relationship has deteriorated very slightly. Our armed forces are powerful, especially for a European country, and we don't rely entirely on the US on subsidising our defence.
All of the above on top of the nuclear capabilities are under threat under Corbyn.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48683097]When you think of nukes as a badge of "prestige" i'm pretty sure you've ruled out anyone taking your arguments seriously[/QUOTE]
People take people with nukes more seriously, whether you like it or not. You don't want to admit it because nukes are destructive and horrible, and I agree, but the fact remains.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48683014]That's because we should be more involved against IS. Whilst Iraq and Afghanistan will be seen as the effects of hawkish and misguided foreign policy in the future, Syria and (earlier) Rwanda will be seen as the costs of inaction.
Funny you call Cameron out of touch with reality, because the sad thing is that Corbyn manages to be equally so. There is no movement in Britain begging for socialism or the far left beyond the frenzied lefties attending his rallies. The non-voters aren't a legion of socialists who will lead him to inevitable victory in the next election. Britain is actually the most capitalist and most consumerist country in the whole of the EU in its perspective. His ideas are actually more out of touch than Cameron, the former Etonian Bullingdon boy. That's Corbyn for you.
Britain is currently doing better than any 'social democratic' country in the world at the moment, that is not my point, because Corbyn and McDonnell are far to the left of European Social Democracy in reality in their personal beliefs. I'm more referring to socialism in Venezuela and Cuba (and their apologism for it) and the 1983 election. It'll never be the fault of the left wing, they'll always have someone to blame but themselves, whether it be the media or the evil SDP traitors or whoever they blame, it won't be themselves when the election is a disaster, and there will be calls for a Jeremy 2, a Jeremy 3 and 4.
I personally don't oppose changing to another system, with better security and at a cheaper cost, but I want us to keep our nuclear capabilities. Corbyn isn't interested in doing that.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
The Party Leader's personal beliefs will always have substantial influence, regardless of whether they are an authoritarian leader in their own party like Blair or Thatcher or a more consensus based one like Cameron or Major. This is why I'm worried about his personal beliefs.[/QUOTE]
it is very uncomfortable debating with someone who is insistent on turning policy debate into a red vs blue shitflinging contest. i don't have to explain why corbyn doesn't represent the hard left governments that dominate venezuela and cuba, nor will i have to explain why corbyn doesn't represent communism, stalin, mao, or whatever other ridiculous straw man people will think of next.
if you'd take some time to read up about his policies, his open-ness to democracy and the democratic process within labour, you'd understand that corbyn is far closer to a moderate than people realise. and european social democracy [B]is[/B] incredibly successful, moreso than our hypercapitalist system in areas such as overall [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/23/swiss-reign-supreme-in-world-happiness-ranks"]happiness[/URL], [URL="http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/education-index"]education[/URL] and [URL="http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1050&intPageId=1870&langId=en"]income equality[/URL].
arguably more important than GDP, unless you're a fucking computer.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48683115]We're still a major economy, even if we aren't dominant. We play a leading role in NATO and sit on the UN Security Council as a permanent member. We are a reluctant member of the EU. We're the closest allies of the most powerful country in the world, the US, even if our relationship has deteriorated very slightly. Our armed forces are powerful, especially for a European country, and we don't rely entirely on the US on subsidising our defence.
All of the above on top of the nuclear capabilities are under threat under Corbyn.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
People take people with nukes more seriously, whether you like it or not. You don't want to admit it because nukes are destructive and horrible, and I agree, but the fact remains.[/QUOTE]
Yes they give you power but "prestige"? you didn't say power or seriousness, you said prestige. Nukes are not a thing of prestige, they're a scary weapon that makes people sit down with you and listen to you, but "prestige"?
Can we see proof that those things are going to be under attack or just more hearsay and essentially slander?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48682760]We don't live in a secure world. We live in a world with Putin and a collapsing European Union. Do I think it's likely that we'll actually have to defend ourselves? Probably not. But we need something to do so, and NATO and Trident, though not perfect, are good at providing that.[/QUOTE]
Thank you. I'm surprised how heavily British FP aligns with pacifism and de-militarisation. While the defence community cries out that we are woefully underprepared and, at times in the last ten years, people have died because of it, one of our major political parties is now led by a man who thinks it's all twoddle and it's time to settle into the cushy, safe 2010s. Perhaps he needs to see the state of foreign affairs from the - admittedly rather blunt - PM's perspective before he decides that Britain no longer needs national defence.
It'd be really interesting to know what a lot of the serving personnel's opinions of Corbyn are, across the three services and different roles. Of course it's always rather ambiguous, because a lot of them seem to prefer to not get involved, or not be vocal about it. But I sincerely believe some of them will be losing their jobs, and many like myself will find my chosen path no longer exists, if this country goes left at the next election.
[QUOTE=Jon27;48683137]Thank you. I'm surprised how heavily British FP aligns with pacifism and de-militarisation. While the defence community cries out that we are woefully underprepared and, at times in the last ten years, people have died because of it, one of our major political parties is now led by a man who thinks it's all twoddle and it's time to settle into the cushy, safe 2010s. Perhaps he needs to see the state of foreign affairs from the - admittedly rather blunt - PM's perspective before he decides that Britain no longer needs national defence.[/QUOTE]
The world is under great threat from things that don't require standing armies to fight than before.
I don't see how this guy is going to single handedly destroy national security.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48683147]The world is under great threat from things that don't require standing armies to fight than before.
I don't see how this guy is going to single handedly destroy national security.[/QUOTE]
Destroy it? No, that's probably sensationalist. Diminish is the word I'd use. Anyway, I can't claim to not be biased, because I am genuinely terrified that the job I want, the only job I want, won't be there for me if Corbyn gets his teeth into the MOD. I simply cannot vote for anyone in favour of downsizing my chosen field, and I think that's perfectly rational.
But my opinion is that we're not yet at a point of international harmony and cooperation that a standing army the size of ours and a nuclear deterrent like ours is unnecessary, as much as I wish it was. I can only see Corbyn's view of the situation as either uninformed, ignorant, or delusional. That worries me.
[QUOTE=Bobie;48683133]it is very uncomfortable debating with someone who is insistent on turning policy debate into a red vs blue shitflinging contest. i don't have to explain why corbyn doesn't represent the hard left governments that dominate venezuela and cuba, nor will i have to explain why corbyn doesn't represent communism, stalin, mao, or whatever other ridiculous straw man people will think of next.
if you'd take some time to read up about his policies, his open-ness to democracy and the democratic process within labour, you'd understand that corbyn is far closer to a moderate than people realise. and european social democracy [B]is[/B] incredibly successful, moreso than our hypercapitalist system in areas such as overall [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/23/swiss-reign-supreme-in-world-happiness-ranks"]happiness[/URL], [URL="http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/education-index"]education[/URL] and [URL="http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1050&intPageId=1870&langId=en"]income equality[/URL].
arguably more important than GDP, unless you're a fucking computer.[/QUOTE]
I actually identify more with Labour than the Conservatives, though I will of course be voting for the Conservatives in the next election (regardless of whether Corbyn is leader, because of how compromised the party is from this), to start off.
Explain how printing money to finance government and reopening coal mines is moderate (it isn't). They aren't even real Keynesians because they won't even borrow the money (at what are currently very low rates), they just want to fund it through absurdly high taxation!
I'm not wholly opposed to social democracy, it is more that Corbyn is not actually trying to follow European Social Democracy - no continental social democrat would actually want to print money, renationalise en masse or raise taxes to the extent that they desire. We should look into expansion of the welfare state and public services either through deficit financing or wait until we are in a better financial position, and either way, not finance it in the way Corbyn wishes to.
[QUOTE=Jon27;48683137]Thank you. I'm surprised how heavily British FP aligns with pacifism and de-militarisation. While the defence community cries out that we are woefully underprepared and, at times in the last ten years, people have died because of it, one of our major political parties is now led by a man who thinks it's all twoddle and it's time to settle into the cushy, safe 2010s. Perhaps he needs to see the state of foreign affairs from the - admittedly rather blunt - PM's perspective before he decides that Britain no longer needs national defence.[/QUOTE]
because when the time comes to press the nuclear button, you've already lost. you're already dead. anyone who doesn't understand this is either living in a british empire daydream where we are still number one or is clinically insane.
in the last 80 years, small, focused, tactical forces have been perfectly fine in securing our borders. our military is 10 times the size of the forces we used to defend the falklands. what could we possibly need [I]more[/I] for?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48683184]I actually identify more with Labour than the Conservatives, though I will of course be voting for the Conservatives in the next election (regardless of whether Corbyn is leader, because of how compromised the party is from this), to start off.
Explain how printing money to finance government and reopening coal mines is moderate (it isn't). They aren't even real Keynesians because they won't even borrow the money (at what are currently very low rates), they just want to fund it through absurdly high taxation!
I'm not wholly opposed to social democracy, it is more that Corbyn is not actually trying to follow European Social Democracy - no continental social democrat would actually want to print money, renationalise en masse or raise taxes to the extent that they desire. We should look into expansion of the welfare state and public services either through deficit financing or wait until we are in a better financial position, and either way, not finance it in the way Corbyn wishes to.[/QUOTE]
but we already use quantitative easing. we've been trialing it since 2008, the bank of england had remarked it as 'incredibly successful', and corbyn seeks to expand it in a way that isn't harmful to the overall economic growth of the UK.
i'll admit the coal mines thing was a little strange but it wasn't a certainty; it was merely a possible suggestion for the future. i'll wait until he talks about it more, if it becomes a major point in the manifesto i'll eat my hat but i doubt that it will become anything more.
[QUOTE=Bobie;48683194]because when the time comes to press the nuclear button, you've already lost. you're already dead. anyone who doesn't understand this is either living in a british empire daydream where we are still number one or is clinically insane.
in the last 80 years, small, focused, tactical forces have been perfectly fine in securing our borders. our military is 10 times the size of the forces we used to defend the falklands. what could we possibly need [I]more[/I] for?[/QUOTE]
Because there may be instances where a 'non-defensive' war is needed. Just because Iraq was a disaster doesn't mean all will be, and often inaction is costly.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
You also forget that the reason we have been so secure is because the US protects us all with its enormous military spending. I'd rather actually be a nation in its own right, which provides for itself, but not more, which is what our current level of spending provides us.
nuclear weapons are largely a massive waste of money and resources, they're the dreadnoughts of the 21st century
it's much more cost-effective to spend the money on conventional forces and emergent technologies than bombs which were last used to flatten some Japanese cities over 70 years ago.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48683262]nuclear weapons are largely a massive waste of money and resources, they're the dreadnoughts of the 21st century
it's much more cost-effective to spend the money on conventional forces and emergent technologies than bombs which were last used to flatten some Japanese cities over 70 years ago.[/QUOTE]
So, out of interest, do you think it would be appropriate for the US to fully disarm themselves of nuclear weapons also, even if other nations retained theirs?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48683262]nuclear weapons are largely a massive waste of money and resources, they're the dreadnoughts of the 21st century
it's much more cost-effective to spend the money on conventional forces and emergent technologies than bombs which were last used to flatten some Japanese cities over 70 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Not really , the USSR bankrupted itself maintaining massive conventional force from ww2 through the end of the cold war and the Russian federation still maintains a huge army
Nukes especially tactical weapons were considered to be a cost effective alternative to the massive force buildup required to meet the USSR army. Now modern weapons have gotten much much more efficient and tactical nukes aren't nearly as important but still weapons like the minuteman 3 can sit in large batteries of 50 missiles and deliver an enormous amount of firepower for as low as 50 million a battery
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
Britain and France essentially bought into nuclear weapons by detonating devices much more crude than even the Manhattan projects early bombs produced, it was enough to make the US government give them nuclear weapon systems in exchange for a closure of the British and French weapon programs
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
By crude I mean they surrounded plutonium with lithium-6 and imploded the whole damn thing and it had a very very low yield
[QUOTE=Jon27;48683280]So, out of interest, do you think it would be appropriate for the US to fully disarm themselves of nuclear weapons also, even if other nations retained theirs?[/QUOTE]
Well yes, especially considering that most of them have been sitting rotting in chambers for years under the care of inept or bored technicians.
If the United States was to actually try using its nuclear arsenal, it would find that much of it wouldn't actually be readily available for war.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48683318]Not really , the USSR bankrupted itself maintaining massive conventional force from ww2 through the end of the cold war and the Russian federation still maintains a huge army
Nukes especially tactical weapons were considered to be a cost effective alternative to the massive force buildup required to meet the USSR army. Now modern weapons have gotten much much more efficient and tactical nukes aren't nearly as important but still weapons like the minuteman 3 can sit in large batteries of 50 missiles and deliver an enormous amount of firepower for as low as 50 million a battery[/QUOTE]
Only problem is that these days, who the hell is the USA going to nuke? The USA hasn't been able to test or use any of them at all, and the threat of invasion by pretty much any power is virtually nonexistant.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48683357]Well yes, especially considering that most of them have been sitting rotting in chambers for years under the care of inept or bored technicians.
If the United States was to actually try using its nuclear arsenal, it would find that much of it wouldn't actually be readily available for war.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I'm genuinely intrigued to see that people think nuclear deterrent is an outmoded concept.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48683357]Well yes, especially considering that most of them have been sitting rotting in chambers for years under the care of inept or bored technicians.
If the United States was to actually try using its nuclear arsenal, it would find that much of it wouldn't actually be readily available for war.
Only problem is that these days, who the hell is the USA going to nuke? The USA hasn't been able to test or use any of them at all, and the threat of invasion by pretty much any power is virtually nonexistant.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you have your reasons which are likely well informed but I think nukes are still relevant. The number of lives they have saved by preventing conventional warfare is huge. Even if you theorise the cold war never happening the casualties in japan would have been high.
Nukes are still a useful tool for stopping conventional warfare. Its similar to the arguement that give 2 people a gun each and they will be less likely to attack one another (i think this logic is flawed), only this time make it turned based where the defender can choose to shoot the attacker if the attacker decides to attack (this fixes the flaw) so any kind of strike ceases to be viable, the cost is too great if they know overwhelming or equal force can be applied to them in the scenario of attack.
[quote]Only problem is that these days, who the hell is the USA going to nuke? [/quote] The US doesn't need to nuke anybody, ideally the nukes they have will never be used. The cost of maintaining them is seen as a good deal; alternative being the risk of nuclear or conventional attack on the US (or UK or russia or france etc) which would be more expensive.
You hold a valid point with the state which some of the nukes may be but they will always have some, in submarines, mobile, MIRV, capable of striking anywhere to maintain the deterrent.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48683488]I'm sure you have your reasons which are likely well informed but I think nukes are still relevant. The number of lives they have saved by preventing conventional warfare is huge. Even if you theorise the cold war never happening the casualties in japan would have been high.[/quote]
Americas policy of taking every single shitty islet by islet by itself was the cause of many wasted lives. They only save lives if you view human lives as being secondary to military goals in the first place.
[quote]Nukes are still a useful tool for stopping conventional warfare. Its similar to the arguement that give 2 people a gun each and they will be less likely to attack one another (i think this logic is flawed), only this time make it turned based where the defender can choose to shoot the attacker if the attacker decides to attack (this fixes the flaw) so any kind of strike ceases to be viable, the cost is too great if they know overwhelming or equal force can be applied to them in the scenario of attack.[/quote]
I don't think that nukes have helped prevent any conventional warfare, and that it was largely lucky breaks that saw us through the cold war. It wasn't nuclear weaponry that ultimately ended the threat of the annihilation of civilization, but the fact that the major powers signed treaties or backed off from considering the nuclear deterrent as actually viable.
By virtue of the fact you possess nuclear weaponry in the first place, you are instantly made a target for nuclear attack. The first salvoes of nuclear launches were planned to almost always go for the missile silos and other important military targets
[quote]The US doesn't need to nuke anybody, ideally the nukes they have will never be used. The cost of maintaining them is seen as a good deal; alternative being the risk of nuclear or conventional attack on the US (or UK or russia or france etc) which would be more expensive.
You hold a valid point with the state which some of the nukes may be but they will always have some, in submarines, mobile, capable of striking anywhere to maintain the deterrent.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that maintaining them in an age where no country in Europe is going to nuke another seems utterly pointless. Who will the French, British, Russians, Americans, or Chinese nuke? Certainly not each other for starters.
Nuclear weapons have almost accidentally gone off several times in U.S. history because they're not looked after or cared for
[QUOTE=Jon27;48683383]Interesting. I'm genuinely intrigued to see that people think nuclear deterrent is an outmoded concept.[/QUOTE]
I'm genuinely more interested in how there are people out there (of which you are a part of I can only assume) that think any world leaders that aren't from North Korea would genuinely think using nukes is a valid option today.
After the total shitshow that was the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings no world power is actually going to be the ones to fire the first nukes because it just wouldn't benefit them. Even if they weren't nuked to kingdom come in return. There is no way you can look like the good guy for doing such a thing today. Let alone the economic impact of such a thing acting as a much better deterrent than "they'll blow us up too".
Nuclear weapons are really quite useless today. The only people with them rely on each other too much to actually use them and are actively preventing states with less power from getting them anyway.
What everyone here is describing is a Hobessian trap, where one party, fearing the other party could get better hardware to attack, started getting better hardware, and now, being in the other party's POV, they would be at a disadvantage, thus forcing themselves to upgrade their hardware which in turns forces the....and so on.
The Hobessian trap can be CLEARLY and EVIDENTLY seen during the XIX century when Germany, France and the UK all wanted to gain a place under the sun, and therefore started a tournament of who had the largest and biggest dick, measured in dreadnoughts, men able to be mobilized and quantity of cannons.
Thing is, if you measure it in time periods, you can have a t+1 after the war, but if there is an element that basically overrides that +1 period, and you are gone, and both parties have it AND both parties are logical AND both parties are SURE they will be destroyed no matter what, then they seek other means to gain an upper hand, through:
-Intelligence operations -that middle point between diplomacy and war-
-Proxy wars -denying resources and allies to your side-
-Economic sanctions.
The only question, when it comes down to having nukes (Not armies, more on armies later) is:
[I]If I dont have any nuke, will any other country be able to impose their will upon mine? For a country like the US, that's kinda bullshit. If any country dares to war against the US in a conventional method, it will utterly destroyed. Yes, utterly destroyed. If somebody nukes the US, then the UK, France and Israel will make quick work of them [/I]
Is an invasion from Russia impossible? Yes, well, yes of course. An invasion of Russia in a modern and united -UNLIKE, say, Ukraine- country is just impossible. Their forces would last a second, and popular discontent would kick them away in the long run. Commie sympathisers aren't around any more, so any help they could receive would be minimal.
Now, it wouldn't be crazy to say, that they would rather, destroy via air means any kind of infrastructure or factories.
If Iran had a nuclear missile....Would Israel target and destroy one of their facilities like they did some time ago?
And in a situation like India vs Pakistan, nuclear weapons are means of peace as in: They don't have the power nor the influence to force proxy war and without them, you can be sure they would be warring each other.
EDIT: Corbyn isn't that much of a threat to national security, if you understand national security as the physical security of the UK citizens. However if you understand it as the safety of Israel or conservative objectives...well yes.
Gotta admit he's kinda retarded regarding history and some subjects...otherwise the chap seems like a good bloke
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48683262]nuclear weapons are largely a massive waste of money and resources, they're the dreadnoughts of the 21st century
it's much more cost-effective to spend the money on conventional forces and emergent technologies than bombs which were last used to flatten some Japanese cities over 70 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Nukes are still very important today. They're not meant to actually be used, but to give a political leverage over others. It's why no one takes North Korea a serious military threat. Or why Ukraine was easy pickings for Russia.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48682883]How is any of that out of context? The only one that is arguably is the 'friends Hamas' one. The first is very slightly misplaced, but he is still essentially equivocating the death of a terrorist to 9/11, regardless of how you spin it. There is not even any spin on the last two.
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
Corbyn supporters are remarkably thin-skinned. Which is typical of the far-left and its history of colossal failure and their repeated inability to accept responsibility.[/QUOTE]
He said Bin Laden's death was a tragedy in that someone was killed without a trial, rather than arrested and put on international trial for war crimes and dealt with properly, anyone can agree with that. But he was martyred and his death would have encouraged yet more violence. You don't fight violence with violence in the real world, it brings more violence. It's not like he loves Bin Laden as the video implied.
He called Hamas and Hezbollah his friends because it was a diplomatic hearing intended to hear the views of the oppressed for once, and to work towards solving the crisis without violence or simple condemnation. It's important to note that Hamas and Hezbollah are both political parties with military organizations within them (Hamas in fact is the leading political party in Palestine), they're not simply military forces, they're primarily founded for political resistance against Israeli expansion. Should we have not done diplomacy with Irish Republican movement because of the military wing of the IRA? Should we have ignored Irish oppression and maybe bombed them?
As for dismantling the armed forces, he wants to reduce it because our unnecessary, damaging global intervention is hilariously disproportionate to our scope. But reduction is not the same as full on dismantling as the video suggests.
As for nuclear weapons, there's no spin that's true, but it's a good thing and it's hilarious that the video acts like it's somehow evil to get rid of our mega death bombs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.