alfredmizen
Banned
- Mar 11, 2015
- 6,342
Probably because thats not the case.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Corbyn’s childlike and simplistic argument? .....
- Thread starter DataPoint
- Start date
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,251
Cold War, Cuban Missile crisis, etc..........
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,759
It doesn't matter what people on here think.
Corbyn has taken a stance on nuclear weapons which is at odds with a number of PLP MPs (a majority if press are to be believed), at least 6 members of his front bench and some unions.
His view on not renewing Trident is also not a vote winner with wider electorate, regardless of whether you or anyone else consider he is right.
Politically he has created himself a problem on a number of fronts................that's the issue.
How will he get out of it, that is the issue.
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,251
Something i don't think has been mentioned on this thread yet, but how do you disarm all nuclear weapons capable countries?
Surely all you need is one to hide away weapons and when no one else have any left, they can reveal their arsenal and demand obedience and world domination
Or does this mean that at least 2 countries will have to continually keep and renew their stockpiles for ever and a day to prevent just one country having them and flexing the power that this would bring (threat to use, not actual use) - who do you trust to be these 2 countries with the fate of the world in their hands? (and there will always be the suspicion that they could team up and agree to divide the world up to run half each between them)
Or what if the countries that currently have these weapons scrap them, and new countries secretly develop their own nukes (North Korea, etc..) what happens to the world order then ?
Just interested in how the anti-nukes posters think that complete worldwide disarmament can be achieved ?
Surely all you need is one to hide away weapons and when no one else have any left, they can reveal their arsenal and demand obedience and world domination
Or does this mean that at least 2 countries will have to continually keep and renew their stockpiles for ever and a day to prevent just one country having them and flexing the power that this would bring (threat to use, not actual use) - who do you trust to be these 2 countries with the fate of the world in their hands? (and there will always be the suspicion that they could team up and agree to divide the world up to run half each between them)
Or what if the countries that currently have these weapons scrap them, and new countries secretly develop their own nukes (North Korea, etc..) what happens to the world order then ?
Just interested in how the anti-nukes posters think that complete worldwide disarmament can be achieved ?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
The independent cross party Trident commission report stated:
that Britain's deterrent is “a hostage to American goodwill.”
It adds: “If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years”.
“The UK is dependent on the United States for many component parts of the guidance and re-entry vehicle, and for the Trident ballistic missile system itself.”
http://www.basicint.org/tridentcommission/
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/01/trident-corbyn-shadow-cabinet-labour
Trident is useless. Corbyn’s shadow cabinet should be ashamed
Simon Jenkins
Labour’s shadow cabinet reaction to Jeremy Corbyn on Trident is astonishing. An end to Britain’s nuclear arsenal has been an article of faith to most Labour supporters for a generation. It has also been common currency of most defence analysts for almost as long.
Trident has never been about defence but about diplomacy.
The sole reason for Trident surviving the Blair government’s first defence review (on whose lay committee I sat) was the ban on discussing it imposed by the then defence secretary, George Robertson, in 1997. Members were told to “think the unthinkable” about everything except Trident and new aircraft carriers. It was clear that Tony Blair and his team had been lobbied, not by the defence chiefs, but by the procurement industry. Labour was regarded as soft on defence and mega-projects were seen as talismans of the party’s patriotism. Robertson, John Reid and John Gilbert were adamant that no chink should appear in the nuclear armour.
I can recall no head of the army and no serious academic strategist with any time for the Trident missile. It was a great hunk of useless weaponry. It was merely a token of support for an American nuclear response, though one that made Britain vulnerable to a nuclear exchange. No modern danger, such as from terrorism, is deterred by Trident (any more than Galtieri had been in the Falklands or Saddam in Iraq). But the money was spent and the rest of the defence budget had to suffer constant cuts – and soldiers left ill-equipped – to pay for it.
It is sad that his party colleagues feel obliged to oppose him on this issue, just so Labour can seem tough on defence
For decades the Labour party has lacked the courage of its own convictions on nuclear weapons and the courage to confront the industry lobby behind Trident. Gordon Brown openly backed Trident simply as job-creation for Scotland. While the missiles come from America and their use without American permission is inconceivable, a decision on the related submarine replacement programme is due next year. It will have nothing to do with national defence. Talk about “ultimate deterrents” might as well apply to any Armageddon weapon, bacteriological or chemical. Trident is about diplomatic clout, global posturing, domestic grandstanding and huge sums of public expenditure.
This is precisely the kind of issue on which Corbyn’s straight talking might be thought to turn over a new leaf. He might break with New Labour’s craven appeasement of the industrial lobbies and log-rollers. It is sad that his party colleagues, not one of whom can seriously believe in Trident, feel obliged to oppose him on this issue, just so Labour can seem tough on defence. Perhaps Corbyn should talk to a soldier.
Trident is useless. Corbyn’s shadow cabinet should be ashamed
Simon Jenkins
Labour’s shadow cabinet reaction to Jeremy Corbyn on Trident is astonishing. An end to Britain’s nuclear arsenal has been an article of faith to most Labour supporters for a generation. It has also been common currency of most defence analysts for almost as long.
Trident has never been about defence but about diplomacy.
The sole reason for Trident surviving the Blair government’s first defence review (on whose lay committee I sat) was the ban on discussing it imposed by the then defence secretary, George Robertson, in 1997. Members were told to “think the unthinkable” about everything except Trident and new aircraft carriers. It was clear that Tony Blair and his team had been lobbied, not by the defence chiefs, but by the procurement industry. Labour was regarded as soft on defence and mega-projects were seen as talismans of the party’s patriotism. Robertson, John Reid and John Gilbert were adamant that no chink should appear in the nuclear armour.
I can recall no head of the army and no serious academic strategist with any time for the Trident missile. It was a great hunk of useless weaponry. It was merely a token of support for an American nuclear response, though one that made Britain vulnerable to a nuclear exchange. No modern danger, such as from terrorism, is deterred by Trident (any more than Galtieri had been in the Falklands or Saddam in Iraq). But the money was spent and the rest of the defence budget had to suffer constant cuts – and soldiers left ill-equipped – to pay for it.
It is sad that his party colleagues feel obliged to oppose him on this issue, just so Labour can seem tough on defence
For decades the Labour party has lacked the courage of its own convictions on nuclear weapons and the courage to confront the industry lobby behind Trident. Gordon Brown openly backed Trident simply as job-creation for Scotland. While the missiles come from America and their use without American permission is inconceivable, a decision on the related submarine replacement programme is due next year. It will have nothing to do with national defence. Talk about “ultimate deterrents” might as well apply to any Armageddon weapon, bacteriological or chemical. Trident is about diplomatic clout, global posturing, domestic grandstanding and huge sums of public expenditure.
This is precisely the kind of issue on which Corbyn’s straight talking might be thought to turn over a new leaf. He might break with New Labour’s craven appeasement of the industrial lobbies and log-rollers. It is sad that his party colleagues, not one of whom can seriously believe in Trident, feel obliged to oppose him on this issue, just so Labour can seem tough on defence. Perhaps Corbyn should talk to a soldier.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Diplomatically at least, the US have stated that they don't even need the UK as a nuclear power, that actually they'd be happier if we actually beefed up our military capabilities as a working military partner rather than maintaining a nuclear capability it knows we really can't afford.
John Bumlick
Banned
I think the OP has a childlike and simplistic understanding of the world we live in today and the utter uselessness of nuclear weapons against modern threats and in the conflicts we've invented since 9/11 (and before).
sir albion
New member
They may well although let's be honest they have more nuclear war heads than anyone and scattered over vast areas also...If they wanted they could drop them anytime,but they haven't YET.
supaseagull
Well-known member
Don't worry the way it's kicking off in Syria corbyns point will be irrelevant!
sir albion
New member
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
The Russians are coming
Don't forget the French there's a reason they built their nuclear reactors near us
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Reminds me of the 'Yes, Prime Minister' reason for us having Nukes...Don't forget the French there's a reason they built their nuclear reactors near us
( It's not because the Russians have them, it's because the French have... )
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
Can't we just say we have Trident et all. We could then spend the money on all the other good stuff, I'm sure nobody would check up
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
The old USSR trick of parading fake ICBMs through Red Square
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
Reminds me of the 'Yes, Prime Minister' reason for us having Nukes...
( It's not because the Russians have them, it's because the French have... )
Nothing to worry about really
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,768
For an old geezer Corbyn seems to have the political views of a 6th form Politics student. From economics, defence, foreign policy down to the way he dresses he has a simplistic yet idealistic view of the world that flies in the face of reality.
Surely the only time to give us our nuclear weapons is when everyone else gives up theirs?
Surely the only time to give us our nuclear weapons is when everyone else gives up theirs?
My thought process is going in a similar direction.
I'm wondering how JC's ideology sits in the 21st century, is there room for 20th century socialist thinking?
It's clear there's a need now, probably greater than ever, for social inclusion, more carrot less stick, shared wealth etc.
But how does that sit with everyone else.
Let's face it, the fastest growing and biggest advert for capitalism is communist China.
Yet someone needs to 'blink' first, because without some kind of change we're clearly going to hell in a hand cart.
Interesting times.