Not much, he's been right on all the things you list and continued to be right on them tonight, so no, you've not missed much. Do try and keep up though. You might find Teresa not back-tracking at some point. Unlikely, but worth keeping an eye out for.So
nuclear - not arsed
IRA - not arsed
Anything else I'm missing?
Every government won't know what the fuck to do when that particular shit hits the fan. We'd all be fucked regardless imo. You wanna make sure we bombed them back while you're cowering under your desk/newspaper?It's not nitpicking though is it, it's a serious matter about national defence and having a leader showing willingness to continue our nuclear deterrant stance as a sign of his leadership.
It's something Labour MP's do with Tory MP's often; they said this back in year nought plonk, and I disapprove of it! They must still believe it now! Pressure them on it!
He disapproved of Britain having a nuclear deterrant, now he's going to be in charge of them. Will he get rid of them? Would he use them? Answers please.
Are you seriously looking to put in power someone who based on intelligence reports indicating possible attack by another nuclear nation would preemptively launch nuclear weapons or are you just looking for someone who will say that they will do it to comfort you ?America has nothing to do with our own stance of deterrance, especially one our own Prime Minister is expected to take.
You're right, it is getting ridiculous that people keep thinking this is about nuclear war when it isn't.
What would stop anyone using a nuclear weapon knowing that they would not endure any consequences for doing so?Are you seriously looking to put in power someone who based on intelligence reports indicating possible attack by another nuclear nation would preemptively launch nuclear weapons or are you just looking for someone who will say that they will do it to comfort you ?
As recent history has shown even conventional wars fought on intelligence reports which in many cases turn up to be flawed harm all for generations you are looking for a candidate who is gung-ho about starting nuclear war based on a threat.
By the way once it starts it will not matter who started it - whether it is the nutcase you have elected or the nutcase in North Korea - it will only be a matter of minutes who dies first.
You haven't answered.Every government won't know what the fuck to do when that particular shit hits the fan. We'd all be fucked regardless imo. You wanna make sure we bombed them back while you're cowering under your desk/newspaper?
I think the real question should have been, if another NATO country is struck would we relaliate, lets say Russia on Germany a far more logical target with no nuclear capability of their own, becomes more of a head scratcher in my view.I think this the first time we have ever agreed on anything.
All this bravado bullshit about bombing. Fuck sake. I wonder how every other country's citizens sleep at night without the umbrella of nukes, us six lucky countries enjoy?
So, some mad bastard sends a bomb to kill our innocent men women and children and I'm going to be happy or even willing to incinerate millions of other innocent human beings out of what? Revenge?
The cunts who fired it are safe in a bunker.
We are kept scared so we buy these fucking waste of money systems, that we don't need, to keep us safe from a threat that doesn't really exist, to kill people we don't know, just so some bunch of Yorkshire twats with shit football teams want to bomb to take the edge of living with that accent and being tight as fuck. :)
Laughable. Corbyn is right, we don't need them. The threats we face needs conventional and cyber defences.
Spare a thought for the poor Swedes this night. Lying in bed asking, why don't we have Trident?
How can we go on, but at least we don't have to push that button.
You couldn't make up the bulkshit people swallow to help spend all our money on a dick enlarger.
We ain't got an empire anymore, why don't we just chill the fuck out and stop marching to the bomb manufacturers beat?
9 countries in the world have them and 187 do not have them. What has kept those 187 safe from being bombed, knowing there are 'no consequences' if they are?What would stop anyone using a nuclear weapon knowing that they would not endure any consequences for doing so?
Do you think if you attack North Korea with a nuclear weapon - China and Russia will just stand around. Conversely if US or UK or NATO are attacked do you think there would be days of meetings or even hours of discussion about what to do ? There are systems in place which would retaliate within minutes if not seconds. If any nuclear power is hit by nuclear weapon they will not be waiting to see if they are hit again and get completely wiped out so systems are built to retaliate immediately. That is why once it starts do not see how you stop it.What would stop anyone using a nuclear weapon knowing that they would not endure any consequences for doing so?
Mutual Assured Destruction.9 countries in the world have them and 187 do not have them. What has kept those 187 safe from being bombed, knowing there are 'no consequences' if they are?
No politician is gonna say whether he/she would press the button.. on telly.. a week before the election. It is - at present - a waste of breath to argue it I think. Whoever gets in power will change half the things they said before anyway. Which is why, if I could be arsed, I would vote for May cos she looks a bit like mum.You haven't answered.
Will Corbyn get rid of our nuclear deterrant, thus ending our protection of NATO (Goodbye Team America) and would he refuse to use them during the time we removed them shoudl an incident occur that a nuclear threat was threatened against us?
Answers please.
Thanks for proving my point.Do you think if you attack North Korea with a nuclear weapon - China and Russia will just stand around. Conversely if US or UK or NATO are attacked do you think there would be days of meetings or even hours of discussion about what to do ? There are systems in place which would retaliate within minutes if not seconds. If any nuclear power is hit by nuclear weapon they will not be waiting to see if they are hit again and get completely wiped out so systems are built to retaliate immediately. That is why once it starts do not see how you stop it.
I think he's stated quite clearly that he won't, doesn't mean that he doesn't change his mind, on the flip side so could the Tories.It's not nitpicking though is it, it's a serious matter about national defence and having a leader showing willingness to continue our nuclear deterrant stance as a sign of his leadership.
It's something Labour MP's do with Tory MP's often; they said this back in year nought plonk, and I disapprove of it! They must still believe it now! Pressure them on it!
He disapproved of Britain having a nuclear deterrant, now he's going to be in charge of them. Will he get rid of them? Would he use them? Answers please.
The good old unbiased Bbc
May has, Cameron did.No politician is gonna say whether he/she would press the button.. on telly.. a week before the election. It is - at present - a waste of breath to argue it I think. Whoever gets in power will change half the things they said before anyway. Which is why, if I could be arsed, I would vote for May cos she looks a bit like mum.
A statement from a weak and wobbly under pressure leader must act as a great deterrent I guess who has a "liar liar" song out after her.What would stop anyone using a nuclear weapon knowing that they would not endure any consequences for doing so?
I wonder if people actually think i'm critical of Corbyn for not saying he would?I think he's stated quite clearly that he won't, doesn't mean that he doesn't change his mind, on the flip side so could the Tories.
Same question, repeated, since you won't answer it directly. I can tell you admire Corbyn in that respect.A statement from a weak and wobbly under pressure leader must act as a great deterrent I guess who has a "liar liar" song out after her.