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

[1234andcounting]

Well, this argument falls down at the first sentence. No mean accomplishment on NSC.

Given that;
Hitler planned the complete reconstruction of Berlin, Nuremberg and other German cities
and that he wanted the German people to fight on until they were annihilated and blamed them for Germany's defeat
and that he sanctioned the murder of milllions of people
then it is unlikely he would have been too bothered about whether a few cities had been destroyed by nuclear weapons.

 

[Hamilton]

Yes, I can , they've left us to fend for ourselves in ww2 until their hand was forced by the germans declaring war on them , they also got threatened us with economic ruin if we didnt abandon our little adventiure in suez, if anyone thinks american policy isnt first and foremost for the benefit of america, they need their head examined , theyd kick us into touch as soon as it suited them.

Let's nuke the Yanks!

 

[The Birdman]

His remarks will make easy for his friend Putin to roll into countries again which he has started.

 

[spring hall convert]

Of course the USA are the biggest hitters and although I agree I sometimes wonder if we ever impose any real influence on some of their actions, I am sure there are many many times we actually do.

Any recent examples of this influence on the States? Blair's version of the 'special relationship' appeared to be saying 'how high.' Ironically, the last PM to have a smidgen of relevance on the world stage was Brown over the global financial crisis and he's castigated as the worst British PM ever.

I think there are some affairs that we do have influence over but not unilaterally on crucial security issues. That's for the USA, China and Russia to sort out now.

 

[spring hall convert]

Exactly and they didnt and it was over 50 years ago.

You said we haven't come close. Exactly what are you describing as close, if the Cuban Missile Crisis doesn't meet that criteria?

 

[Megazone]

Children must be getting smarter........

 

[alfredmizen]

The last line was clearly a joke.

As I clearly state - American foreign policy doesn't work. Yes that does interest me (I guess I shouldn't have tried to employ sarcasm). However, our possession of Trident really won't change American foreign policy or anybody else's. The proof of that lies in the fact that our possession of Trident to date has had little impact on what is happening on the international stage. So, there has to be another way.

I think youre spectacularly missing the point , Trident isnt designed to have an ''impact on the international stage'' its designed to be a dterrent to the international stage visiting us in an unpleasant fashion.

 

[BigGully]

Any recent examples of this influence on the States? Blair's version of the 'special relationship' appeared to be saying 'how high.' Ironically, the last PM to have a smidgen of relevance on the world stage was Brown over the global financial crisis and he's castigated as the worst British PM ever.

I think there are some affairs that we do have influence over but not unilaterally on crucial security issues. That's for the USA, China and Russia to sort out now.

So we agree that we do have a some global influence and whether we punch above our weight or at our 5th largest economy weight it holds some global relevance, which is something you dismissed.

I think sometimes the left are averse to embracing the power we do actually wield, just chucking your cards in on defence isnt the answer.

 

[Hamilton]

I think youre spectacularly missing the point , Trident isnt designed to have an ''impact on the international stage'' its designed to be a dterrent to the international stage visiting us in an unpleasant fashion.

Look, the second London is about to be invaded or bombed then the whole f*cking world will be f*cked so there really will be little point in having had or not had the bloody bomb. We are not about to see conventional forces marching over the fields of Poland towards Germany because it's not in anyone's interests. Not the Russians, the Americans, the Chinese.

When a bomb does go off it will be for the following reasons - a rogue nation has let one off (miles from blighty), or far more likely, it'll be a computer error. Computer says 'bang'!

Now, perhaps we should get back to more pressing issues, like domestic policy? Fair pay. Eradicating poverty where is exists in the UK? Investing in health and education? Investing in R&D in the UK (hey, we could build bombs for the Americans!)

 

[Hamilton]

 

[spring hall convert]

So we agree that we do have a some global influence and whether we punch above our weight or at our 5th largest economy weight it holds some global relevance, which is something you dismissed.

I think sometimes the left are averse to embracing the power we do actually wield, just chucking your cards in on defence isnt the answer.

I don't want us to chuck our cards in. I want us to spend the money countering the threats that actually exist in the world. I don't buy for a minute that the influence we have in the world is based on Trident.

I think sometimes the right are profligate with our money when it suits them and their dodgy defense industry contacts, whilst also telling us that we have to cut vital benefits to the working poor and the disabled

 

[BigGully]

Look, the second London is about to be invaded or bombed then the whole f*cking world will be f*cked so there really will be little point in having had or not had the bloody bomb. We are not about to see conventional forces marching over the fields of Poland towards Germany because it's not in anyone's interests. Not the Russians, the Americans, the Chinese.

When a bomb does go off it will be for the following reasons - a rogue nation has let one off (miles from blighty), or far more likely, it'll be a computer error. Computer says 'bang'!

Now, perhaps we should get back to more pressing issues, like domestic policy? Fair pay. Eradicating poverty where is exists in the UK? Investing in health and education? Investing in R&D in the UK (hey, we could build bombs for the Americans!)

You have been spoilt, you have seen our soldiers go into battle, trident act as a deterrent and a political determination to express to others that we will not be bullied and you dismiss it all by thinking we should withdraw and stand by and see how it all plays out.

 

[alfredmizen]

Look, the second London is about to be invaded or bombed then the whole f*cking world will be f*cked so there really will be little point in having had or not had the bloody bomb. We are not about to see conventional forces marching over the fields of Poland towards Germany because it's not in anyone's interests. Not the Russians, the Americans, the Chinese.

When a bomb does go off it will be for the following reasons - a rogue nation has let one off (miles from blighty), or far more likely, it'll be a computer error. Computer says 'bang'!

Now, perhaps we should get back to more pressing issues, like domestic policy? Fair pay. Eradicating poverty where is exists in the UK? Investing in health and education? Investing in R&D in the UK (hey, we could build bombs for the Americans!)

shortsighted beyond belief.

 

[alfredmizen]

I don't want us to chuck our cards in. I want us to spend the money countering the threats that actually exist in the world. I don't buy for a minute that the influence we have in the world is based on Trident.

I think sometimes the right are profligate with our money when it suits them and their dodgy defense industry contacts, whilst also telling us that we have to cut vital benefits to the working poor.

it isnt, but if it ever comes to the crunch in this increasingly complex and dangerous world then its a very handy defence against others who have the same.

 

[Crispy Ambulance]

This is the point out of all the nutters in recent history and I think Russia and China have had their fair share, no one seems to have come close to pressing it.

Can you imagine one nutter wanting to impose himself on quite a reasonable neighbour and the nutter is the only one with the trump card.

Soft Lad in Pyongyang might be keen to have a go!

 

[BigGully]

I don't want us to chuck our cards in. I want us to spend the money countering the threats that actually exist in the world. I don't buy for a minute that the influence we have in the world is based on Trident.

I think sometimes the right are profligate with our money when it suits them and their dodgy defense industry contacts, whilst also telling us that we have to cut vital benefits to the working poor.

The irony is that you are saying lets hide behind the USA from the threat from China and Russia, the one nation you seem to hold the most contempt for. (you might not, but many from the left do).

I think you forget that as on a previous thread Americans demand tipping for services rendered, so they would demand, quite rightly some levy for their unilateral defence of Europe, so we would have a stake in those warheads anyway.

I assume you wouldn't expect the west to chuck in all their nuclear cards, USA included would you ??

 

[Hamilton]

You have been spoilt, you have seen our soldiers go into battle, trident act as a deterrent and a political determination to express to others that we will not be bullied and you dismiss it all by thinking we should withdraw and stand by and see how it all plays out.

No I haven't. Der!

"You have seen our soldiers go into battle..." Who are you? The Duke of Wellington or something?

Politics - international - is fought in many different ways now. It's time we all moved on. Politics is shaped by the friends you keep. That's why we're happy to be a haven to Russian cash; to Chinese cash; Qatari cash. We need to be happier in building economic relationships. That's where power resides. And then, at the same time, we can use some of that power to create greater parity at home.

You say I've been spoilt? You're a dinosaur. A blunt tool. Get clever.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I really don't know how the Germans have survived without a nuclear deterent!

Nor the Spanish...

Italians.

Swedes, Norwegians, Portuguese...

etc.

Because they rely on NATO, including the UK, USA and France, who all have................nuclear weapons?

 

[Hamilton]

shortsighted beyond belief.

Different sighted beyond comprehension.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

There are 196 countries in the world - nine of them have nukes. Am I to assume 187 of these countries are in immediate peril of being wiped out ?

Nukes are out dated and not required - we certainly shouldn't be renewing ours.

Those nine countries account for 3.5 billion people, or half the population of the world.