Question Time

[Bry Nylon]

... you buffoon.

...You numbskull.

Getting a bit nasty on here tonight.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Yes. Thanks for the personal insult.

You can agree with one policy whilst disagreeing with another.

You numbskull.

So you do not think that NATO is stronger as a body of many?

 

[crookie]

So according to Ms Church we should asdk the Syrian people who they want us to bomb. Would that be those under the rule of ISIS, or those under the rule of Assad?
I'm sure Assad and ISIL will hand out the ballot papers for us !!

 

[beorhthelm]

All under the umbrella of NATO you buffoon.

so... its NATO not Trident that protects those nations. im not anti, but find this Ukraine argument a fairly weak one, they didnt get invaded due to lack of nuclear weapons, they got invaded due to ethnic and historic reasons and proximity.

 

[BadFish]

All under the umbrella of NATO you buffoon.

So there is some protection from other countries then?

 

[wellquickwoody]

Getting a bit nasty on here tonight.

Probably get banned for that level of insults soon. Wouldn't happen in Germany, or 10 years ago on NSC.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Yep. Look at Germany, Spain, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Canada...etc. All under Russian occupation. All lacking in any support or protection from anyone else.

Nine countries have nuclear weapons. Nine. Let's make it eight.

But that completely misses the central point that if Ukraine hadn't given up it's nukes in return for the ( worthless ) Budapest Memorandum, then the Crook in the Kremlin wouldn't have risked an invasion.

 

[Machiavelli]

So according to Ms Church we should asdk the Syrian people who they want us to bomb. Would that be those under the rule of ISIS, or those under the rule of Assad? Very polarised answers I would imagine.

Alternatively we could blame climate change? Well done Charlotte

Not her most impressive moment. But what would you blame climate change for?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Who the HELL booked Charlotte Church? Talking total beans.

 

[wellquickwoody]

So there is some protection from other countries then?

Obviously there is, but the non proliferation treaty allows these nations to obtain that protection whilst not investing in the same technology. Do you suggest that ALL in NATO give that advantage away, leading to Russia, USA, China and Israel having the ace cards?

 

[Machiavelli]

So you do not think that NATO is stronger as a body of many?

NATO came into being pretty much at the same time as the United Nations. The continued existence of the former continues to undermine the efficacy of the latter. The ineffectiveness of the latter continues to sew the malaise that spreads throughout the globe.
And that "questioner" who no doubt went to school with Cameron and Charles Moore is ever so keen to continue this malaise.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

so... its NATO not Trident that protects those nations. im not anti, but find this Ukraine argument a fairly weak one, they didnt get invaded due to lack of nuclear weapons, they got invaded due to ethnic and historic reasons and proximity.

2 separate issues.

The reason for Vlad's invasion was because he didn't want the example of a kleptocrat being kicked out of office forming an example to the russian people that they could kick out their own crook in charge.

The giving up of the nukes didn't cause the invasion, they just were no longer there to prevent it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

So you do not think that NATO is stronger as a body of many?

Did I say that?

I think that us having nuclear weapons is a monumental waste of money, given that we wouldn't be in control of when they were used. Only four countries have deployed nuclear warheads, and we are one of these. We should be at the forefront of a World movement towards peace. Certainly towards nuclear disarmament.

 

[Pavilionaire]

In my mind Dimbleby is going to ask the audience for a show of hands on who wants to see a Leanne Wood / Charlotte Church lezz-up.

 

[Machiavelli]

2 separate issues.

The reason for Vlad's invasion was because he didn't want the example of a kleptocrat being kicked out of office forming an example to the russian people that they could kick out their own crook in charge.

The giving up of the nukes didn't cause the invasion, they just were no longer there to prevent it.

Somehow I'm not convinced that nuclear weapons were designed to be dropped on neighbouring countries.

 

[Beach Hut]

You are rambling Charlotte.

Planet Church, totally talking rubbish

 

[BadFish]

Obviously there is, but the non proliferation treaty allows these nations to obtain that protection whilst not investing in the same technology. Do you suggest that ALL in NATO give that advantage away, leading to Russia, USA, China and Israel having the ace cards?

I was just taking issue with the idea that if the UK don't have nukes then they won't have the protection of NATO (as was suggested). It is clearly inaccurate given the examples given.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Did I say that?

I think that us having nuclear weapons is a monumental waste of money, given that we wouldn't be in control of when they were used. Only four countries have deployed nuclear warheads, and we are one of these. We should be at the forefront of a World movement towards peace. Certainly towards nuclear disarmament.

As someone who lived through the Cuban missile crisis, & have worked with nuclear submarines, I am very happy that we have a nuclear deterrent. We wouldn't use the missiles in a pre-emptive strike, but they do give protection from being attacked. We have a four minute warning system which is plenty of time to retaliate, so therefore, keeps the attacking force at bay, knowing they would be wiped out too.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I was just taking issue with the idea that if the UK don't have nukes then they won't have the protection of NATO (as was suggested). It is clearly inaccurate given the examples given.

We would have the protection of a weakened NATO.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Somehow I'm not convinced that nuclear weapons were designed to be dropped on neighbouring countries.

Cuba & the USA were neighbours.