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

[glasfryn]

question
where exactly will you be if the red button is pushed
the government
all the royals
all the very rich will be in bunkers (to die later from radiation sickness)
us, you and me will be dust
100 billion of mine, yours, money paying so they who are lucky or rich enough to be in the bunker can live for maybe a few months ..........................................Hmmmmmmm

 

[Hastings gull]

question
where exactly will you be if the red button is pushed
the government
all the royals
all the very rich will be in bunkers (to die later from radiation sickness)
us, you and me will be dust
100 billion of mine, yours, money paying so they who are lucky or rich enough to be in the bunker can live for maybe a few months ..........................................Hmmmmmmm

Very dramatic, but you are missing the point. The fact that you have it and a potential adversary knows it, means that you will not be pushing the red button. Over 40 years of the Cold War this worked well. Of course a world without weapons is desirable, but they have been invented and cannot be dis-invented.

 

[BigGully]

question
where exactly will you be if the red button is pushed
the government
all the royals
all the very rich will be in bunkers (to die later from radiation sickness)
us, you and me will be dust
100 billion of mine, yours, money paying so they who are lucky or rich enough to be in the bunker can live for maybe a few months ..........................................Hmmmmmmm

The point is, that if you have it then you are unlikely to be a target.

It seems that you appreciate the utter devastation of any nuclear attack, but then struggle to grasp the deterrent aspect of it, which I find strange.

 

[glasfryn]

Very dramatic, but you are missing the point. The fact that you have it and a potential adversary knows it, means that you will not be pushing the red button. Over 40 years of the Cold War this worked well. Of course a world without weapons is desirable, but they have been invented and cannot be dis-invented.

most if not all potential adversaries have far more nuclear weapons than we will ever have, we are as I have said before just the early warning for the USA, the wasteland in front of the house.
if anyone starts a nuclear war it will be the yanks to try and protect their own, and once started this planet will look a little like Mars, flat and unliveable with no life on it at all (other than cockroaches)
+ 100 billion will buy a lot of welfare for us NOW

 

[glasfryn]

The point is, that if you have it then you are unlikely to be a target.

It seems that you appreciate the utter devastation of any nuclear attack, but then struggle to grasp the deterrent aspect of it, which I find strange.

the point is we will all die anyway

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

most if not all potential adversaries have far more nuclear weapons than we will ever have, we are as I have said before just the early warning for the USA, the wasteland in front of the house.
if anyone starts a nuclear war it will be the yanks to try and protect their own, and once started this planet will look a little like Mars, flat and unliveable with no life on it at all (other than cockroaches)
+ 100 billion will buy a lot of welfare for us NOW

The mad kremlin crook has 'far more' than us, but no other countries do unless you view the USA as a potential adversary.

 

[glasfryn]

The mad kremlin crook has 'far more' than us, but no other countries do unless you view the USA as a potential adversary.

do you think the USA will give a flying **** about us we are the first line of their defence and if they are ever attacked we will be in the crossfire as I said wasteland in their front garden ............bit like it was in the second world war

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

do you think the USA will give a flying **** about us we are the first line of their defence and if they are ever attacked we will be in the crossfire as I said wasteland in their front garden ............bit like it was in the second world war

I have no idea, and cannot judge how likely that actually is.

 

[beorhthelm]

+ 100 billion will buy a lot of welfare for us NOW

no it wouldn't, the costs of Trident you note are a projection over its entire 30 year life time. it might therefore be said to buy a bit of welfare in the future. for reference, over the same period welfare will cost £3300bn, assuming no increase.

 

[Hastings gull]

most if not all potential adversaries have far more nuclear weapons than we will ever have, we are as I have said before just the early warning for the USA, the wasteland in front of the house.
if anyone starts a nuclear war it will be the yanks to try and protect their own, and once started this planet will look a little like Mars, flat and unliveable with no life on it at all (other than cockroaches)
+ 100 billion will buy a lot of welfare for us NOW

That is true but I am not sure how relevant that is to the deterrent factor, which is the point here. Again, all very dramatic, but extremely unlikely, given that it IS a deterrent. Yes, 100 billion (albeit spread over many years) will buy welfare etc, but then so would cutting out unnecessary benefits/ tacking fraud and waste/scrapping HS2/ and any other pet hates that you have. It is rather simplistic.

 

[Bold Seagull]

That is true but I am not sure how relevant that is to the deterrent factor, which is the point here. Again, all very dramatic, but extremely unlikely, given that it IS a deterrent. Yes, 100 billion (albeit spread over many years) will buy welfare etc, but then so would cutting out unnecessary benefits/ tacking fraud and waste/scrapping HS2/ and any other pet hates that you have. It is rather simplistic.

I could dig them out, but key American defence staff and some diplomats have been on record as saying that if they had to make a preference, they would actually like to see the UK have a better equipped military force, lets say 50% of the Trident expenditure goes on our armed forces over the same period as Trident, than the UK maintain a nuclear deterrent they struggle to afford.

You have to remember that we have severely cut the public spending on our actual armed forces and defence, a force that has been criticised over the last decade of already being under equipped. If we are focussing on the defence of our realm, is a nuclear deterrent the most critical thing, or should we actually be scrapping that in favour of actually better spending on our troops and their equipment for our actual defence?

 

[BLOCK F]

question
where exactly will you be if the red button is pushed
the government
all the royals
all the very rich will be in bunkers (to die later from radiation sickness)
us, you and me will be dust
100 billion of mine, yours, money paying so they who are lucky or rich enough to be in the bunker can live for maybe a few months ..........................................Hmmmmmmm

We used to say in a previous local pub of mine..............let's all gather down in the beer cellar and get pissed together. If it is a false alarm, at least we would have had a good drink and would only suffer a hangover. If it was for real, it doesn't really matter, we'll all be gonners,anyway!

 

[Hastings gull]

I could dig them out, but key American defence staff and some diplomats have been on record as saying that if they had to make a preference, they would actually like to see the UK have a better equipped military force, lets say 50% of the Trident expenditure goes on our armed forces over the same period as Trident, than the UK maintain a nuclear deterrent they struggle to afford. You have to remember that we have severely cut the public spending on our actual armed forces and defence, a force that has been criticised over the last decade of already being under equipped. If we are focussing on the defence of our realm, is a nuclear deterrent the most critical thing, or should we actually be scrapping that in favour of actually better spending on our troops and their equipment for our actual defence?

I do remember -I worked with the Army for 25 years in Germany! It is a very difficult question to answer and there is indeed no easy answer. You could clearly argue for both! I have to say, I don't understand the logic of what you write - if 50% is diverted, then what happens to Trident? Do we half a trident, or is it then a case of just one sub? And since we are going ahead with Trident, then presumably we are not struggling to afford it? And of course, one assumes that the 50% saving actually goes to the military and is not diverted on the way to some politician's then current obsession.

 

[BigGully]

the point is we will all die anyway

Are you kidding me

Thats why it has never been used and that is the deterrent bit !!

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

This debate has stagnated. It emerges that nukes are a 'deterrent' only to other nuclear-armed states. Fancy that! Everyone else can live their lives in peace, with no need for such mad 'deterrence' capabilities - Switzerland, South Africa, Australia... Brazil.... and the other 180+ countries all living without the benefit of their own, independent (ha!) £100 billion worth of queasy reassurance.

How can people in all those countries live their lives in such ignorant bliss, while we dwindling members of this mad nuclear 1901 Club are obliged to pour ever-increasing countless £billions into our totally-essential 'deterrence' black-hole?

Should we be warning those other countries, tell them of their mortal danger? Or should they be telling us, and suggesting a solution to our nuclear dilemma that's entirely logical. Get rid.

 

[Hastings gull]

This debate has stagnated. It emerges that nukes are a 'deterrent' only to other nuclear-armed states. Fancy that! Everyone else can live their lives in peace, with no need for such mad 'deterrence' capabilities - Switzerland, South Africa, Australia... Brazil.... and the other 180+ countries all living without the benefit of their own, independent (ha!) £100 billion worth of queasy reassurance.

How can people in all those countries live their lives in such ignorant bliss, while we dwindling members of this mad nuclear 1901 Club are obliged to pour ever-increasing countless £billions into our totally-essential 'deterrence' black-hole?

Should we be warning those other countries, tell them of their mortal danger? Or should they be telling us, and suggesting a solution to our nuclear dilemma that's entirely logical. Get rid.[/QUOTE]

But we also live our lives in peace, don't we? That is the success of the deterrent factor. And over the years, the countries acquiring theses weapons has actually increased, has it not? Yes, ideally we should get rid, but is it really that simple? I am sure that you cannot be that idealistic.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Apologies if this question is childlike or simplistic, but IF nuclear weapons are purely a deterrent, and IF ONE single warhead is capable of flattening Moscow or Beijing, why do we need to spend billions maintaining 225 of the things??

 

[Hastings gull]

Apologies if this question is childlike or simplistic, but IF nuclear weapons are purely a deterrent, and IF ONE single warhead is capable of flattening Moscow or Beijing, why do we need to spend billions maintaining 225 of the things??

Yes, put like that, it is weird. Presumably you need to flatten loads of Moscows in any one country! Perhaps someone can enlighten us?

 

[glasfryn]

That is true but I am not sure how relevant that is to the deterrent factor, which is the point here. Again, all very dramatic, but extremely unlikely, given that it IS a deterrent. Yes, 100 billion (albeit spread over many years) will buy welfare etc, but then so would cutting out unnecessary benefits/ tacking fraud and waste/scrapping HS2/ and any other pet hates that you have. It is rather simplistic.

you know me so well
simplistic it may be but why make it all complicated, and why stick a target on your back

 

[Becktheman]

In comparison to Ukraine, who gave them back to Russia in return for Ukrainian territorial integrity in Crimea. THAT WENT WELL.

If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, there is zero chance Putin would have invaded.

Very well said.