Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Corbyn’s childlike and simplistic argument? .....



Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
50,354
Faversham
I thought Jezza had blown it when he said it. But . . . . he hasn't blown it..... and never will :lolol:
 














Igzilla

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2012
1,647
Worthing
Really? Did it really frighten you as a boy? how many boys walked around frightened at the thought of nuclear weapons? Despite the proliferation of these weapons, it was hardly a day to day worry, as most folk realised the advantage of the deterrence.

In no particular order, we had Russians in Afghanistan, Moscow Olympic boycotts, US stuffing as many nukes on UK soil as they could fit, strikes and martial law in Poland, Reagan and Brezhnev spoiling for a fight, Greenham Common, When the Wind Blows, Protect and Survive, the Doomsday Clock (interestingly now at 3 minutes to midnight, as close as it was in 1984) and so on, all within a few years of each other. All these had a impact on my early teens knowing the insane nuclear arsenals waiting to be unleashed, so I never felt safe with nuclear weapons, but then again, that's not their point.
 


Igzilla

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2012
1,647
Worthing
as a boy I was more frightened of Holly Johnson and Paul ' leatherpants' Rutherford.

Well quite. Not sure those leather pants were discussed in the SALT 2 or the START negotiations...
 


yxee

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2011
2,521
Manchester
This really is a sideshow created by the media to keep them occupied. They must be very bored.

It's not a sideshow, I think lots of people in this country are interested in his views on the nuclear deterrent, and saying things like this will help to inform their opinion of him.


If it's bad publicity, it's always called a "media sideshow"!
 




severnside gull

Well-known member
May 16, 2007
24,540
By the seaside in West Somerset
Not a fan of Corbyn but if being opposed to killing millions and destroying our environment for generations more at the push of a button is "childlike and simplistic" then I hope that my grandchildren grow into the inheritance we leave them quickly and learn, not from us, but from their own consciences
 


Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
Not a fan of Corbyn but if being opposed to killing millions and destroying our environment for generations more at the push of a button is "childlike and simplistic" then I hope that my grandchildren grow into the inheritance we leave them quickly and learn, not from us, but from their own consciences

Ironically, you bemoan the alleged simplicity of it all, then go on to be equally simplistic yourself to make a point. No one wants to push the proverbial button, and everyone is opposed to killing millions etc, it is just that the defenders of Trident see that as the best way of achieving continued peace in an imperfect world. It may well be that you follow your conscience and fully support the idea of the nuclear deterrent -had you thought of that?
 


severnside gull

Well-known member
May 16, 2007
24,540
By the seaside in West Somerset
Ironically, you bemoan the alleged simplicity of it all, then go on to be equally simplistic yourself to make a point. No one wants to push the proverbial button, and everyone is opposed to killing millions etc, it is just that the defenders of Trident see that as the best way of achieving continued peace in an imperfect world. It may well be that you follow your conscience and fully support the idea of the nuclear deterrent -had you thought of that?

What I had thought of is that one day someone will take the opposite view and use the bloody thing which they only can if it exists.
"No-one wants to push the button" is not a justifiable statement based on any view of history.
Oh and I didn't actually bemoan the simplicity of the argument against a nuclear deterrent. The argument really is simple
 




burstead

Not a Registered User
Jul 24, 2010
110
CQPSe9tWoAAaoSL.png
Poll from The Telegraph, failed fishing.
 




Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
What I had thought of is that one day someone will take the opposite view and use the bloody thing which they only can if it exists.
"No-one wants to push the button" is not a justifiable statement based on any view of history. Oh and I didn't actually bemoan the simplicity of the argument against a nuclear deterrent. The argument really is simple

Of course that is always a possibility, albeit a very remote one. But do you seriously think this will happen? I am sorry, but I don't see what this means -may be me, I realise.
 




Flex Your Head

Well-known member
In no particular order, we had Russians in Afghanistan, Moscow Olympic boycotts, US stuffing as many nukes on UK soil as they could fit, strikes and martial law in Poland, Reagan and Brezhnev spoiling for a fight, Greenham Common, When the Wind Blows, Protect and Survive, the Doomsday Clock (interestingly now at 3 minutes to midnight, as close as it was in 1984) and so on, all within a few years of each other. All these had a impact on my early teens knowing the insane nuclear arsenals waiting to be unleashed, so I never felt safe with nuclear weapons, but then again, that's not their point.

It's genuinely quite surprising how many people get annoyed when it's suggested that there was a nuclear threat in the 80s, when it was in fact the longest period of sustained threat throughout the cold war.

http://www.northstandchat.com/showt...heat-of-Nuclear-Annihilation-in-1980s-Britain
 




Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
View attachment 68972
Poll from The Telegraph, failed fishing.

Classic case of confusing everyone with the question and then claiming the answer is what you wanted to see. Surely you HAVE a deterrent, as opposed to using it. Had the question asked whether one should have a deterrent, then the answer might have been different. As it is, it implied approval of their USE, and of course the majority will say no, as the consequences are so awful to contemplate.
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,071
Burgess Hill
It's genuinely quite surprising how many people get annoyed when it's suggested that there was a nuclear threat in the 80s, when it was in fact the longest period of sustained threat throughout the cold war.

http://www.northstandchat.com/showt...heat-of-Nuclear-Annihilation-in-1980s-Britain

You're still banging on about that. I don't recall anyone getting 'annoyed' except you because not everyone agreed that they feared nuclear war more than terrorism. It wasn't one or the other, both were a threat but to some, terrorism seemed the more immediate danger.
 




severnside gull

Well-known member
May 16, 2007
24,540
By the seaside in West Somerset
Of course that is always a possibility, albeit a very remote one. But do you seriously think this will happen? I am sorry, but I don't see what this means -may be me, I realise.

Fair enough. You are an optimist whilst I'm afraid I am an ageing cynic :lolol:
 


supaseagull

Well-known member
Feb 19, 2004
9,611
The United Kingdom of Mile Oak
It's genuinely quite surprising how many people get annoyed when it's suggested that there was a nuclear threat in the 80s, when it was in fact the longest period of sustained threat throughout the cold war.

http://www.northstandchat.com/showt...heat-of-Nuclear-Annihilation-in-1980s-Britain

The 80s was made worse because of the media.

TV films like Threads and the Day After made matters worse. Plus the fact that despite the perceived horror of a nuclear detonation, no one is really sure of what the effects of a nuclear blast on UK soil would be.

Terrorism for me was nevee on the scale as a young teenager in the 80s than what nuclear war between Russia and the USA was.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here