It's what led to the deliciously insane idea of building the ballistic subs and then not arming them with anything.Ah, of course...
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Which 29% of the country support, for some reason.
Off topic and unfair to single you out Dobba, but I do detest all this narrative bollocks. It's always the other lot that has a narrative, never us. Narratives are what bad people have. We on the other hand can be nuanced now apparently, that works the other way, we're nuanced, but they aren't.
Anyway, sorry about that, to address your point, I don't think Corbyn is a weak leader at all, he's continually strengthened his position within the party, which is what you would expect an effective leader to do. My problem is that I can't trust what it is the party actually wants. Normally I would look at the manifesto to see if I preferred it to the others, but when a manifesto says one thing and the party leader wants another, over such huge topics as brexit and defence, then which do I believe?
Yeah, Brown deserves a lot of credit for that one. I think Blair decided early on that Brown had a better grasp of economics than himself, and would defer to him where they differed. Which is to Blair's credit as a leader too I suppose, but of course it's deeply unfashionable at the moment to complement either of them.
Brown deserves some; ironically Murdoch (probably) deserves a lot too. Word is Blair was told he could have the Euro or Murdoch backing him, but not both.
He was a madman. And good reason why we do not want any further proliferation or states like Iran and North Korea having them.
That sidesteps his point though insofar as nukes can only really be relied upon as a deterrent so long as the leaders controlling them regard them in that way. And it's quite conceivable that a state could (at some point) go rogue if someone even more undesirable than what we already have gets into power. Although I do agree only one state having them would create a fairly grim imbalance.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/nor...edly-set-to-announce-official-end-to-war.html
And, yet, now that NK has nukes they get a seat at the big boy table.
And, yet, now that NK has nukes they get a seat at the big boy table.
In the situation regarding Hitler, MAD would probably not have worked. That doesn't mean that MAD is useless. The problem is these things are here, now, thousands of them and while they are, and while the world is like it is, MAD is the only game in town. I don't want the bloody things anymore than you. We have massive divides in the world, economical, ideological and most dangerous of all, religious. There are belief systems that are so engrained that it is impossible to change them. That's fine if they want to find a corner of the planet to live them out in isolation but they don't do they? They tool up, threaten their neighbours or they embarked on campaigns to convert the whole planet to their way life. We cannot allow this and so John Lennon is going to have to Imagine a bit longer I'm afraid.
I do (largely) agree with a lot of what you're saying, but we do probably put more faith in MAD than we ideally should. It only really works until it doesn't, at which point all bets are off.
MAD only needs to fail once. Once you acknowledge that it can fail, you have to acknowledge that it will fail.
It is possible but while we are still trying to settle our differences regarding how the world should run, who owns what and which is the true God all we can do is minimise the probability of anything happening.
To an extent it did work, in that Hitler never used chemical weapons. Whether that was solely because Britain managed to convince him we had a lead on the subject (when we hadn't) or whether the memory of his time as a Great War infantryman was too strong we don't know.
I was reading about this yesterday actually - the article I read said it was because of personal memory of gas in war (obviously he had no problems using gas in his camps) - and also that the Nazis used chemical weapons against soldiers in Odessa and Sevastapol (USSR's sourthern coast which was resisting heavily).
yes, by not nuking anyone
It's terrible but I'd forgotten about zyklon B, and didn't know about use in Crimea. I suppose Hitler knew the Jews and the Russians didn't have such weapons themselves though, which might strengthen the point, maybe.
I think that's fine by us.
You wouldn't nuke anyone? You coward.
Not unless they tried to nuke me which they would only do, if I didn't have any nukes.
Do you keep your nuke in the fridge at home, or do you find it safer in the garage?
Are you grateful that no nuclear bomb has been used in anger for 73 years?
Can't be right. Surely all the countries that don't have nukes have been repeatedly hit by those who do?
See, Jeremy, you can use nukes to save hostages
Previous page, Silva.
See, Jeremy, you can use nukes to save hostages
''Sensible tory''
Nope. Incredible isn’t it. Something must be working.
See, Jeremy, you can use nukes to save hostages
I feel like the point Dan Hodges became a political commentator was the point the country should have just given up.
You’re all focusing on the nuclear warheads extreme scenario but the point may still stand. If another 7/7 style attack (or an even bigger attack) happened in Britain by the likes of ISIS, would Corbyn be willing to go a military route or would he only be willing to open a dialogue with terrorists? I’m not sure what the answer is but if it’s latter, I can definitely see why people wouldn’t want him in power.
The military route with terrorists? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Maybe not in some cases. But Corbyn wipes the whole idea of a military route with anyone, in any circumstance off the table. He thinks the worlds ills can all be settled by talking and UN peacekeepers. Tell that to the Rwandans.
Woke Soubz, favourite of the centrist.
What the countries without nukes have a different sort of deterrent from the one you were heralding as the only reason we haven't been nuked yet?
The protection of those that do.
The military route against terrorism has only led to more terrorism.
Yes. This is the principle of MAD
So they're both protected by and entirely under threat from nuke holding nations.
So we give any group, faction or freedom fighters anything they want - no questions asked. Does that include ISIS?
the problem is that we haven't been asking questions to begin with, the manchester bomber and his father were paid by the UK government to go to Lybia, kill people as members of a terrorist organisation and we're surprised when he comes back and kills people here, it's an untenable policy and needs to get fecked