Nuclear Weapons, Trident, Etc...

[exile]

Everyone knows it's inconceivable that the British PM would fire a nuclear weapon. The ones that said/say they would were/are lying. The Russians know they're lying too. Corbyn gets pilloried for telling the truth while the ones that tell lies are held up as having what we need in a leader. Meantime we waste billions on our pretend deterrent at the same time as the poorest and weakest members of society are targeted for brutal cuts. A sick joke of a country...

Corbyn gets pilloried for telling the truth. But the problem is his naivety, if he thinks that stance will help him into no.10.

Corbyn has become a symbol of the left but many are cheering him for his principles and values that any of us may share. But Corbyn as a politician and leader are increasingly coming under question - even among those who like his views.

Didn't McDonnell previously stand for leader, and Diane abbott, and for corbyn it was simply his turn to be token lefty candidate - but not necessarily the best leader

Maybe he shouldn't have allowed himself to answer that question the way he did, or else he won;t get anywhere near the nuclear button

(As I said earlier, I think Cameron should be asked in what circumstances he'd press the button. Did Corbyn ask yet?)

Edited October 21, 2015 by exile

[Guest flumax]

As a navy buddy told me, the only reason we have nukes is it buys the UK a seat at the top table at the UN (security council). w/o it UK would loose that.

Nothing to do with defence as it a) wouldn't ever be used wouldn't do a dot to Russia/USA in comparison to start they can do.

[McDange]

Nukes are a vanity project for the UK Establishment. The obscene cost should be enough of a deterrent in binning these WMDs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

The threat has changed from the Cold War Days but no doubt it's actually The Pentagon calling the shots.

[Alan]

The vacuous car stickers of "Bairns Not Bombs" makes me want to replace Trident. It makes me think of Daphne Broon at a CND march in the 1970's.

The problem in Scotland is the debate is stifled by

1. Lies. "The US President can only allow it to be used". Not true.

2. Misunderstanding of cost. Debated £100 billion (some say less) is over 40 years. That's £2.5 billion a year out of the Defence budget. Defence is 2% of budget re NATO demands which SNP signed up to. It's not taking money away from the already mentioned "bairns".

3. Political hijacking. CND marches now filled with "Yes" flags. Protesters boo Labour politicians who go on stage. Debate and ideas stifled. Even the OP opening lines were quite obvious a unsubtle way of getting this on the board.

4. Echo chamber. The majority of people in Scotland still actually support nuclear weapons.

[Squirrelhumper]

The vacuous car stickers of "Bairns Not Bombs" makes me want to replace Trident. It makes me think of Daphne Broon at a CND march in the 1970's.

The problem in Scotland is the debate is stifled by

1. Lies. "The US President can only allow it to be used". Not true.

2. Misunderstanding of cost. Debated £100 billion (some say less) is over 40 years. That's £2.5 billion a year out of the Defence budget. Defence is 2% of budget re NATO demands which SNP signed up to. It's not taking money away from the already mentioned "bairns".

3. Political hijacking. CND marches now filled with "Yes" flags. Protesters boo Labour politicians who go on stage. Debate and ideas stifled. Even the OP opening lines were quite obvious a unsubtle way of getting this on the board.

4. Echo chamber. The majority of people in Scotland still actually support nuclear weapons.

Your first sentence sums you up. Spend billions on nukes cos you don't like a slogan? Ha, you really are bitter.

There's better ways of spending a defence budget than on something we'll never use.

[mariokempes56]

I actually met Daphne at that march..bit of a looker I'd say.

[phart]

I guess it depends on how one looks at it.

Nukes cannot be used without killing civilians, they cannot be used effectively without killing thousands of civilians and leaving a massive mess that cannot be cleaned up and persists for generations. Only a psychopath (literally) would use them. Too many of those sharks swim in the upper echelons of commerce/politics/military for my liking.

[Dave78]

We need to keep the nukes to deter aliens from invading. Have none of you seen Independence Day for gawds sake?!

[Alan]

I actually met Daphne at that march..bit of a looker I'd say.

Maggie is the stunner. Daphne has a thyroid problem.

[Andy North Croy]

Even the OP opening lines were quite obvious a unsubtle way of getting this on the board.

Eh?

[Ally Bongo]

The problem in Scotland is the debate is stifled by

1. Lies. "The US President can only allow it to be used". Not true.

Sigh

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

[Bristolhibby]

Sigh

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

Technically Alan is right.

Interesting article though. It's a Nuclear deterrent with the assumptions that we are in NATO and we won't ever fall out with the States.

The French on the other hand, invested heavily in a totally independent deterrent. Both submarine based and air strike.

It seems we (Britain) are happy with the strategic assumption that we won't nuke the US. The French decided they didn't want that and paid big money developing their own "Force de dissuasion".

J

[Ally Bongo]

Technically Alan is right.

Thats why i sighed

To say that you could launch a unilateral attack over the heads of NATO and Washington might be theoretically true, but practically speaking it’s rubbish.”

So really it's a case of asking Alan - when is a lie not a lie ?

[exile]

Technically Alan is right.

Interesting article though. It's a Nuclear deterrent with the assumptions that we are in NATO and we won't ever fall out with the States.

The French on the other hand, invested heavily in a totally independent deterrent. Both submarine based and air strike.

It seems we (Britain) are happy with the strategic assumption that we won't nuke the US. The French decided they didn't want that and paid big money developing their own "Force de dissuasion".

J

The independence of our nuclear weapons is rarely mentioned, and the difference from the French even less so.

So when the British Government says "would we want to leave the last defence of Europe to the French?", the answer is (in a sense) that we already do.

[redstevie007]

Blackadder: .......the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.

George: By Gum, this is interesting! I always loved history. The Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII and his six knives and all that!

Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent a war in Europe, two super blocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side; and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast, opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.

Baldrick: Except, well, this is sort of a war, isn't it?

Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.

George: Oh, what was that?

Blackadder: It was bollocks.

[hunchy]

Thats why i sighed

To say that you could launch a unilateral attack over the heads of NATO and Washington might be theoretically true, but practically speaking it’s rubbish.”

So really it's a case of asking Alan - when is a lie not a lie ?

In other words yes we could just press the red button without saying to anyone but in reality we would only press the button after talks with NATO and we were all in agreement to launch our nukkes

[Guest]

This is slow to begin with, for reasons that become obvious, but builds quietly to become disturbingly hypnotic, as it progresses.

It leaves you with little doubt that as a species we're utterly insane.

[Robroysboy]

We need to keep the nukes to deter aliens from invading. Have none of you seen Independence Day for gawds sake?!

[Toepoke]

As a navy buddy told me, the only reason we have nukes is it buys the UK a seat at the top table at the UN (security council).

Could we not just buy a couple of cruise missiles instead and keep our seat at the UN?...

[McDange]

We need to keep the nukes to deter aliens from invading. Have none of you seen Independence Day for gawds sake?!

When they fired the nuke in Independence Day it didnae work! Need a local nutter to fly into their main weapon and blow it to pieces.

[dan cake]

iv never understood why we need nuclear weapons

frankie had the right idea

[Guest]

iv never understood why we need nuclear weapons

frankie had the right idea

I'd love to see Pooty Poot Putin giving George Dubya a Glaswegian kiss. In fact I reckon he'd be able to kick fook out of Dubya, Cheney and Rumsfeld at the same time without breaking sweat, while Obama cowered somewhere nearby.

If only, instead of the decades spent developing these weapons, an enlightened (fictitious) humanity had committed the same astronomical investment, ingenuity, thought and gargangtuan efforts to peaceful, positive initiatives. What a wonderful world of possibilities it could have been. Ah well.....

[Tin Shed Jaggie]

This scared the jobbies out of me back in the mid 80s

[Guest]

This scared the jobbies out of me back in the mid 80s

Me too. I can remember waking in a cold sweat, during an almighty thunder storm in about 1985, convinced it was explosions I was hearing and the lunacy had begun.

It was about the time that this song and video were released. There's a poster on here who linked to it some while back who I should thank for reminding me of it and providing me with my latest sig:

[Bristolhibby]

Good film this, called The Day After.

Imagine watching this in 1983 when it was released.

Shit the Americans right up when it aired.

43 minutes onwards if you want to get straight into it with the tension building up.

J