Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Can’t remember who it was that suggested that the nuclear codes should be surgically implanted in the heart of one of the PM’s most loyal assistants, with a carving knife locked in a glass cabinet in his/her office. If they ever needed to press the button the PM should be forced to slice open their chest and rip out the still beating heart. By literally having someone’s blood on their hands it would make them think a little harder about the amount of people that would also die when they start launching nuclear bombs. Kind of a cool idea. Can’t imagine poor ‘aul Jezza coping too well in this scenario.

EDIT: woah, posted before I read that post from @Silva
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Can’t remember who it was that suggested that the nuclear codes should be surgically implanted in the heart of one of the PM’s most loyal assistants, with a carving knife locked in a glass cabinet in his/her office. If they ever needed to press the button the PM should be forced to slice open their chest and rip out the still beating heart. By literally having someone’s blood on their hands it would make them think a little harder about the amount of people that would also die when they start launching nuclear bombs. Kind of a cool idea. Can’t imagine poor ‘aul Jezza coping too well in this scenario.

EDIT: woah, posted before I read that post from @Silva
Click to expand...

That’s brilliant.
 
Honest John said:
The use of force should be proportional. But a Prime Minister (of whatever party) should be prepared to take such action when necessary. Sometimes, for the sake of our forces that action may need to be rapid and not hindered by long drawn-out and inconclusive debate. Jeremy Corbyn is a pacifist and does not have the ability to make those kind of calls. Therefore he should resign.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Can’t remember who it was that suggested that the nuclear codes should be surgically implanted in the heart of one of the PM’s most loyal assistants, with a carving knife locked in a glass cabinet in his/her office. If they ever needed to press the button the PM should be forced to slice open their chest and rip out the still beating heart. By literally having someone’s blood on their hands it would make them think a little harder about the amount of people that would also die when they start launching nuclear bombs. Kind of a cool idea. Can’t imagine poor ‘aul Jezza coping too well in this scenario.

EDIT: woah, posted before I read that post from @Silva
Click to expand...
Most of the conservative party would try to stab their assistant with the handle end
 
I hope there would be one such person among the nuclear forces. Interesting scenario, just die, or die but kill them as well (and the rest of the world probably)?
 
Silva said:
What good is a world where we don't have the biggest dick? Better just kill everyone.
Click to expand...
Look the fact of the matter is that these weapons are here - in their thousands. Of course it would be wonderful if we could all end up like Switzerland. But it isn't like that. The problem with Social Democracy is that it doesn't take account of human nature. Live and let live in this era is, unfortunately not a practical solution. There are too may people on this planet that want to aggressively impose their world view on everyone else. So, until we reach Nirvana we need to retain the ability and will to defend ourselves.
 
Silva said:
good point, let's nuke Jacob Reas-Mogg
Click to expand...

I happened to watch A Little bit of Fry and Laurie the other day and in one of the first episodes there's a sketch dedicated to Reas-Mogg senior. Very unnerving how much of thier comedy relates to today.

Anyway the idea that any power would ignore our nuclear deterrent because they weren't sure Corbyn would use it is hillarious, can you imaginethat discussion. If we'r going to be ridiculous lets say May can't be in charge as the sexist nations out there will never fear a woman!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Can’t remember who it was that suggested that the nuclear codes should be surgically implanted in the heart of one of the PM’s most loyal assistants, with a carving knife locked in a glass cabinet in his/her office. If they ever needed to press the button the PM should be forced to slice open their chest and rip out the still beating heart. By literally having someone’s blood on their hands it would make them think a little harder about the amount of people that would also die when they start launching nuclear bombs. Kind of a cool idea. Can’t imagine poor ‘aul Jezza coping too well in this scenario.

EDIT: woah, posted before I read that post from @Silva
Click to expand...

His teenage years involved some farm work, so he *might* manage it.
That said, he became a vegetarian afterwards :lol: <3

Silva said:
If you really think about it, Stanislav Petrov is the biggest coward on the planet, how dare he not kill us all when he was told nukes were raining on the USSR.
Click to expand...

:lol:
Sheer unwillingness to defend his citizens
 
Smores said:
I happened to watch A Little bit of Fry and Laurie the other day and in one of the first episodes there's a sketch dedicated to Reas-Mogg senior. Very unnerving how much of thier comedy relates to today.

Anyway the idea that any power would ignore our nuclear deterrent because they weren't sure Corbyn would use it is hillarious, can you imaginethat discussion. If we'r going to be ridiculous lets say May can't be in charge as the sexist nations out there will never fear a woman!
Click to expand...
That is not the point here. It is that Corbyn would not be able to take office as PM of this country with the full commitment that he would be prepared to defend it using whatever means necessary in the circumstances. That is fundamentally wrong.
 
Honest John said:
That is not the point here. It is that Corbyn would not be able to take office as PM of this country with the full commitment that he would be prepared to defend it using whatever means necessary in the circumstances. That is fundamentally wrong.
Click to expand...

Does whatever means necessary include chemical weapons? :nervous:
 
Smores said:
Does whatever means necessary include chemical weapons? :nervous:
Click to expand...

If they were used on us and there was massive loss of life then I would advocate a proportional response. Which does not necessarily mean that we would respond using the same weapons.
 
ruqz9ob4ngs01.png
 
Silva said:
i don't think you understand how mutually assured destruction works
Click to expand...
Mutually assured destruction is the notion that if one side strikes first the other side will launch an overwhelming response.

It is a deterrent from making a first strike.

But no such deterrent will exist if only one State has them as was the case in 1945 and so they were used.

Getting rid of them will take decades, even centuries and more importantly political will. This will not happen while we are all at one another's throats. (as we have been for thousands of years) And especially while there are those who harbour religious or ideological views that the world should be run according to their beliefs.
 
Honest John said:
Mutually assured destruction is the notion that if one side strikes first the other side will launch an overwhelming response.

It is a deterrent from making a first strike.

But no such deterrent will exist if only one State has them as was the case in 1945 and so they were used.

Getting rid of them will take decades, even centuries and more importantly political will. This will not happen while we are all at one another's throats. (as we have been for thousands of years) And especially while there are those who harbour religious or ideological views that the world should be run according to their beliefs.
Click to expand...
this is a good argument for pacifism
 
Nuclear weapons is just another issue that highlights Corbyn's dishonesty. Everyone knows he doesn't want them, but he twists and turns rather than admit it and stand honestly on a platform of scrapping Trident and not replacing it.
 
712 said:
Nuclear weapons is just another issue that highlights Corbyn's dishonesty. Everyone knows he doesn't want them, but he twists and turns rather than admit it and stand honestly on a platform of scrapping Trident and not replacing it.
Click to expand...
he's consistently said he would scrap trident if it was just up to him
 
712 said:
Nuclear weapons is just another issue that highlights Corbyn's dishonesty. Everyone knows he doesn't want them, but he twists and turns rather than admit it and stand honestly on a platform of scrapping Trident and not replacing it.
Click to expand...

Surely it's not that and him just admitting there isn't the will for it within the parliamentary party and that he doesn't have the power to remove them? Similar to his stance on the monarchy - I feel like he can't be criticised for being too hardline and single-minded but then also be criticised when he compromises. All party leaders/PM's compromise on certain policies they know they can't enact; Blair with the Euro being a prime example.
 
Honest John said:
But no such deterrent will exist if only one State has them as was the case in 1945 and so they were used.
Click to expand...

Do you really think MAD would have stopped Hitler, in the last days in his bunker, from unleashing the nukes which he had wanted for a pretty long while?
 
Cheesy said:
Surely it's not that and him just admitting there isn't the will for it within the parliamentary party and that he doesn't have the power to remove them? Similar to his stance on the monarchy - I feel like he can't be criticised for being too hardline and single-minded but then also be criticised when he compromises. All party leaders/PM's compromise on certain policies they know they can't enact; Blair with the Euro being a prime example.
Click to expand...
It's more about the unions than the PLP.
 
Cheesy said:
Surely it's not that and him just admitting there isn't the will for it within the parliamentary party and that he doesn't have the power to remove them? Similar to his stance on the monarchy - I feel like he can't be criticised for being too hardline and single-minded but then also be criticised when he compromises. All party leaders/PM's compromise on certain policies they know they can't enact; Blair with the Euro being a prime example.
Click to expand...
It's exactly that, but admitting it would ruin their narrative that he's a pseudo-dictator within Labour, with the help of Momentum. So instead he's simultaneously a weak leader and almost singlehandedly ruling Labour.
 
Ubik said:
It's more about the unions than the PLP.
Click to expand...

Ah, interesting. I'd have always thought the unions would've been a bit more left-leaning and more likely to be anti-trident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.