General Election June 8th

[andyhinch]

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

Sorry, i qualified it in earlier post, my bad.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Sorry, i qualified it in earlier post, my bad.

so i noticed sorry for not seeing it in time.

 

[andyhinch]

so i noticed sorry for not seeing it in time.

TBF I don't think I said western europe.

 

[Metal Biker]

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.

Can you stick to the issues instead of making irrelevant snide remarks, please.

The point proven was about how deterrance works and has worked and that diplomacy is useless against those with a staunch policy like Russia and Crimea against an EU that shook it's head in disapproval but did virtually nothing, and you pretty much alluded to that in your response.

The other points are bringing to attention that the EU could not use nuclear weapons as a deterrant to Russia's actions because it has no access to nukes to have such a deterrant and the members of the EU that do were not obligated to do so in that instance as it was not a NATO issue.

 

[Bigga]

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.

You sound like that clown Wayne LaPierre who believes 'only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun!'.

Hey Wayne, you dumb cnut, how about nobody has a gun and people don't live in fear?

Tw@.

 

[andyhinch]

so i noticed sorry for not seeing it in time.

But as i've said who's going to attack us before Germany unless we really piss them off and that bits down to the politicians.

 

[Metal Biker]

You sound like that clown Wayne LaPierre who believes 'only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun!'.

Hey Wayne, you dumb cnut, how about nobody has a gun and people don't live in fear?

Tw@.

Who?

No it's more "Hey only a good guy with a gun who announces to everyone he has no bullets...is no threat or deterrant whatsover to a bad guy whose gun is loaded and will use it and has challenged said good guy to a showdown and is now 100% confident of winning".
I'm not sure who said that or if anyone ever did.

 

[arbabarshad]

Can you stick to the issues instead of making irrelevant snide remarks, please.

The point proven was about how deterrance works and has worked and that diplomacy is useless against those with a staunch policy like Russia and Crimea against an EU that shook it's head in disapproval but did virtually nothing, and you pretty much alluded to that in your response.

The other points are bringing to attention that the EU could not use nuclear weapons as a deterrant to Russia's actions because it has no access to nukes to have such a deterrant and the members of the EU that do were not obligated to do so in that instance as it was not a NATO issue.

So what you have proven or happened in Crimea shows that displomacy doesn't always work. Agreed. You have not proved that threat of annihilation works ! Because it did not happen.

are American threats of annihilation to North Korea stopping them from missile tests ?

 

[Metal Biker]

So what you have proven or happened in Crimea shows that displomacy doesn't always work. Agreed. You have not proved that threat of annihilation works !

Japan 1945. Used once, Japanese tried to surrender to the Soviets. US didn't like that. Used again, unconditional surrender terms accepted.

1983 Able Archer. NATO exercise mimicking full scale Soviet invasion of Europe. Soviets thought it was real, put entire miltary and silos on alert. NATO immediately cancelled the exercise.

 

[BlueAnorak]

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.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO but inherited 1/3 of the USSRs ICBMs.
They unilaterally disarmed after being given guarantees by the USA, Britain, France and Russia.
That worked out well for them as the piece of paper everyone signed proved to be as worthless as the Munich Agreement.

MAD has worked for 65+ years. That said, the main reason Britain and France have Nukes is to make sure the USA keeps to its NATO treaty agreements to defend Europe.

 

[Bigga]

Who?

No it's more "Hey only a good guy with a gun who announces to everyone he has no bullets...is no threat or deterrant whatsover to a bad guy whose gun is loaded and will use it and has challenged said good guy to a showdown and is now 100% confident of winning".
I'm not sure who said that or if anyone ever did.

You're making up shit to suit yourself.

What is the real problem; that one idiot has the weapon and so forces someone else to get a weapon and think about using it if they REALLY have to?

Or the fact that they both have weapons and are constantly keeping a weary eye on each other??

Try something different; have no weapons.

Wow...

 

[arbabarshad]

Thanks

Japan 1945. Used once, Japanese tried to surrender to the Soviets. US didn't like that. Used again, unconditional surrender terms accepted.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO but inherited 1/3 of the USSRs ICBMs.
They unilaterally disarmed after being given guarantees by the USA, Britain, France and Russia.
That worked out well for them as the piece of paper everyone signed proved to be as worthless as the Munich Agreement.

MAD has worked for 65+ years. That said, the main reason Britain and France have Nukes is to make sure the USA keeps to its NATO treaty agreements to defend Europe.

so Russia didn't feel the annihilation threat from the 3 nuclear armed countries and went ahead with the annexation anyway. I see these threats must work in some way I guess.

 

[Metal Biker]

You're making up shit to suit yourself.

What is the real problem; that one idiot has the weapon and so forces someone else to get a weapon and think about using it if they REALLY have to?

Or the fact that they both have weapons and are constantly keeping a weary eye on each other??

Try something different; have no weapons.

Wow...

You're not getting this are you, and being rude to boot. I've been courteous to you, please do the same. Try this;


I'm not defending the UK having nukes. I'm not defending nor criticising Corbyn's stance on the matter.

I'm explaining to those who stated they 'didn't understand why some people think this is such a big issue' why this is such a big issue, to them at least.
I'm explaining to those who asked why 'a nuclear deterrant works, has worked and will continue to work in these particualr set of circumstances. If you wish to argue against that, feel free, but please be civil.

 

[Metal Biker]

Thanks


so Russia didn't feel the annihilation threat from the 3 nuclear armed countries and went ahead with the annexation anyway. I see these threats must work in some way I guess.

No nuclear armed country made a threat of nuclear annihilation against them because they would have had no grounds to do so under UN and NATO rules as Ukraine wasn't a member of NATO.

Why do you think people were bricking it when Turkey shot that Russian plane down?

 

[BlueAnorak]

The question that should have been asked of Corbyn was

if you became Prime Minister would you change the Mutually Assured Destruction standing orders to our On-Patrol Vanguard Trident deterrent?

 

[arbabarshad]

No nuclear armed country made a threat of nuclear annihilation against them because they would have had no grounds to do so under UN rules as Ukraine wasn't a member of NATO.

Why do you think people were bricking it when Turkey shot that Russian plane down?

Since when do UK, France and USA care for UN rules?

And my point on 3 nuclear armed countries was to do with the fact that Ukraine disarmed itself of ICBMs after guarantees from the aforementioned 3 nuclear states which Russia must know.

 

[Metal Biker]

Since when do UK, France and USA care for UN rules?

Doesn't matter. They have to abide by them and threatening a nuclear power with nukes to defend a region of a country not politically associated is a bit of a stretch to risk global thermonuclear war.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Thanks
so Russia didn't feel the annihilation threat from the 3 nuclear armed countries and went ahead with the annexation anyway. I see these threats must work in some way I guess.

The question to ask is if the Ukraine had kept its Nukes would Putin have fermented a Civil War annexing large chunks of Ukraine in the process?
How would Putin's actions have changed?

 

[Metal Biker]

The question to ask is if the Ukraine had kept its Nukes would Putin have fermented a Civil War annexing large chunks of Ukraine in the process?
How would Putin's actions have changed?

It'd have been passed off as coincidence that the rebels only claimed areas close to silos ;)

 

[Bigga]

You're not getting this are you, and being rude to boot. I've been courteous to you, please do the same. Try this;


I'm not defending the UK having nukes. I'm not defending nor criticising Corbyn's stance on the matter.

I'm explaining to those who stated they 'didn't understand why some people think this is such a big issue' why this is such a big issue, to them at least.
I'm explaining to those who asked why 'a nuclear deterrant works, has worked and will continue to work in these particualr set of circumstances. If you wish to argue against that, feel free, but please be civil.

I haven't swore at you, so stop getting 'the vapours' already!!

I am explaining the very opposite solution and, to boot, that disarming frees up money to stimulate economies globally. Billions and trillions spent on things never used.

You could get countries moving again and solve world poverty by being less fooking selfish!!