General Election June 8th

[Metal Biker]

Nice deflection.

No I don't 'see' a nuclear war happening, but again, that's not the point of the questioning being put towards Corbyn.

It's about is he, a known anti-war campaigner, being placed in a position as part of the UK Military response to an act of war, how he would respond if the unthinkable actually occurred. I agree to an extent that the issue is being done to death and it's not a salient point in regards to more important issues such as Brexit and the NHS, but it's still pertinent to the question of him being a competant leader, something the Labour Party uses against May on other issues.

If May is a useless PM because of her stance on social care, Corbyn is a useless PM on matters of defence, yet Labour supporters refuse to address this or even acknowledge such a possibility. They just shoo it away as 'oh it's impossible nonsense not worth talking about'. Well some people are, and he's not giving clear answers.

 

[hilts]

Just to be clear here, if the UK were hit by a first strike can somebody explain what are the benefits to retaliation that will kill millions?

I've never understood this. It can't be to prevent us getting hit, because we've already been hit. It can't be to stop a war because a nuclear war by definition won't last long enough to matter.

Why? Why are people so desperate for It? Petty revenge? You want to slaughter millions and risk a global climate change event on the scale of the dinosaurs mass extinction because some maniac bombed us?

Somebody has to explain this. It makes no sense at all. I can only presume people haven't thought this through.

In fairness fella I think you haven't, think it through again

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

But we're told that nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent and that we need them to stop other people nuking us. So if someone nukes us without us carrying out the first strike, then they clearly aren't that much of a deterrent are they, So they'll have failed in that case and there's little point in using them.

Perfect, concise, accurate.

 

[mayo31]

I don't buy it. Last night the audience was equally vocal regards all parties. Tonight, absolute whooping and cheering, even when Jeremy just walked on. More so when he actually spoke. That was a bent audience.

Or they have changed sides since the audience was 'picked' - I agree the beeb cannot be trusted. They never do things balanced. If they called they go totally the other way except for City stories

We have a lot of floating voters nowadays since the Blair days, that is my experience

 

[Damocles]

It's called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). You take us out and you also die. Even loonies like Stalin had problems with that.

Yes but if we've been hit already than how has MAD worked?

 

[i kne albert davy]

Operation Downfall was expected to last two years and at the cost of between 100,000 - 790,000 US troops. That's more than the total of US soldiers that died in the entire war. The number of Japanese civilians killed in bombing raids, disease etc as a result of the invasion was estimated to likely have been more than the total of those killed by both bombs.

You can see why they considered the Manhattan Project :/

The casualties on Okinawa sort of decided it for the Americans the war had to be ended without losing hundreds of thousands with an invasion of mainland Japan, the bomb did that with the added bonus of saving the Allied POWs they were preparing to murder.

 

[Damocles]

In fairness fella I think you haven't, think it through again

No, actually answer it. Don't sideswipe, answer the question.

 

[hilts]

But we're told that nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent and that we need them to stop other people nuking us. So if someone nukes us without us carrying out the first strike, then they clearly aren't that much of a deterrent are they, So they'll have failed in that case and there's little point in using them.

Oh my god another one

 

[Metal Biker]

You haven't got a fucking clue. That is the single most uninformed, disgusting thing I've seen written in this thread. Go do some research on the Tory change from DLA to PIP and see the blood on their hands.

Really? The single most uninformed, disgusting thing you've ever seen on this thread?

Do you respond to everything with hyperbole? Emptional outbursts aren't usually the sign of an informed, logical viewpoint either, my friend.

 

[Tanzeylee]

I like you. I feel I can learn so much.

Do me a favour tell Tanzylee to piss off, boring me as we no doubt are you

Fuck off Steve ;-)

 

[Allnightlong]

and to this day we havnt been nuked...so they are doing the job.

 

[jay_mcfc]

This is the reason I cannot vote for the Tories, their treatment of the disabled and people with mental health issues is beyond a disgrace.

The problem is the general public haven't a clue about the effects these cuts and the assessment process have on people. It's why you get moronic statements like the one I replied to. IDS is the most sophisticated serial killer this county has ever seen and it's shameful how few people actually know about it.

 

[MCFC1993]

The first bomb would be to take out electronic based defences and infrastructure, also nuclear missiles are detected as soon as they are launched, giving ample time to issue a direct response in the form of launching Trident.

A retaliatory strike would be aimed at taking out their military capabilities. Trust me, Trident is enough to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe which is the whole point. "Do we REALLY hate our enemy enough to kill ourselves?"

As soon as they fire their missiles, they KNOW we would fire ours at them....but wait, what was that you said Corbyn? Fire nuclear weapons at our enemy with NO consequnces!? Where's that button! :D

The thing is I absolutely agree that Trident is necessary whilst there are nuclear bombs in this world, along will a leader willing to use them or at least be confident enough about lying about using them.

It shouldn't play as bigger part in this election as it did in that debate though, there are far bigger issues in this country than nuclear issues.

The reality is the Eastern Europe would wipe us out and we'd wipe them out and then what, we'd all be dead thinking 'how the fuck did we (humans)' get to a point where we had to wipe each other out.

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

But we're told that nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent and that we need them to stop other people nuking us. So if someone nukes us without us carrying out the first strike, then they clearly aren't that much of a deterrent are they, So they'll have failed in that case and there's little point in using them.

The point is NOT to use them, just threaten to use them hence the name deterrent in your scenario someone has nuked us first maybe because we haven't got a deterrent or the baddies know we wont fire anyway so they thought what the hell.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Yes but if we've been hit already than how has MAD worked?

I was a bit slow to complete the update.
Because standing orders to the Vanguard class fleet would result in retaliation if we are gone.
Corbyn would probably change these standing orders and make the whole deterrent thing useless.
Putin will be so encouraged.

 

[blueparrot]

and to this day we havnt been nuked...so they are doing the job.

Neither have all the countries without nuclear weapons, since the second world war.

 

[hilts]

No, actually answer it. Don't sideswipe, answer the question.

I will give you a clue as my battery is about to go. For the deterrent to work you can never see that it has worked, this is the catch 22 with spending money on it, it will always look like a complete waste of money.

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

So most forward thinking people would think it better to disarm him surely ?

Go for that as a worldwide project but obviously still keep the deterrent and reduce it as each country complies with reducing theirs.

 

[andyhinch]

"Chicken Terresa May" thin skinned, boneless and won't be grilled, made me chuckle more than it should have.

 

[Metal Biker]

Just to be clear here, if the UK were hit by a first strike can somebody explain what are the benefits to retaliation that will kill millions?

I've never understood this. It can't be to prevent us getting hit, because we've already been hit. It can't be to stop a war because a nuclear war by definition won't last long enough to matter.

Why? Why are people so desperate for It? Petty revenge? You want to slaughter millions and risk a global climate change event on the scale of the dinosaurs mass extinction because some maniac bombed us?

Somebody has to explain this. It makes no sense at all. I can only presume people haven't thought this through.

Essentially Trident has the capability of destroying an area the size of Europe, so thinking about using a nuclear weapon is the same as turning the gun on yourself in the hope the bullet will pass through your own brain to hit your enemies head. Nukes are detected via satellite to look for heat coming from silos when they are launched or from known land based carriers. There's enough time to launch a counter strike and everyone knows it.

 

[RandomJ]

I can't seriously believe this is the biggest talking point of the election now. Fucking nuclear war. The NHS is at breaking point, rent and house prices are out of control, people can't afford to feed their families, public services being cut left right and centre but no a hypothetical situation of a retaliatory nuke is the biggest issue this country has today.