That's so ignorant and obtuse it's barely worth a reply.
I'll simply ask, what if he targets a NATO nation?
General Election 2024
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
- Status
That's so ignorant and obtuse it's barely worth a reply.
I'll simply ask, what if he targets a NATO nation?
Boomers didn't live through WW2, by definition
<- look how modern this smiley is, truly we're in the 21st century.Rodwell dropped so I'm excited to see how the Starmer haters in here spin this as a negative.
Boomers didn't live through WW2, by definition
As a member of Nato, we can't be attacked without retaliation by other Nato countries, its enshrined in the treaty itself.
A nuke from any state aimed at us will be met by a response from the US anyway, trident is largely irrelevant in terms of geopolitics.
Its why Germany can sit right on the border of where Russia would like to expand to and have no nuclear weapons. They have them via nato.
Trident is more about power projection, you don;t get a permanent seat on the security council if you are not a nuclear power.
I'm not sure we can can claim that with any confidence. It only happened once (twice if you count PRC, which only took over China's spot from from the ROC), and only one country had nukes at that point.
I find it baffling that people are so confident in the US retaliating on their behalf, risking retaliation against themselves in turn. Hopefully we'll never know, but I don't think it goes without saying that a nuclear attack against London would be answered in kind by the US against Moscow.
One might worry a little bit about what would happen if a complete loon got to run the US then. I'm not counting Trump surprisingly, I think he's quite cowardly and will do what his military tells him, but his electorate seem to be easily fooled, who knows what the future of the US is?
Do you watch any of the news coming out of the US? Trident would become very relevant indeed if the US under trump, decided not to back NATO.
If the US leaves NATO, I'd be worried for germany given its location.
But us? It would make it less likely that we would end up in a situation with russia or china. Putin's power base is the oligarchs, and they own half of london between them, nuking billions of rubles would require some major provocation by us.
China are building our new nuclear power stations, via a french company, so if they are a threat, we are already compromised.
I'd be worried if I was Germany too. After all, they couldn't rely on us to assist as we would have to worry that defending an ally may constitute a 'major provocation' On the second point, the possibility of already being compromised does not negate the requirement for a deterrent.
Just what a political party should be trying to do while trying to convince the sceptical public that they aren't a risk, enter into discussions about the game theory ramifications of nuclear disarmament and how we'll probably be ok because Germany will get it and we're owned by Russians
So it's a "First they came for the germans" kind of scenario.
A big problem with deterrents is that when they are working people forget why do we have them in the first place.
Labour, Conservatives, Liberals and Reform all want to keep the deterrent so I can't see it being much of an issue in this election. The Greens don't, which I respect, but nobody seems to be arguing for them even on the caf, apart from one or two 'I'll vote for them as a last resort' comments here and there.
Yes but the perfect centrist poster in this thread suggested Labour should advocate for it, as they have a 20 point lead so what could go wrong.
Thats kind of the point I am making. Trident wouldn't be a deterrent in that scenario either. It is the MAD strategy that works. There is no mutually assured destruction for Russia with Trident, not enough of them. A truly deranged russian leader could decide they have a reasonable chance of surviving.
But we would not.
That's a good point.
Some time back, President Regan was thought to have made something of a 'gaff' when he inadvertently in public referred to the "European Nuclear Theatre (of War). This supposedly inadvertent comment led a number of conspiracy groups/people to speculate that somewhere in the US Pentagon, there were plans that in the event of the 'cold war' becoming a 'hot war' and nuclear hostilities breaking out, between the the US and the USSR, the European Theatre could become 'piggy-in-the-middle' and could ultimately be sacrificed.
This conspiracy also extended to assume that the USSR was thought to have similar contingencies and the Baltic and Eastern states (including Ukraine) would provide their 'buffer' for mother Russia.
Of course NATO did not respond openly to such conspiracy theories, but did nevertheless (on a regular basis) continue to specify that an attack on one was an attack on all. This allowed the British to continue to want its own nuclear deterrent, Trident, based in submarines, perpetually at sea, and (in theory) be able to retaliate independently of whether the US did or not.
Of course these days the 'buffer' for Russia is greatly reduced and it was thought the concept of a nuclear confrontation between the super powers, with Europe being the fall guy, was much less likely. However since Putin invaded Ukraine things are looking different, nuclear war is still a very low risk , despite the 'sabre-rattling' from Putin. However, any or all plans that may or may not have existed in NATO will no doubt have to be dusted down and reviewed.
Nobody has put that to the test. Would the US really start a nuclear war if Russia had a pop at e.g Latvia?
We need our own deterrent and Ukraine has shut even the most batshit fringe elements up on that one. Germany has a deterrent, US munitions that can be delivered by their own aircraft.
I was thinking, has anyone asked Farage yet if he "changed his mind" because Trump got convicted? He thinks that's a complete lost cause now and hence we get this clown show?
Council leader will not be Labour candidate for Barking, say sources
Darren Rodwell will not be on party’s 650-strong list of candidates after series of allegations about his behaviour
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-be-labour-candidate-for-barking-say-sources
Darren Rodwell, the controversial leader of Barking and Dagenham council, will not be confirmed by Labour on Tuesday as the party’s local parliamentary candidate after a series of allegations about his behaviour.
Labour sources told the Guardian Rodwell’s name was not on a list of 650 candidates to be approved by the party’s ruling council during a meeting on Tuesday afternoon, with party bosses still to decide who will stand in the east London seat.
Rodwell, who is white, has come under fire for a number of comments he has made in the past, including once joking he had “the worst tan possible for a black man”.
He was previously approved as a candidate by the party’s national executive committee (NEC) after apologising for those remarks. But earlier this week the Independent revealed he was being investigated for alleged sexual harassment, after a woman complained he had touched her hands and legs in an inappropriate way.
Darren Rodwell will not be on party’s 650-strong list of candidates after series of allegations about his behaviour
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-be-labour-candidate-for-barking-say-sources
Darren Rodwell, the controversial leader of Barking and Dagenham council, will not be confirmed by Labour on Tuesday as the party’s local parliamentary candidate after a series of allegations about his behaviour.
Labour sources told the Guardian Rodwell’s name was not on a list of 650 candidates to be approved by the party’s ruling council during a meeting on Tuesday afternoon, with party bosses still to decide who will stand in the east London seat.
Rodwell, who is white, has come under fire for a number of comments he has made in the past, including once joking he had “the worst tan possible for a black man”.
He was previously approved as a candidate by the party’s national executive committee (NEC) after apologising for those remarks. But earlier this week the Independent revealed he was being investigated for alleged sexual harassment, after a woman complained he had touched her hands and legs in an inappropriate way.
So you are arguing that the potential destruction of 200 major Russian cities isn't a deterrent? Not sure I agree with that.
The US leaving NATO would be incredibly destabilising. And you think it would make us more secure?
BBC Politics exluding the Libdems, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru from the debates is a really bad move.
What is this nukes debate? 
I hadn't heard about that, but makes a lot of sense, cheers.
I'd hope we could use our experience to help a bit, rather than let another generation slide into all this bullshit.
Of course Reform gets a platform? Typical
Just realised how similar the nuclear arms debate is to the gun control one in the US.
We would become a lower priority target than say Germany, which has strategic advantages. Not more secure, but less likely to be bombed.
It is all theoretical anyway, no political party wanting to win an election can say they are abandoning trident, they have not since we got nuclear weapons, and they will not in the future.
I was just pointing out its usefulness really doesn't justify the cost, especially in a country where kids are going to bed hungry.
What is this nukes debate?
Some people like to live on a cloud. Let's just disband the army while we're at it, when was the last time we were invaded after all.
Iceland doesn't have an army and they beat England in the Euros. Get it up yi.
Yeah but we win on paper at least.
I wouldn't underestimate him or his popularity across large swathes of the UK. He could absolutely win enough seats for a Conservative government
Anyone voting for this cnut in Clacton can feck right off.
Throwing beer or -insert other drink- here always looks like a fun idea and don't mind people like Farage getting splashed with it but also feels like a bit of a silly way to get a record when you do it so brazenly.
What is this nukes debate?
It only started as the resident canvassers started arguing it was fine for Rayner, Lammy and the rest to do a complete U-turn. As if everyone in the country has the memory of a goldfish.
I think a more interesting question is because it can't fall back on unprovable clichés, do we have enough nukes to be a deterrent?
Delightful timing
- Status