Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Theresa May calls General Election for June 8


Still Waters
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Torchwood said:

Heres a question I've been pondering for a few days , its a bit of a tangent , but bear with me;

 

In all the interview he's done Corbyn in GE2017 has been asked about his connections with the IRA and to a lesser extent about his opinions on the Falklands war. Some interviews were about almost nothing else.  Now, its certainly not wrong to ask the question, though perhaps some of the time given to it would have been better spent on other questions, as it was other subjects were hardly touched, which to my mind is a wasted opportunity!

So my question is this- How Relevant are the Falklands War and the IRA/Troubles in NI to todays voters?  

And this is where my question comes from- I am 34 years old.

I Don't remember the Falklands war because it was the year before I was born. I have studied it since because of my studies in British Military History but thats by the by, I have no actual memory of it, all my knowledge is basically second hand on this subject.  

I can just about remember the IRA - I recall seeing men in balaclavas on the telly when I was young, but I don't recall being aware of what was going on or their significance. The Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, so I was 15. I have slightly clearer memories of that, but most of what I remember is that bloke with a beard and a funny accent being on the telly a lot (well it was a funny accent to me and my school mates, we hadn't met many people with an Irish accent in rural England at that age.) Looking back I now know that for most of the 90's the peace talks were taking place. 

I know the importance or significance of these events now, but only because I've looked them up since, because thats the sort of thing I'm interested in- History! And I have to say when it comes to actually studying stuff like that I must be in a minority.

At work the other day I was discussing the recent interview between Corbyn and Paxman- one young lady aged aprox 24 hadn't seen it and pressed me for details. When I mentioned the Falklands and IRA questions she threw her head back and laughed , and asked if tToryboy Paxman could have found two topics less relevant to 2017.

This was echoed by others present, and it perhaps should be mentioned that in an office of several hundred people I'm one of the older ones, and so this occurred to me:

For at least a Quarter of the Electorate (possibly as much as a third) questions about the IRA and Falklands War are completely and utterly irrelevant, simply because to anyone under the age of 30-35 they are an ancient and forgotten history, so why the emphasis on those topics when interviewing a potential PM?

Discuss.

 

Im also 34, But i have much clear memories of the IRA terrorist bombing Campaign in the UK especially the ones which happened in the mid 1990's to 2001.

Falklands War, the relevance was and is - UK Sovereign territory was invaded by a Foreign military power.

Your personal choice for potential Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn, supported the IRA terrorist group. and condemned the British state in its fight against the IRA. 

On the Falklands, he was against military Action, even though Corbyn wasnt elected until 1983 and the Falklands was 1982. but his views are clear he would have handed over the Falklands to Argentina, and continues to propose a power sharing deal. regardless of the wishes on the Falkland Islanders themselves.

im not surprised either by your Female (age 24) colleagues reaction. when confronted with the Falklands and IRA, and astonishingly she thinks both are completely irrelevant today. nothing sums up the dumbing down of the populace and the, me, me generation than that and similar statements. - I've found similar in my work group in the age range 18 to 30. Its absolutely scary, and we have proponents who want to lower the voting age to 16.

Im amazed as you proclaim to be a student of History and yet your colleagues reaction went over your head. i hope you educate them. but then again i'd call to question your judgement with your support for Crobyn, especially with the knowledge you must have on the man's History. His past alone makes him unsuitable for being a MP let alone Prime minister.  I wouldn't trust him to run a bath never mind the country.

If you think Corbyn and the IRA is all made up by the media, FAKE NEWS, Find where your local Northern Ireland Veterans association group is, and attend their next meeting, go in there and ask them their views on Crobyn, word to the wise don't spout the crap you have on here you wont come out in one piece.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Torchwood said:

Heres a question I've been pondering for a few days , its a bit of a tangent , but bear with me;

 

In all the interview he's done Corbyn in GE2017 has been asked about his connections with the IRA and to a lesser extent about his opinions on the Falklands war. Some interviews were about almost nothing else.  Now, its certainly not wrong to ask the question, though perhaps some of the time given to it would have been better spent on other questions, as it was other subjects were hardly touched, which to my mind is a wasted opportunity!

So my question is this- How Relevant are the Falklands War and the IRA/Troubles in NI to todays voters?  

And this is where my question comes from- I am 34 years old.

I Don't remember the Falklands war because it was the year before I was born. I have studied it since because of my studies in British Military History but thats by the by, I have no actual memory of it, all my knowledge is basically second hand on this subject.  

I can just about remember the IRA - I recall seeing men in balaclavas on the telly when I was young, but I don't recall being aware of what was going on or their significance. The Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, so I was 15. I have slightly clearer memories of that, but most of what I remember is that bloke with a beard and a funny accent being on the telly a lot (well it was a funny accent to me and my school mates, we hadn't met many people with an Irish accent in rural England at that age.) Looking back I now know that for most of the 90's the peace talks were taking place. 

I know the importance or significance of these events now, but only because I've looked them up since, because thats the sort of thing I'm interested in- History! And I have to say when it comes to actually studying stuff like that I must be in a minority.

At work the other day I was discussing the recent interview between Corbyn and Paxman- one young lady aged aprox 24 hadn't seen it and pressed me for details. When I mentioned the Falklands and IRA questions she threw her head back and laughed , and asked if tToryboy Paxman could have found two topics less relevant to 2017.

This was echoed by others present, and it perhaps should be mentioned that in an office of several hundred people I'm one of the older ones, and so this occurred to me:

For at least a Quarter of the Electorate (possibly as much as a third) questions about the IRA and Falklands War are completely and utterly irrelevant, simply because to anyone under the age of 30-35 they are an ancient and forgotten history, so why the emphasis on those topics when interviewing a potential PM?

Discuss.

 

The phrase "A leopard can't change its spots" comes to mind, and Corbyn is one of those guys, who claims to be a pacifist, well he sided with the I.R.A. who were at War with us, so in effect he was directly opposite us.He also had the same problem with the Falklands, and now he wants to give a share of those lands to Argentina, we have Soldiers forever on the Falklands in Cemetaries.  This guy also has been friendly with Hezbollah in the Middle East who are a Terrorist group, He also will not sing (or if he can't sing) say the words of our National Anthem.Can you honestly back a cretin like him to be in charge of our great Country, because if he wins we shall be in real trouble. I'm from a Labour background but changed my attitude after that B-liar chap took us into Iraq against most of the Countries wishes , and lastly I cannot imagine Corbyn standing up to the likes of Putin , Merkel and others who want us to be a bit player in world politics.     

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point of my er, point may have been missed a little.   What I was trying to say was that Issues do seem to have a, for want of a better word , a shelf life.  Some last longer than others of course, but I suspect there will be a day, in some distant future, when even the Holocaust barely warrants a footnote in a history book- the future will always have its own problems.

It is perhaps a thought for another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Torchwood said:

I think the point of my er, point may have been missed a little.   What I was trying to say was that Issues do seem to have a, for want of a better word , a shelf life.  Some last longer than others of course, but I suspect there will be a day, in some distant future, when even the Holocaust barely warrants a footnote in a history book- the future will always have its own problems.

It is perhaps a thought for another thread.

 

I'll try and give you another perspective from someone who's a little older. I'm 45 - not quite from Roman times :P

I was shopping in Manchester just a week before the IRA detonated the largest bomb in Britain since World War II, outside the Arndale Centre in 1996. The fact that Millenials have no understanding of, and readily dismiss such events, especially after the Manchester Arena bombing just two weeks ago, is quite frankly shameful.

 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

George Santayana

 

This is the crux of the problems we have today. I honestly think it's a bigger issue than any other potential religious or political conflict we face in the future. We've bred a generation who have no concept of how the world actually works, that peaceful times haven't been bought with love and hope. They've been bought with the blood and lives of those who fought to give us the freedoms we have today - there's a reason it's called "fighting" for peace.

Millenials rage on social media, and throw around words such as "fascist" and "Nazi" while discussing topics such as Islamophobia, Transgenderism, "safe spaces" on university campusus, and so on. The majority though, don't even know the events of World War II, let alone understand the lessons that should be taken from that period in history.

This is the reason the Western world is seeing a rise in right wing politics across the board. It's the driving force behind Trump being in power in America. It's the driving force behind Brexit, and it'll be the driving force behind other similar events in the coming years.

The lesson we should take from the past, is to understand how such views come to exist, and to find sensible and moderate ways to strike a balance in society between freedom and tolerance. Right now, political correctness is stamping on common sense, and its driving a wedge between generations that will not easily be bridged.

I honestly fear for our future generations. War is going to come to them at some point. I'm not saying this as some evil prophet. This is the way the human race has always worked, and it's the way it likely will always work, especially if people aren't learning lessons from history. It's going to be a shock to the system when these people realize that their enemies aren't going to provide them with "safe spaces."

Before anyone jumps on me *glances at Manfred* ;) for seeing boogeymen in the closet, is there anything in history, or anything in current world affairs that suggests humanity has turned a corner, and that we're all suddenly going to be peace-loving equals, in some sort of utopian global society? Change comes with upheaval, and peace comes at a cost. If anyone has any evidence that this is going to change any time soon, have at it.

This is why I have such disdain for Corbyn. I haven't even considered his history with terrorist groups, shameful though they appear to be. I'm not even assessing the questionable promises he seems to be pulling out of thin air for political issues I'd typically support.

The overriding factor for me is that I fully believe he'll lead a "Millenial crusade" and turn Britain into a nation filled with the kind of headlines that are currently coming out of countries such as Sweden, whether we're in the EU or not.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

George Santayana

So true.

18 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

was shopping in Manchester just a week before the IRA detonated the largest bomb in Britain since World War II, outside the Arndale Centre in 1996. The fact that Millenials have no understanding of, and readily dismiss such events, especially after the Manchester Arena bombing just two weeks ago, is quite frankly shameful.

I remember it being on the news.   But I don't think its so much a case of a readiness to dismiss it, more a lack of memory of it; as you say:

21 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

The majority though, don't even know the events of World War II, let alone understand the lessons that should be taken from that period in history.

but at least it gets a billing in education these days, with regular refreshers from hollywood; does the activities of the IRA? Theres a chap who I go for drinks with occasionally, well into his 90's , who fought in WW2 (Radio operator in a Sherman firefly for those interested). Has some good stories (two sets of slightly different stories depending on who he's taking to!) , doesn't know much as to what was going on at the time, the bigger picture if you will, but was there and knows what it was like to be there, but he is one of a dwindling number who can still tell you what it was like in person. The more it vanishes from "living memory" then the closer WW2 and the Holocaust get to being nothing more than a footnote- I don't think that will happen quickly with WW2, the deaths of so many people tends to stick in the collective memory a bit, and even once there are no more left who remember it 1st hand, there will still be a wealth of 2nd hand knowledge and nostalgia for it- Films and computer games and military models and museums will top up the collective memory , so that tailing off of its relevance will be very slow, but I'm certain it will still happen eventually. Things like this will be more and more common eventually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Cafe .

I suspect this will happen faster with events like the Troubles and the IRA Bombing Campaigns- I don't see people (though there may be a few ) who get nostalgic for those years, I don't see films, or shoot-em-ups on the Playstation glorifying the issues, or people dressing up to reenact it at weekends. My perception is more that people would rather forget, and distance themselves from it. I don't think any of the ex-servicemen I know currently were  in NI (I can't recall them mentioning it) , but I used to know a few that were- they didn't talk about it much, just a couple of anecdotes about close scrapes with unexploded RPG's, and a sense that they didn't think they should have been there, and were keen to put it behind them.

 So it doesn't surprise me, even if it worries me slightly, that those younger than me see less and less relevance in it. If the people that were there were keen to move on, theres nothing to compel anyone else to cling to it.

BTW, My initial post on this subject was actually echoed by one of the political pundits discussing last nights debates on the BBC, so it hasn't gone unnoticed (the issue, not this thread! I can't see the beeb getting the news from us!)

53 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

is there anything in history, or anything in current world affairs that suggests humanity has turned a corner, and that we're all suddenly going to be peace-loving equals, in some sort of utopian global society? Change comes with upheaval, and peace comes at a cost. If anyone has any evidence that this is going to change any time soon, have at it.

Well, there are people (theres at least one book on it IIRC) who say war and associated crimes like violence and rape are decreasing and have been over the centuries (though it doesn't always seem that way because reports of them are on the rise, due to greater willingness and ability to report them) . I'm not 100% convinced- Certainly I'd agree that older societies (by older I mean in terms of the average age) will tend to be less violent, and I think in some parts of the world you're less likely to see warlords conducting war on a local scale like you would in say the 6th century across most of Europe, and like you would still see across large parts of Africa etc but the amount of damage that can be done on an industrial scale probably offsets these.   I do think that more you can educate people and the higher you can get that average age of a society the more peaceful it becomes- doing it on global scale would be some trick. 

But if you had asked me this anywhere between say, the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11 I think you might have gotten a different answer.

1 hour ago, LV-426 said:

Change comes with upheaval, and peace comes at a cost. 

Freedom only takes payment in blood, and requires regular instalments. I don't necessarily agree that a payment is due now, but it is inevitable that it will be one day.  I don't suppose we could set up a Direct Debit?  

1 hour ago, LV-426 said:

This is why I have such disdain for Corbyn.

Then vote for the policies, not the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2017 at 1:49 PM, Ellapennella said:

She's gonna win it !

I hope anyone except Corbyn, the virulent anti-Israel pos wins.  If HE wins then the UK is on its way down, imo.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, and then said:

I hope anyone except Corbyn, the virulent anti-Israel pos wins.  If HE wins then the UK is on its way down, imo.

Why? It would mean that the Uk has a leader who's Soft on Terrorism, is that the angle you're angling towards? [whereas we've all seen how successful the current policy* is.] Or does being sympathetic to the Palis mean that one must be morally bankrupt? 

(* Whatever it is exactly)

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

* have you heard the idiocy of the Tough Questions that Labour's commie leader, Mr. Corbyn, was faced with on Question Time? One of them was he was challenged what would he do if the country was faced with an imminent threat by Nuclear weapons. So this question is envisaging that America's current leader, for the time being at least, Mr. Trump, would have gone through with his threat to dismantle NATO? would this hypothetical imminent attack be just on the UK? And that consequently, not only the US but all other European countries would have reverted into such isolationism and/or hatred of Britain that they'd stand back and let it face an imminent attack by nuclear weapons? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

* have you heard the idiocy of the Tough Questions that Labour's commie leader, Mr. Corbyn, was faced with on Question Time? One of them was he was challenged what would he do if the country was faced with an imminent threat by Nuclear weapons. So this question is envisaging that America's current leader, for the time being at least, Mr. Trump, would have gone through with his threat to dismantle NATO? would this hypothetical imminent attack be just on the UK? And that consequently, not only the US but all other European countries would have reverted into such isolationism and/or hatred of Britain that they'd stand back and let it face an imminent attack by nuclear weapons? 

That whole part was a farce- the audience asked the wrong question , Corbyn gave the wrong answer.

The guy that wanted a first strike commitment is an absolute ***hat.

Corbyn I think was a bit shocked by the number of people demanding nuclear genocide and mucked up his response which should have been:

"I will never order a first strike, you'll never know if I've ordered the second stike"  (or at least pointed out that announcing such matters live on telly is not the best way to keep your intentions hidden from a potential enemy)

Thats the only way you can justify a Nuclear Deterrent - Never tell anyone when you might use it, make sure your foreign policy means you'll never have to use it.

Thank god for the young girl who said the right thing, or I would have lost all faith in humanity.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Torchwood
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corbyn was just farcical in his response to the first strike nuclear option. The question assumes that all of your conventional forces have been eliminated or neutralised and the enemy is massed ready to strike at your heartland. The question was not a first strike before a conventional response, it was would you countenance using theatre-nuclear weapons AFTER all other offensive options had been exhausted.

Corbyn said NO! He would not use - he would rather throw his arms up in the air with a white flag and allow the citizens of this country to suffer at the hands of the invaders, wreaking who knows what terrors on its people.

THAT is a complete derogation of his duties should he ever become PM-the man is an unmitigated "surrender-monkey" and should be nowhere near the powers of Government.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, keithisco said:

Corbyn was just farcical in his response to the first strike nuclear option. The question assumes that all of your conventional forces have been eliminated or neutralised and the enemy is massed ready to strike at your heartland. The question was not a first strike before a conventional response, it was would you countenance using theatre-nuclear weapons AFTER all other offensive options had been exhausted.

Corbyn said NO! He would not use - he would rather throw his arms up in the air with a white flag and allow the citizens of this country to suffer at the hands of the invaders, wreaking who knows what terrors on its people.

THAT is a complete derogation of his duties should he ever become PM-the man is an unmitigated "surrender-monkey" and should be nowhere near the powers of Government.  

The initial question is "If Britain were under threat from imminent nuclear attack, how would you react?"   . The question does not assume ANY of the things you have stated. It does not take into consideration the status of conventional armed forces at all.

Corbyn was exactly right to state he wouldn't shoot first, because that guarantees the annihilation of the UK from the counter strike. There are other, better, options still on the table at that point.   

And if the enemy shoots first then Trident has already FAILED to do its job. 

The only way to protect the UK from Nuclear attack is by making sure you dont put a nuclear power into a position where they have only one choice left open to them- If you launch first, you have failed in that regard, and the deaths of the entire country are on your conscience...though not for long because you will soon be a small pile of ash that glows in the dark.

 

You and the asshats barraging Corbyn at the debate seem to have some idea in your head that in any nuclear exchange that a country can ever win a war that escalates to an exchange of Nuclear Weapons. This is not the case- The current method for the deployment of nuclear weapons is built on the assumption that the PM and everyone else in the chain of command will not live long enough to actually give the order to fire , so the Submarine commanders must use their own initiative to decide on their course of action, once they realise that we are all already dead!

 

Edited by Torchwood
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Torchwood said:

Then vote for the policies, not the people.

Why?

I don't particularly believe anything any of them are telling me, so all I have to go on is their past actions as individuals and groups, and reading between the lines.

They're all pretty much the same. They tell us what we want to hear rather than the truth. They spin issues to be presented in their most positive or negative light, to win votes. They dress up their campaigning with ethnic minorities, "perfect familes", etc. - basically whoever fits the demographic of their target audience.

You should bear in mind when you read my current views, I spent most of my life as a socialist. I voted for Blair in 1997 and learned the hard way that there is a massive discrepancy between what we are promised and what is subsequently delievered.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Torchwood said:

That whole part was a farce- the audience asked the wrong question , Corbyn gave the wrong answer.

The guy that wanted a first strike commitment is an absolute ***hat.

Corbyn I think was a bit shocked by the number of people demanding nuclear genocide and mucked up his response which should have been:

"I will never order a first strike, you'll never know if I've ordered the second stike"  (or at least pointed out that announcing such matters live on telly is not the best way to keep your intentions hidden from a potential enemy)

Thats the only way you can justify a Nuclear Deterrent - Never tell anyone when you might use it, make sure your foreign policy means you'll never have to use it.

Thank god for the young girl who said the right thing, or I would have lost all faith in humanity.

Look at this more practically.

It's not about what you actually would or wouldn't do in human terms.

It's more like a game of poker. It's about what your opponent thinks you may do, and what kind of hand they believe you have.

May clearly stated when renewing Trident that she would authorise a nuclear strike. How she'd actually react in the most dire of circumstances, who knows? But she clearly understands that leadership is about not showing weakness, unlike Corbyn who wears his like a badge of honour.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, keithisco said:

THAT is a complete derogation of his duties should he ever become PM-the man is an unmitigated "surrender-monkey" and should be nowhere near the powers of Government.  

You really think Theresa may is braver? She can't even face up to a handful of politicians who don't have half the resources she does. But for some reason people are convinced she'll be able to stand up to 27 other countries' leaders, backed up by their own civil services. That's ludicrous enough but to think she'd face up to any kind of military crisis? Get real. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear weapons are the only deterrent against the large powers from simply marching into neighbouring countries and annexing them. M.A.D. works because the launching of a nuclear attack WILL be met by a devastating annihilation of the aggressor nation as well. What needs to be considered are the smaller economies such as Pakistan, N.Korea, and Iran-for them the launching of a nuclear weapon is not governed by conscience but by religious imperatives and unstable self-aggrandising leadership-against such nations then the simple answer is YES, a nuclear war is eminently winnable. M.A.D. is no deterrent to such small states if they intend to rid the world of non-believers.

In this case then Trident will most definitely succeed in its role because it can reduce such small scale aggressors to ashes by and of, itself.

Suppose a nuclear weapon is launched at the UK but neutralised before detonation-would the intent to use nuclear force against the UK be sufficient for Corbyn to retaliate or would he call for talks and meetings with the aggressor knowing that they had already committed one act and may well try again under the smokescreen of negotiation to prepare? Would it not be obvious to remove all of their potential launch sites whith theatre nuclear weapons?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Setton said:

You really think Theresa may is braver? She can't even face up to a handful of politicians who don't have half the resources she does. But for some reason people are convinced she'll be able to stand up to 27 other countries' leaders, backed up by their own civil services. That's ludicrous enough but to think she'd face up to any kind of military crisis? Get real. 

Squabbling amongst party leaders is never a wholesome sight and all it does is end up in a shouting down and sloganizing by the parties involved. Mrs May was absolutely right not to take part in such a farcical debacle, instead she answered sensible questions (apart from one "shouty Corbynista") and we actually learned something.

She is more than capable of standing up to the quisling European Commission (Inquisition) negotiators and David Davis is by no means a slouch in maintaining his "cool" and countering ludicrous demands.

Add to that that Mrs May really will stand up for this Nation if conflict looms because she knows she answers to the people...Corbyn answers only to an ideology

Edited by keithisco
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Setton said:

You really think Theresa may is braver? She can't even face up to a handful of politicians who don't have half the resources she does. But for some reason people are convinced she'll be able to stand up to 27 other countries' leaders, backed up by their own civil services. That's ludicrous enough but to think she'd face up to any kind of military crisis? Get real. 

Theresa May as balls the size of space hoppers.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, keithisco said:

 Pakistan,

Not a threat to us- 8000km away, best missile has a range of less than 3000km.  They have bigger, more local fish to irradiate.

43 minutes ago, keithisco said:

N.Korea

Only target their missiles have managed to hit so far is N.Korea

43 minutes ago, keithisco said:

Iran

Doesn't have Nukes.  

You've just justified killing millions of innocent people despite the fact they can't possibly harm you. Well done.

Sometimes the best way to not have a Tiger claw your face off is not to stick your face in its cage.

24 minutes ago, keithisco said:

we actually learned something.

Er, what was that then?

 

edit-  Iran as an example is actually an interesting one, now they seem chummy with china...So you Nuke Iran, cos you didnt like the way they woz looking at you, and China gets all protective and worries its next and presses the button (and their missiles could just about get here) , we see 'em coming , but we've fired all 8 of our missiles (we only have 8 at sea at a time) at Iran, and call in Nato to avenge us. Shortly after the entire UK becomes a molten wasteland French and American nukes are flying east, Russia panics, orders the launch...

 3-4 billion people dead in the space of a couple of hours.  Half the rest of humanity will be dead within a month.  Seems to me to be a bit of an overreaction...

Edited by Torchwood
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, keithisco said:

Corbyn was just farcical in his response to the first strike nuclear option. The question assumes that all of your conventional forces have been eliminated or neutralised and the enemy is massed ready to strike at your heartland.

Yes, so it's such an absurdly hypothetical question it's a waste of valuable time in a short television slot to bother asking, and then for the recipient to bother concocting an answer. A Questioner, if they really wanted to challenge them on some worthwhile questions about security, might ask what they hoped to do to combat the danger from jihadist extremism. But "CORBYN SOFT ON NUKES" makes so much more exciting a headline at the more excitable end of the rightwing press, doesn't it.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, keithisco said:

Corbyn said NO! He would not use - he would rather throw his arms up in the air with a white flag and allow the citizens of this country to suffer at the hands of the invaders, wreaking who knows what terrors on its people.

Right, and this would, without a doubt, persuade people not to vote for him if they might have been thinking of, because this is of course such a likely scenario that they'll now be terrified that the dastardly Hun - I mean Russkies will seize the chance to invade the moment he comes to power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, keithisco said:

What needs to be considered are the smaller economies such as Pakistan, N.Korea, and Iran-for them the launching of a nuclear weapon is not governed by conscience but by religious imperatives and unstable self-aggrandising leadership

Have you been possessed by ravenhawk? I can't believe you're coming out with such a load of emotional ... stuff. Why not concentrate on scenarios that are at least vaguely likely, such as, for instance, situations that might require a realistic naval presence in distant waters in order to protect trade, or and above all Islamic fundamentalist jihadism - in which Iran is far from the major threat. 

As for unstable self-aggrandising leadership, why isn't the US of A on that list? :unsure: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Have you been possessed by ravenhawk? I can't believe you're coming out with such a load of emotional ... stuff. Why not concentrate on scenarios that are at least vaguely likely, such as, for instance, situations that might require a realistic naval presence in distant waters in order to protect trade, or and above all Islamic fundamentalist jihadism - in which Iran is far from the major threat. 

As for unstable self-aggrandising leadership, why isn't the US of A on that list? :unsure: 

I personally agree with Sir Humprey Applebys assessment that the only real reason we need Trident is because of the French - if they have nukes we have to have them too, after all they are the country that has repeatedly been aggressive towards us throughout history!

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Why? It would mean that the Uk has a leader who's Soft on Terrorism, is that the angle you're angling towards? [whereas we've all seen how successful the current policy* is.] Or does being sympathetic to the Palis mean that one must be morally bankrupt? 

(* Whatever it is exactly)

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/13/the-lefts-jewish-problem-corbyn-israel-and-antisemitism-dave-rich-review

If you would vote for him, knowing this about him, then yeah, you'd be morally bankrupt, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Bear in mind that the Guardian is as fanatically pro-Israel as the Jerusalem Post, and that you'd have about as much likelihood of seeing any balanced reporting from it on the subject of the Promised land, and particularly on its enemies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Torchwood said:

Not a threat to us- 8000km away, best missile has a range of less than 3000km.  They have bigger, more local fish to irradiate.

Only target their missiles have managed to hit so far is N.Korea

Doesn't have Nukes.  

You've just justified killing millions of innocent people despite the fact they can't possibly harm you. Well done.

Sometimes the best way to not have a Tiger claw your face off is not to stick your face in its cage.

Er, what was that then?

 

edit-  Iran as an example is actually an interesting one, now they seem chummy with china...So you Nuke Iran, cos you didnt like the way they woz looking at you, and China gets all protective and worries its next and presses the button (and their missiles could just about get here) , we see 'em coming , but we've fired all 8 of our missiles (we only have 8 at sea at a time) at Iran, and call in Nato to avenge us. Shortly after the entire UK becomes a molten wasteland French and American nukes are flying east, Russia panics, orders the launch...

 3-4 billion people dead in the space of a couple of hours.  Half the rest of humanity will be dead within a month.  Seems to me to be a bit of an overreaction...

Just a pointer, as you've seemed to overlook the fact and real game changer N.Korea demonstrated they can put a satellite in orbit. the consequences of that in regard to nuclear strike capability is not be underestimated.

On the point about the UK's nuclear capability and ONLY 8 missiles, don't forget each one of them Trident D5-II missiles carry 8 warheads. and just to link it to what i said above about N.Korea. Trident when fired goes into orbit, uses stellar guidance, it scans for two stars, orientates, cone separates and then eight warheads fall to targets. our SSBNs Vanguard class carrying 8 missiles have 64 warheads.

The fact the UK's nuclear arsenal form part of NATO's nuclear defence strategy, and the threat posed by potential adversaries should not to be underplayed or underestimated. Trident is becoming a victim of its own success. the fact its worked as designed and expected is allowing people to believe its not required.

 

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.