General Election - December 12th, 2019

[BobKowalski]

That sounds like garbled nonsense to me, to be honest.

Trident is a jam doughnut. Your commitment at this time not to eat the doughnut is not the same as having no doughnut to eat. The former state allows for uncertainty as to whether at some point you will eat the doughnut. The latter guarantees you will not eat it as there is no doughnut to consume.

Now if you put the doughnut in a box with a cat...but I digress.

 

[Ban-jani]

That we keep seeing and hearing about it confirms that, it is indeed, insanity, even Corbyn can't bring himself to say
he'd outright ban it, just that we'd have it, but under no circumstances use it. Which makes about as much sense as getting
a deal that basically keeps us in the single market and customs union, ie; remain, then campaign against it.
Having a deterrent that you've just announced to the world you won't use is like having an army that just uses sticks and shouts 'Bang.'

One of the few things I respected May for was her promise to use a nuclear weapon if needed and when she was pushed by being asked if she would kill innocent women and children with it, as does happen when you use one of these things, she said absolutely.

The above sounds grotesque but the whole point of deterring others is by making them think you’ll use yours if needed.

 

[Gray]

Well if you think Scotland and N.I are regions..

That is how they were classed in the referendum, if you do not agree then take it up with the Government.

 

[BobKowalski]

The letters are written to tell the sub what to do in the event that there is no chain of command. The whole point of it sums up the credibility of a deterrent in that we can defend ourselves and retaliate even if the PM and/or our entire defence is wiped out.

If we don't want them then fine but then our entire defence from nuclear blackmail amounts to reliance on the US or parachuting Corbyn in for 'surrender' talks.

We can't rely on US protection so that leaves us with Corbyn aka Mr negotiator who is actually known for his talk with terrorists and dodgy individuals.

I'd rather have a nuke to be honest.

What would be the point? The deterrence has failed to deter. The world is a burning cinder. There is little or nothing left to defend. What would retaliation accomplish?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Well if you are wrong then Trident failed to act as a deterrent in which case the consequences could also be incalculable or did I miss something?

In any event this election will not turn on Trident. We don’t agree. Time to move on.

It's a better deterrent than not having it, so I am guessing you missed that, yes.

 

[Ban-jani]

It’s quite straight forward - you’re not going to fire something catastrophic at someone if they can fire the same sort of weapon straight back.

It’s suicide.

Every country that has one of these devastating weapons is automatically in a better position of strength, on the international stage.

Ideally no one would/should have one but whilst many do, damn right I want us to have one, it’s an insurance policy.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

One of the few things I respected May for was her promise to use a nuclear weapon if needed and when she was pushed by being asked if she would kill innocent women and children with it, as does happen when you use one of these things, she said absolutely.

The above sounds grotesque but the whole point of deterring others is by making them think you’ll use yours if needed.

It’s quite straight forward - you’re not going to fire something catastrophic at someone if they can fire the same sort of weapon straight back.

It’s suicide.

Every country that has one of these devastating weapons is automatically in a better position of strength, on the international stage.

Ideally no one would/should have one but whilst many do, damn right I want us to have one, it’s an insurance policy.

A maximum of 9 countries in the world have them. Which one do you think is not firing it at us because we’ve got trident? And what about the 186 countries that don’t have them?

 

[Chippy_boy]

A maximum of 9 countries in the world have them. Which one do you think is not firing it at us because we’ve got trident? And what about the 186 countries that don’t have them?

Bizarre how the lefties have to defend the Labour position in the face of it being idiotic.

The 186 countries would be rather less likely to attack us, OBVIOUSLY.

 

[BobKowalski]

Bizarre how the lefties have to defend the Labour position in the face of it being idiotic.

The 186 countries would be rather less likely to attack us, OBVIOUSLY.

I thought Labour’s position is to renew Trident.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I thought Labour’s position is to renew Trident.

Fair point! I was getting carried away. Corbyn's commitment to it is rather less certain.

EDIT: Corbyn's commitment to anything is rather less certain.