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

[Hamilton]

We were incredibly close to nuclear war during the cold war on at least a couple of ccasions

1) During the Cuban missile crisis, Soviet subs were trying to sneak their way to Cuba but the US blockaded the island and searched for these vessels and once they found the subs, they tried to get them to surface

The Americans decided to ratchet up the pressure, and dropped warning grenades into the sea. Inside the sub, the Soviet submariners thought they were under attack.

Valentin Savitsky, the captain of B59, was convinced the nuclear war had already started. He demanded that the submariners launch their (nuclear) torpedo to save some of Russia's pride.

The programme on Channel 5 revealed how in any normal circumstances Savitsky's orders would have been followed, and World War Three would have been unleashed. Savitsky hadn't counted on Arkhipov. As commander of the fleet, Arkhipov had the last veto. And although his men were against him, he insisted that they must not fire - and instead surrender.

It was a humiliating move - but one that saved the world. The Soviet submariners were forced to return to their native Russia, where they were given the opposite of a hero's welcome.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...verted-WWIII-height-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.html
(there is a channel 5 documentary but it's blocked on Youtube so i can't link it here)
2) Russian early warning systems detected an American launch of ICBMs and luckily the commanding officer decided to ignore these warnings and didn't launch and they turned out to be the sun glinting off clouds which the computers interpreted as a launch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
(there is a channel 4 documentary but it's also blocked so i can't link it here either)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the nukes didn't exist, would they have thought twice about starting a war?

The cold war didn't start just because of the existance of nukes, but it could be argued that they prevented it from spiraling into full blown conflict - is that worth the cost of the weapons systems (collateral damage prevented, lives saved, etc...)

World politics change (see the collapse of the USSR, but you don't know whats around the corner and it could easily revert to a similar stand off again between 2 major countries and a new cold war start)

You'll find this fascinating as well...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/cuban-missile-crisis-russian-roulette

Accounts from the USAF with regards to the lack of control that US commanders had over their forces in the air during the crisis. In their case, there was no veto, and October 26th was a very dodgy day.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

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 ??

If we got rid of our weapons and Russia (for example, but equally it could be France or anyone else for that matter) invaded us, would the US really launch nukes to protect us and our sovereignty, or would the consequences out-way the rewards for standing by their old ally?

Do nukes prevent other countries from even thinking about invading the UK, if yes, then they work as a deterrent, allowing us to have a smaller Army, Navy and Air Force.

Sweden often catches Russian incursions into or near to its territory (we are starting to see the same here too from time to time) without allies that can protect it's sovereignty, whats to say that it wouldn't have already been invaded (like the Germans did with Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc before the Allies stood up to Hilter and co..)

Nuclear weapons may be indirectly protecting other countries sovereignties too thanks to things like the EU, UN and / or Nato. But you need a big stick to wield, get rid of the stick (scrap the deterrent or refuse to ever use it) then you may as well have a flower in your hand should the aggressor decide to attack, knowing full well that you won't hurt them should they do so.

Re: Corbin saying he would never push the button if PM. It's like the Police saying that we will not investigate or prosecute anyone suspected of committing a burglary and we won't send people to examine the break in scene. - what happens, do Burglars think, in that case i won't chance my arm and break into a house to steal or are they more likely to attempt break ins knowing full well that they are likely to get away with it (the fear of getting caught may prevent it from happening, (in a nuclear weapons case, MAD) take the fear away then whats to stop someone?)

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

The Ukranian situation is a lot more complex than that. The same would be the case with places like Latvia or Lithuania etc.

The Russians were there for 2 generations. In Latvia for example, the population actually consist of 60% Russian Descendancy to a mere 40% of Latvian Decendency. There is actually a larger population of Russians in there than Latvians. The same applies in a lot of the other former Soviet States. Consequently when you see Russian intervention, it is there to support their own Russian Descendants, so this makes the issue harder for outsiders to understand who is actually fighting who and why.

The demographic argument doesn't address the point, Putin would not have wandered into Ukraine if Kiev had Nuclear Weapons, they would have said 'you invade Ukraine then we use the bomb'.

 

[NooBHA]

The demographic argument doesn't address the point, Putin would not have wandered into Ukraine if Kiev had Nuclear Weapons, they would have said 'you invade Ukraine then we use the bomb'.

Thats nonsense. Technically, Russia did not invade Ukraine. They simply armed the rebel forces currently living in Ukraine and fighting Government forces

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Thats nonsense. Technically, Russia did not invade Ukraine. They simply armed the rebel forces currently living in Ukraine and fighting Government forces

http://www.newsweek.com/putins-secr...ee-russian-soldiers-sent-fight-ukraine-339665

The Russian military is sending its soldiers across the border to mix with Russian-instigated separatist forces in Ukraine. Once in eastern Ukraine, these soldiers are no longer considered Russian; rather they are told to refer to themselves as “local defense forces,” aiding the separatist soldiers with additional manpower and Russian equipment.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Re: Corbin saying he would never push the button if PM. It's like the Police saying that we will not investigate or prosecute anyone suspected of committing a burglary and we won't send people to examine the break in scene. - what happens, do Burglars think, in that case i won't chance my arm and break into a house to steal or are they more likely to attempt break ins knowing full well that they are likely to get away with it (the fear of getting caught may prevent it from happening, (in a nuclear weapons case, MAD) take the fear away then whats to stop someone?)

Isn't that, on the same token like having the death penalty where surely no one would break the law seriously enough that they would risk ending their life!? That is why America is almost serious crime free, it works as a deterrent...

 

[Guy Fawkes]

It seems to offer how such a consequence of nuclear attack focuses the mind.

Ultimately neither side risked it, even when circumstances might have usually been a trigger to engage in attack.

Perhaps its worth trying to analyse those scenarios if one of the sides didnt have a nuclear capability.

So nuclear weapons acted as a deterrent as they were supposed to rather than as a weapon to win or end a war.

There are examples of countries invading or being invaded by others where nuclear weapons being present may have prevented any hostile actions. Iraq into Kuwait, the US and allies into Iraq or Afghanistan, if they had nukes and would threaten to use them if invaded, would a foreign country have been able to topple the previous rulers and take over, installing their own rulers in their place?

Russia into Ukraine is another example, had Ukraine still held nuclear weapons, would Russia have sent forces into the country or would the Ukraine still be in complete peaceful control of it's own country? - has the threat of nuclear weapons held by the west prevented a full on invasion by Russia into the Ukraine (possibly triggering a 2nd cold war or even military action with the deployment of troops to try to stop Russian forces invading and taking full control, escalating things further (Vietnam with China & the US both getting involved on different sides is a historical example)

 

[NooBHA]

http://www.newsweek.com/putins-secr...ee-russian-soldiers-sent-fight-ukraine-339665

We knew this but techniclly the Russians have not invaded Ukraine. Britain had troops all over the middle east training and arming the Iraqi and Afghanistan Armies. Double standards from the West. We can do it but when it is done by the Russians there is an outcry and media frenzy.

I don't say any of it is correct or right but the media put whatever spin on it they want and we take it all in and believe everything they write. None of us know the full facts of what is happening in any of these places, let alone why it is happening

 

[NooBHA]

I knew I should never have got myself embroiled in discussions about Jeremy Corbyn. I am a 100% left wing pacifist. Probably because when I was young I was a bit of a nut case and was always getting myself into some scrapes. Having grown up have seen the error of my younger ways.

Right i am stopping posting on this now otherwise i would just go on forever

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Isn't that, on the same token like having the death penalty where surely no one would break the law seriously enough that they would risk ending their life!? That is why America is almost serious crime free, it works as a deterrent...

How much of a deterrent has the death penalty been in the US? How do you know if crime levels would be higher or lower without it?

There are other issues at play in the US, the low value they put on life for example, meaning they are happy to shoot first if they feel threatened by the presence of unknown stranglers in their neighbourhood / property. (fear of a threat to their own health or possessions is deemed a lawful excuse to kill another human being, even if there was no real threat to either by the deceased)


Your point however is like saying:
Do you rob banks?
- No
You don't? what if you knew that you could get away with it, and even if caught, nothing would happen to you, now would you?
- maybe ....

 

[alfredmizen]

Thats nonsense. Technically, Russia did not invade Ukraine. They simply armed the rebel forces currently living in Ukraine and fighting Government forces

course they didnt!!

 

[Bold Seagull]

How much of a deterrent has the death penalty been in the US? How do you know if crime levels would be higher or lower without it?

There are other issues at play in the US, the low value they put on life for example, meaning they are happy to shoot first if they feel threatened by the presence of unknown stranglers in their neighbourhood / property. (fear of a threat to their own health or possessions is deemed a lawful excuse to kill another human being, even if there was no real threat to either by the deceased)


Your point however is like saying:
Do you rob banks?
- No
You don't? what if you knew that you could get away with it, and even if caught, nothing would happen to you, now would you?
- maybe ....

It's not my point, you came up with the daft crime analogy.

Reading your posts is how I'd imagine talking to someone who'd be cryogenically frozen since 1957 would sound as they've just woken up...

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

Well, he's absolutely correct. People have been waging war despite the possession of Nuclear Weapons.

Also an important question here. When you have drones that can carry out pinpoint attacks against enemy targets, why would you hold onto a bomb that will kill enemy targets and ALSO the surrounding innocents? What possible reason is there?

Madness. Scrap it.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I knew I should never have got myself embroiled in discussions about Jeremy Corbyn. I am a 100% left wing pacifist. Probably because when I was young I was a bit of a nut case and was always getting myself into some scrapes. Having grown up have seen the error of my younger ways.

Right i am stopping posting on this now otherwise i would just go on forever

Both sides want the same thing, peace but the difference is how they think it could be achieved.

One side thinks that you have to be prepared to stand up for yourself and defend yourself from bullies (even if that means spending money, bulking up and making yourself someone who can protect themselves, meaning that the bully will no longer look to targeet you and look elsewhere for a victim instead.

The other is to think that bullies don't exist, to be prepared to live as second class citizens in their own country if need be, or even as slaves should a conquering force decide to use the population in that way should that come to it (plenty of historical examples again) just so that they don't have to confront anyone or stand up for themselves and stop people potentially exploiting them. - luckily a lot of these people are indirectly protected by the first group of people (their country's armed forces, emergency services, etc) so can live a life where they think the world is a lot less aggressive and exploitative than they would care to imagine. (ie, get rid of the army / our weapons, etc, because no-one will attack us anyway, and if they do, then America will save us)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

We knew this but techniclly the Russians have not invaded Ukraine. Britain had troops all over the middle east training and arming the Iraqi and Afghanistan Armies. Double standards from the West. We can do it but when it is done by the Russians there is an outcry and media frenzy.

I don't say any of it is correct or right but the media put whatever spin on it they want and we take it all in and believe everything they write. None of us know the full facts of what is happening in any of these places, let alone why it is happening

So would you also say that technically the Germans didn't invade Poland and France in WW2, it was the Nazi party ?

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Thats nonsense. Technically, Russia did not invade Ukraine. They simply armed the rebel forces currently living in Ukraine and fighting Government forces

Hahaha . You honestly think in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine there are no Russian troops? Did the 'militias' just appear out of the ground?! I read some rubbish on NSC but that wins. it.

 

[Bold Seagull]

What I am surprised with is that none of the Pro-Trident posters have actually put forward the real reason for renewing Trident - that it is a continuation of our close alliance with the US that on their request we maintain a nuclear capability in support of a global peacekeeping deterrent as pro democratic western democracies.

Frankly, all the nonsense about an independent nuclear capability for the sole purpose of the defence of our realm is just that, nonsense. Trident is part of a multilateral agreement with the US that we are nuclear powers together.

Trident is intrinsically part of the US. It doesn't exist without the US, it is bound with our alliance with the US. This really isn't an independent deterrent at all.

If the argument is that if we remove Trident, the US throw a hissy fit and we lose much of our agreements with them, then perhaps that is a convincing argument for its retention. The argument that we need a totally independent deterrent I find hard to swallow or accept to be honest.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Well, he's absolutely correct. People have been waging war despite the possession of Nuclear Weapons.

Also an important question here. When you have drones that can carry out pinpoint attacks against enemy targets, why would you hold onto a bomb that will kill enemy targets and ALSO the surrounding innocents? What possible reason is there?

Madness. Scrap it.

I'd imagine to prevent conflict and the actual need to fight.

Knives (drones) for a pro, guns (nukes) for a show - depends if they want a fight or not or scare the opposition into submission without the need for a fight.

Who knows whats going to happen to the world as the natural resources run out and countries / states may become desperate to secure the last remaining sources for their own country's consumption (oil, coal, gas, etc.....) and the relative period of peace may start to come to an end as land grabs occur.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

What I am surprised with is that none of the Pro-Trident posters have actually put forward the real reason for renewing Trident - that it is a continuation of our close alliance with the US that on their request we maintain a nuclear capability in support of a global peacekeeping deterrent as pro democratic western democracies.

Frankly, all the nonsense about an independent nuclear capability for the sole purpose of the defence of our realm is just that, nonsense. Trident is part of a multilateral agreement with the US that we are nuclear powers together.

Trident is intrinsically part of the US. It doesn't exist without the US, it is bound with our alliance with the US. This really isn't an independent deterrent at all.

If the argument is that if we remove Trident, the US throw a hissy fit and we lose much of our agreements with them, then perhaps that is a convincing argument for its retention. The argument that we need a totally independent deterrent I find hard to swallow or accept to be honest.

And what if (very unlikely i know) the US suddenly decided to threaten our sovereignty, who would we call upon to defend us? We can't compete militarily with conventional weapons, nuclear weapons levels the playing field and protects us from such a threat (if we are prepared to defend ourselves and use it)

Look how much the world has changed since the UK started holding nuclear weapons, who knows what it will be like in a few decades time, it may be that it seems like we no longer need them now, but who is to say what things will be like in the future and we may need to rely on them for maintaining the peace then.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

I'd imagine to prevent conflict and the actual need to fight.

Knives (drones) for a pro, guns (nukes) for a show - depends if they want a fight or not or scare the opposition into submission without the need for a fight.

Who knows whats going to happen to the world as the natural resources run out and countries / states may become desperate to secure the last remaining sources for their own country's consumption (oil, coal, gas, etc.....) and the relative period of peace may start to come to an end as land grabs occur.

It hasn't prevented conflict or the need to fight before.