General Election June 8th

[andyhinch]

What would stop anyone using a nuclear weapon knowing that they would not endure any consequences for doing so?

Only two counties in Europe with them at all so hopefully we"d be way down the list of attack just in case we did use them and tbh I'm not sure why we'd be a first stike target and if so by who ?

 

[DavidSilvasLeftFoot]

Well what an awful line of questioning that nuclear bomb and ira stuff was. Do these blokes go home and masturbate to images of hiroshima? "Would you just let North Korea bomb us" what a stupid thing to ask.

 

[roj]

May has, Cameron did.

Corbyn doesn't have to say he'd 'use them' in the sense it would be his go to method of dealing with any situation regarding defence, just that he'd continue the UK's nuclear deterrance stance. So far, nada.

I just think nuclear is off topic for this election.

 

[Metal Biker]

Only two counties in Europe with them at all so hopefully we"d be way down the list of attack just in case we did use them and tbh I'm not sure why we'd be a first stike target and if so by who ?

If we threatened to use them I don't imagine the leaders of China and Russia saying "Oh come on now, really guys? You're gonna nuke someone? That's not cool, guy." If I had a mindset to use nukes, that sort of rhetoric wouldn't deter me. Look how weak the EU was with Russia over the annexing of Crimea.

Diplomacy doesn't work against those with intent, however the threat of annihilation, works a treat.

 

[Metal Biker]

I just think nuclear is off topic for this election.

They're using it simply because of his strong activism and opposition to it in the past.

It's a stick to beat him with and until he gives either a clear "Yes I would" or "No I won't", his detractors will continue to do so.

 

[arbabarshad]

Same question, repeated, since you won't answer it directly. I can tell you admire Corbyn in that respect.

I admire the honesty of a politician whether I agree with the stance or not.

It's like people in this country want their leader to say they would use nuclear weapons just to satisfy their ego and feel comfortable. It doesn't matter to them whether the leader would actually do it not.

Its similar to some people feeling comfort when their leader says "they need us more than we need them" regardless of whether it's true or not.

 

[andyhinch]

I wonder if people actually think i'm critical of Corbyn for not saying he would?

People were asking 'why is this an issue for some people? and i've been trying to explain their point of view. People's defence of Corbyn on here is almost like he's a cult leader.

I'm not defending him and I'm not voting for him, as far as I know he's not stated if he will or not, if they're mad enough to take that gamble we're all fucked anyway.

 

[Mancityus]

Thanks for proving my point.

M.A.D. ensures nobody will use them and any threats about using them are soon shut down. Kind of hinders the point of deterrance if you insist you'd never consider using them against an aggressor who would.

I guess you did not get the point - UK is still part of NATO but anyway if you prefer a nutcase who is excited about nuclear weapons then it is fine.

 

[Metal Biker]

I admire the honesty of a politician whether I agree with the stance or not.

It's like people in this country want their leader to say they would use nuclear weapons just to satisfy their ego and feel comfortable. It doesn't matter to them whether the leader would actually do it not.

Its similar to some people feeling comfort when their leader says "they need us more than we need them" regardless of whether it's true or not.

Until he gives a clear yes/no answer his detractors will continue to press the matter.

 

[arbabarshad]

If we threatened to use them I don't imagine the leaders of China and Russia saying "Oh come on now, really guys? You're gonna nuke someone? That's not cool, guy." If I had a mindset to use nukes, that sort of rhetoric wouldn't deter me. Look how weak the EU was with Russia over the annexing of Crimea.

Diplomacy doesn't work against those with intent, however the threat of annihilation, works a treat.

The threat of annihilation only works when it's real.

Annexing of Crimea happened on the current govt watch ! I bet they must have said millions of times that they would use the nuclear weapons but made no difference to what Russia did.

 

[arbabarshad]

Well what an awful line of questioning that nuclear bomb and ira stuff was. Do these blokes go home and masturbate to images of hiroshima? "Would you just let North Korea bomb us" what a stupid thing to ask.

They come from Trump fan club hence the obsession with North Korea and the nuclear weapons.

I bet daily mail didn't call the audience biased or left wing tonight.

 

[Metal Biker]

I guess you did not get the point - UK is still part of NATO but anyway if you prefer a nutcase who is excited about nuclear weapons then it is fine.

You proved that the reason nobody has nuked North Korea, despite breaking UN nuclear laws is because China has declared they would intervene if anyone did. M.A.D.

The UK is a part of NATO but one of the stipulations is that we have nukes. No nukes, no NATO. Some nations aren't bound to this law but we signed one that meant we had to have them for the tactical advantage it gave the US. Corbyn hates nukes and wants rid. Will we then have to leave NATO? Can we still be a member without our nukes? Would we still be protected by them? What's our defence against a nuclear aggressor should one develop?

Corbyn is anti-nuke and not exactly pro-NATO going by his speech in 1989. What would happen? He hasn't given a clear answer. For the record, I don't care, i'm pointing out that many people do and until he gives a clear answer, people will continue to debate him on this issue and it's one that could potentially hurt his bid for No.10.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Mutual Assured Destruction.
S.A.L.T.
S.T.A.R.T
New S.T.A.R.T
UN IAEA which prohibits nations making nuclear weapons (hence all the anger at North Korea)

Every measure has been made to reduce the number of nuclear weapons from increasing and more importantly from nations from having them, but MAD ensures that nobody who does is foolish enough to use them against another. Russia annexed Crimea without using them, what stopped them? MAD.

Thats all well and good until the blokes trying to kill you not only don't care whether they live or die but actually think death is better. The terrorist with a dirty bomb, ready to explode it in a UK city, really won't be deterred by 4 submarines circling the globe.

 

[andyhinch]

If we threatened to use them I don't imagine the leaders of China and Russia saying "Oh come on now, really guys? You're gonna nuke someone? That's not cool, guy." If I had a mindset to use nukes, that sort of rhetoric wouldn't deter me. Look how weak the EU was with Russia over the annexing of Crimea.

Diplomacy doesn't work against those with intent, however the threat of annihilation, works a treat.

I've delt with quite a few govement ministers on nuclear issues over the years, I'm trying to think of one with a backbone from both sides, I'm voting green, can do it without men in dark suits asking me questions with a gun up my arse these day's it's quite liberating :-)

 

[Metal Biker]

The threat of annihilation only works when it's real.

Annexing of Crimea happened on the current govt watch ! I bet they must have said millions of times that they would use the nuclear weapons but made no difference to what Russia did.

The UK cannot dicate what intervention the EU takes. The EU at present has no nukes it is authorised to use. It'd have been a NATO decision but Ukraine isn't a NATO member so they wouldn't have gotten involved.

And again point proven; Annihilation DOES work when the threat is real and the UK's nuclear threat to others who would be our aggressor is VERY real.

 

[Metal Biker]

Thats all well and good until the blokes trying to kill you not only don't care whether they live or die but actually think death is better. The terrorist with a dirty bomb, ready to explode it in a UK city, really won't be deterred by 4 submarines circling the globe.

That's why I said earlier; "I wonder what the response would be in a Sum of all Fears scenario", but then that's not covered under the UK's nuclear deterrant stance that Corbyn is being questioned on.

It's about one nation with nuclear arms potentially threatening this country with a nuclear striker and our appropriate response to those threats being M.A.D. and having a leader who is prepared to impose it when this candidate has had a very public opposition to doing so in the past. That is what Corbyn is being pressured on by his detractors, that is why they feel it is an important issue.

 

[CitizenTID]

Here is a short article from Ha-Joon Chang weighing in all all the economic/tax matters being discussed here, expert economist who teaches at Cambridge and has been consultant to the World Back and U.N. amongst others.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tish-voters-economy-britain-welfare?CMP=fb_gu

If a Labour supporter made these points on here they'd get the Tory voters reading from their bullshit hymn sheet written by con artists in response. Well to those Tory supporters and others with concerns about Labour's manifesto, listen to the expert quash your worries.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Only 2 countries in europe have nuclear weapons to my knowledge, shouldn't the rest be shitting themselves more than us ?

4 counties:
- Britain,
- France,
- Russia
- USA (stationed at US bases)

 

[arbabarshad]

The UK cannot dicate what intervention the EU takes. The EU at present has no nukes it is authorised to use. It'd have been a NATO decision but Ukraine isn't a NATO member so they wouldn't have gotten involved.

And again point proven; Annihilation DOES work when the threat is real and the UK's nuclear threat to others who would be our aggressor is VERY real.

Not sure what or how you proved a point in that sentence. May be it is the same language used by trump while tweeting after midnight.

 

[Metal Biker]

I've delt with quite a few govement ministers on nuclear issues over the years, I'm trying to think of one with a backbone from both sides, I'm voting green, can do it without men in dark suits asking me questions with a gun up my arse these day's it's quite liberating :-)

I'm voting Fascist for a 3rd glorious decade of total law enforcement.