Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0f78b2b493b35

    I've got a tribal dislike of the Tory Party but this **** has me almost thinking about voting for them.
    Its because Cobryn says one thing and the media claims he says another, and his followers consist partly of people who are sick of this pathetic media manipulation
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Its because Cobryn says one thing and the media claims he says another, and his followers consist partly of people who are sick of this pathetic media manipulation
    Same thing happened to Nigel Farage
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    They can either vote for a militant or some fat windbag nobody has ever heard of, labour are screweddddddd.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's sad that the Labour party is such a complete joke right now. Owen doesn't offer them any hope either.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Its because Cobryn says one thing and the media claims he says another, and his followers consist partly of people who are sick of this pathetic media manipulation
    I deliberately used a liberal source in anticipation of claims like this. I suppose the Guardian are conspiring against him as well?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-antisemitism
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    It's interesting that we've been told by right wing Conservatives and UKIPers about how the UK could become like Switzerland if it left the EU, with Switzerland being this bastion of prosperity and the free world, but when Corbyn talks about things like not having Trident or being part of NATO collective security we get this mass panic about how it would leave the UK defenceless and isolated.

    Switzerland seems to manage fine outside NATO and without wasting taxpayers money on nuclear defences, perhaps without blowing money on overseas conflicts and unnecessary defence spending that's how they are able to keep taxes low and maintain a good investment environment.

    Within NATO, Erdogan can be provocative towards Putin knowing that British lives will be able to be sacrificed to fight for Turkey.
    What I find staggering is how Theresa May was regarded as mainstream and centrist for happily declaring that she would press the nuclear button and kill millions of innocent civilians, whereas Jeremy Corbyn was regarded as a dangerous extremist for saying he would not kill millions of civilians.


    I'm no Corbyn fan, but it is deeply worrying that being willing to kill millions of innocent civilians is seen as the new centre ground as politics.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What I find staggering is how Theresa May was regarded as mainstream and centrist for happily declaring that she would press the nuclear button and kill millions of innocent civilians, whereas Jeremy Corbyn was regarded as a dangerous extremist for saying he would not kill millions of civilians.


    I'm no Corbyn fan, but it is deeply worrying that being willing to kill millions of innocent civilians is seen as the new centre ground as politics.
    I'm not sure you can say that she "happily" declared it. It also seems that, by default, every PM we've had since the 50s/60 would have used nuclear weapons if needed (even Harold Wilson, who pledged to remove the UK's deterrent was forced to backtrack due to Soviet expansion).
    If a PM or potential PM publicly admits they wouldn't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances then the deterrent is rather pointless. So Theresa May has to say she'll use them in public, even if privately she has no intention to.
    Anyways, none of us actually know what targets would be selected. You've got to expect that anyone with a conscience certainly wouldn't use them as part as a first strike strategy nor would deliberately target population centres. There is no denying that even modern nukes aren't exactly precision weapons but even a blunt instrument can be used with some accuracy if targeted correctly; IE there's a good chance that the missiles would be targeted at military installations rather than cities.

    There's another circumstance to also consider - the possibility of an airliner being hijacked by terrorists over the UK & then targeted on a city such as London. I'd say this is a far more realistic prospect than a nuclear attack. The choice to shoot down an airliner, as far as I'm aware, rests of the shoulders of the PM. I know of at least one British PM who refused to take responsibility for potentially giving this order & passed it down to one of the Cabinet Ministers.
    I do wonder if Corbyn would be willing to take responsibility to order an RAF Typhoon to shoot down a hijacked airliner that was being aimed at London judging by his past record.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    I'm not sure you can say that she "happily" declared it. It also seems that, by default, every PM we've had since the 50s/60 would have used nuclear weapons if needed (even Harold Wilson, who pledged to remove the UK's deterrent was forced to backtrack due to Soviet expansion).
    If a PM or potential PM publicly admits they wouldn't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances then the deterrent is rather pointless. So Theresa May has to say she'll use them in public, even if privately she has no intention to.
    Anyways, none of us actually know what targets would be selected. You've got to expect that anyone with a conscience certainly wouldn't use them as part as a first strike strategy nor would deliberately target population centres. There is no denying that even modern nukes aren't exactly precision weapons but even a blunt instrument can be used with some accuracy if targeted correctly; IE there's a good chance that the missiles would be targeted at military installations rather than cities.

    There's another circumstance to also consider - the possibility of an airliner being hijacked by terrorists over the UK & then targeted on a city such as London. I'd say this is a far more realistic prospect than a nuclear attack. The choice to shoot down an airliner, as far as I'm aware, rests of the shoulders of the PM. I know of at least one British PM who refused to take responsibility for potentially giving this order & passed it down to one of the Cabinet Ministers.
    I do wonder if Corbyn would be willing to take responsibility to order an RAF Typhoon to shoot down a hijacked airliner that was being aimed at London judging by his past record.


    If we used nuclear weapons first then they would not be a deterrent. If we used nuclear weapons in response to an attack then the deterrent would have failed.
    Makes the case for having them weak.

    Don't Belgium, Holland and Switzerland do just fine without trident? If they can manage without then why can't we?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If we used nuclear weapons first then they would not be a deterrent. If we used nuclear weapons in response to an attack then the deterrent would have failed.
    Makes the case for having them weak.

    Don't Belgium, Holland and Switzerland do just fine without trident? If they can manage without then why can't we?

    The first two have been invaded successfully in the relatively recent past. As much as we like to think that Europe is stable & secure, much of the last thousand years has seen the European powers in some kind of conflict. It's only since 1945 that Europe has been relatively peaceful.
    And it's worth adding that most of Europe is very much under the protection of NATO (which Corbyn & Trump for that matter also wants to tear up)
    I could also point out Ukraine - it gave up its nukes after the Cold War, wasn't a part of an international alliance & then got invaded.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    The first two have been invaded successfully in the relatively recent past. As much as we like to think that Europe is stable & secure, much of the last thousand years has seen the European powers in some kind of conflict. It's only since 1945 that Europe has been relatively peaceful.
    And it's worth adding that most of Europe is very much under the protection of NATO (which Corbyn & Trump for that matter also wants to tear up)
    I could also point out Ukraine - it gave up its nukes after the Cold War, wasn't a part of an international alliance & then got invaded.
    But we didn't get invaded and we didn't have nuclear weapons.

    The big justifications for leaving the EU was that other countries manage fine and even better outside it, yet that same logic is not allowed for NATO and trident?

    There is no evidence to suggest that Ukraine would have fended off Russia, knowing that even if it nuked them, that they would be destroyed in retaliation.

    Again, if we were to use trident first it would not be a deterrent. If we were to use it in response to an attack it would have failed as a deterrent. So the deterrent justification defeats itself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If we used nuclear weapons first then they would not be a deterrent. If we used nuclear weapons in response to an attack then the deterrent would have failed.
    Makes the case for having them weak.

    Don't Belgium, Holland and Switzerland do just fine without trident? If they can manage without then why can't we?
    :facepalm2:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But we didn't get invaded and we didn't have nuclear weapons.

    The big justifications for leaving the EU was that other countries manage fine and even better outside it, yet that same logic is not allowed for NATO and trident?

    There is no evidence to suggest that Ukraine would have fended off Russia, knowing that even if it nuked them, that they would be destroyed in retaliation.

    Again, if we were to use trident first it would not be a deterrent. If we were to use it in response to an attack it would have failed as a deterrent. So the deterrent justification defeats itself.
    It would have been somewhat difficult to use nuclear weapons in 1940. But the lack of the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield during the Second World War can be attributed to the fact that both the Allies & Axis were fearful of retaliation from the opposite side. Historical records suggest that Hitler, as crazy as he was, understood due to his own experience in the First World War & possibly due to advice from Otto Ambros, a German chemist, that the Allies would retaliate in kind if he used gas on Allied forces.
    So, hypothetically, even if nuclear weapons didn't prevent a conventional conflict, they can certain stop escalation if both sides are under the impression that the other side has nukes.

    I'm not sure how you can say this defeats the point of having a deterrent - the whole point we're far less likely to get attacked by WMDs if the UK has nuclear weapons with what we can retaliate with. The fact that ours are stored in submarines makes it almost impossible to destroy them as part as a first strike which therefore means a first strike is far less likely to happen.
    Don't get me wrong, there are certain terrorist groups out there that don't give a damn about that but luckily they're a minority who, hopefully, will never get hold nuclear material. The fact is, however, that nuclear science cannot be "uninvented" even if we wanted it to be. Physics is physics & can't really be kept secret.

    The EU & NATO/Trident can't exactly been compared in the same sense. The "rules" for remaining in NATO are regularly flaunted for one thing (the 2% GDP target for example).

    Only the Russian government can tell you if they'd have interfered in Ukraine if the latter still had nuclear weapons but I think it would have been far less likely. I'm not a fan of Putin but one thing he doesn't seem to be is stupid & nation states tend to be rational when it comes to ensuring their own existence. At the very least, the Russians would have had to be wary of the fact that Ukraine could have used nukes which means they'd have to have some kind of plan to counter that action.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)

    I'm not sure how you can say this defeats the point of having a deterrent - the whole point we're far less likely to get attacked by WMDs if the UK has nuclear weapons with what we can retaliate with. The fact that ours are stored in submarines makes it almost impossible to destroy them as part as a first strike which therefore means a first strike is far less likely to happen.
    Don't get me wrong, there are certain terrorist groups out there that don't give a damn about that but luckily they're a minority who, hopefully, will never get hold nuclear material. The fact is, however, that nuclear science cannot be "uninvented" even if we wanted it to be. Physics is physics & can't really be kept secret.
    It defeats the deterrent argument because there are only two times we could use nuclear weapons.
    (1) Before we have been attacked - in which case it will not be a deterrent if we are using it first.

    (2) In response to an attack - in which case the deterrent would have failed.

    So if we admit we would use the nuclear weapons on millions of people, we admit that it simply cannot possibly be a deterrent, as we could only use them if the deterrent had failed.


    My point was that Theresa May gets called a centrist for declaring she would kill millions of innocent civilians whereas Jeremy Corbyn gets called a dangerous extremist for saying he would not kill millions of innocent civilians.

    In what type of bizarre, twisted world is the less extremist leader one who would gladly kill millions?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I deliberately used a liberal source in anticipation of claims like this. I suppose the Guardian are conspiring against him as well?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-antisemitism
    It doesn't matter that you 'used a liberal source', the media - regardless of its political alignment, has had a history of misrepresenting Corbyn's views. This sort of behaviour throughout the last 20 years is what is motivating some of his supporters to continue doing so, regardless of what nonsense the media interprets from him.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It defeats the deterrent argument because there are only two times we could use nuclear weapons.
    (1) Before we have been attacked - in which case it will not be a deterrent if we are using it first.

    (2) In response to an attack - in which case the deterrent would have failed.

    So if we admit we would use the nuclear weapons on millions of people, we admit that it simply cannot possibly be a deterrent, as we could only use them if the deterrent had failed.
    I understand what you're trying to get at here but you're missing out that the sheer threat of Trident & its ilk can prevent an attack before it even gets off the planning stage. Therefore just having missiles & a publicly expressed will to use them in defence of the UK is a deterrent. They don't need to be fired to be useful. In fact, they're at their most useful when they're hidden inside one of the RN's missile subs.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    My point was that Theresa May gets called a centrist for declaring she would kill millions of innocent civilians whereas Jeremy Corbyn gets called a dangerous extremist for saying he would not kill millions of innocent civilians.

    In what type of bizarre, twisted world is the less extremist leader one who would gladly kill millions?
    We both know that, when the PM was asked this in Parliament, it was a loaded question deliberately worded in such a style to make her sound a certain way. I'm also confused why you're suggesting she'd "gladly" do it. It's acknowledged by former PMs & their staff that one of the least enjoyable conversations they experienced in office is when the potential use of nuclear weapons is discussed.

    What makes Corbyn dangerous is announcing he would never use nuclear weapon even in defence of the UK & its citizens meaning that we're more likely to get attacked.
    It's like publicly announcing that if a thief breaks into your home you won't try to defend your property or report the incident to the police.

    I'd certainly support global removal of nuclear weapons & I'd actually be happy to see a reduction in the amount of warheads we have (but not the amount of subs). However, until Russia, America & the other nuclear armed states cut down or totally remove their arsenals then unilateral disarmament won't make us any safer.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Could you imagine how disastrous a Labour government would be with Corbyn. He lives on another planet, a bit like his numpty supporters. Not to worry, he will never get in power.

    I would love to live in a world of no nuclear weapons, believe me. But do we really think Putin is going to get rid of his nukes! Corbyn would be great in a fantasy world, that regretfully doesn't exist.

    All his supporters seem to be students who want free everything in life. Printing money and all that rubbish.

    On a more serious note. I am all about respecting other people's views in politics, but come on; that bloke would be a disaster, let's face the facts. We need a strong opposition and neither Owen Smith or Corbyn are going to be able to achieve that, don't get me started on that Eagle woman - when she was in the race!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    I understand what you're trying to get at here but you're missing out that the sheer threat of Trident & its ilk can prevent an attack before it even gets off the planning stage. Therefore just having missiles & a publicly expressed will to use them in defence of the UK is a deterrent. They don't need to be fired to be useful. In fact, they're at their most useful when they're hidden inside one of the RN's missile subs.
    Is there any evidence for this though? If someone is crazy enough to nuke us, what makes you think that they would care about being nuked back?

    If ISIS ever got hold of a nuclear weapons, the threat of their destruction would mean nothing if it meant that they could take us with them.
    The biggest threats we face today are not nuclear. Arguably the two biggest threats we face today are ISIS and global warming.

    Even Michael Portillo, a right wing former defense secretary opposed trident on the grounds that it is totally useless in defending us from the threats we face today.

    Each missile has the power to kill millions, the less of them in the world, the better. I don't want our Prime Minister to be prepared to kill millions of innocent civilians. I want one who is measured, who wouldn't rush to war and certainly one who would not kill millions. I'm not saying that's Jeremy Corbyn, but opposing trident does not make one dangerous.


    There seems to be an awful lot of paranoia, and in essence our love of trident seems little more than a **** measuring contest.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ben.anderson)

    All his supporters seem to be students who want free everything in life. Printing money and all that rubbish.
    I know, the silly Labour party have been quantitatively easing hundreds of millions since 2010. Oh no wait... that's the Conservatives.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I know, the silly Labour party have been quantitatively easing hundreds of millions since 2010. Oh no wait... that's the Conservatives.
    .. Think about it love, who got us into this mess in the first place!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    It doesn't matter that you 'used a liberal source', the media - regardless of its political alignment, has had a history of misrepresenting Corbyn's views. This sort of behaviour throughout the last 20 years is what is motivating some of his supporters to continue doing so, regardless of what nonsense the media interprets from him.
    How have they exactly?

    And I'm not talking about the Right-Wing media who anyone knows will always go after Left-Wing politicians.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 22, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.