General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%

  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%
  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mëtal Bikër said:
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.
Click to expand...
So for now you agree you are covered as part of NATO.

Your concern is Corbyn will come in and in addition to dealing with Brexit will also start NATexit. Fair enough - mind is a complex organ if not this it will find something else to worry about.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which is why you need armed forces with conventional weapons too.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
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.
Click to expand...
BlueAnorak said:
You're in a minority then. Protecting the UKs population from the threat of War is the most important action of any prospective Prime Minister.
Click to expand...
a minority on blue moon may be, I wouldn't be so sure if a nationwide referendum were to take place with this question.
 
arbabarshad said:
a minority on blue moon may be, I wouldn't be so sure if a nationwide referendum were to take place with this question.
Click to expand...
I am totally sure. About 25% of the population would agree with you. 75% with me - though what form any nuclear deterrent takes is open to argument. Feel free to disagree but I'm not wrong.
 
Bigga said:
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!!
Click to expand...
You called me a tw@ didn't you? And used 'vulgar' language. I don't care for it; I haven't used it against you, I kindly ask you not to use it when responding to me. It adds nothing.

Yes I agree, freeing up money from Trident would be hugely beneficial. Thankfully all the 16,300 nukes in the world are all (ones we know about) in possession of nations that are allies so we don't have anything to fear at present. These are things I agree with, things I accept are ridiculous, but i'm also a realist and al it takes is one rogue to change things. Imagine a Trump like figure in charge of a nation like Russia that harboured anger and hatred against the West and we had no deterrant?

The ones who defend Trident's continued usage hold this opinion that Russia and China could one day become antagonistic. It's not an impossible scenario; could it lead to a new Cold War, or escalate into nuclear exchanges? Maybe, unlikely but not an impossible concept. An effective nuclear deterrant in the future would be costly and time consuming to start from scratch so, as stated before "is it better to have and not need or need and not have"? I'm afraid I couldn't give the answer to that one.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course it matters.

If Gibraltar were the disputed territory after Brexit, would U.K. threaten Spain with nukes ?
 
BlueAnorak said:
You're in a minority then. Protecting the UKs population from the threat of War is the most important action of any prospective Prime Minister.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They all know that and they all deep down agree. So put let's put it aside for the election no?

Shall we debate who's got the best Zorg deterrent?
 
arbabarshad said:
Of course it matters.

If Gibraltar were the disputed territory after Brexit, would U.K. threaten Spain with nukes ?
Click to expand...
Doubtful because Spain doesn't have them and their military isn't exactly on par.

Besides I doubt anyone would want to go to war over Gibraltar. The people would hold a referendum first and foremost, that'd cooldown any anger. Secondly, Spain and UK are both members of NATO, and one NATO member is prohibited by the others from threating another member with nukes or invading.
 
roj said:
Exactly. They all know that and they all deep down agree. So put let's put it aside for the election no?

Shall we debate who's got the best Zorg deterrent?
Click to expand...
zwKGeaa.gif
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Doubtful because Spain doesn't have them and their military isn't exactly on par.

Besides I doubt anyone would want to go to war over Gibraltar. The people would hold a referendum first and foremost, that'd cooldown any anger. Secondly, Spain and UK are both members of NATO, and one NATO member is prohibited by the others from threating another member with nukes or invading.
Click to expand...
BlueAnorak said:
Zillions of polls going back yonks. Numbers haven't changed much going back 50 years.
Here's one explicity about Nukes from 2013: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/16/public-support-nuclear-weapons/
Click to expand...
well that's a very thin sample I would say. 1800 odd people from 60m.
 
BlueAnorak said:
You're in a minority then. Protecting the UKs population from the threat of War is the most important action of any prospective Prime Minister.
Click to expand...

No. It is the first responsibility of government in a democratic society to protect and safeguard the lives of its citizens, which is not the same thing
 
Why would the Russians or the Chinese want to nuke London? They own half of it.

The big nuclear question should be put to May. "Is it safe to let China build our nuclear power stations?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top