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

Does anyone genuinely believe the BS about Corbyn? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    I didn't say that NATO shouldn't have exercises, just not do them in countries immediately neighbouring Russia.
    So you advocate a second rate exercise. One that doesn't allow them to practise on the very territory that might be invaded? That seems a mite foolish. If you have the ground, and can use it then it would be remiss not to make the practice as close to the real thing as possible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So you advocate a second rate exercise. One that doesn't allow them to practise on the very territory that might be invaded? That seems a mite foolish. If you have the ground, and can use it then it would be remiss not to make the practice as close to the real thing as possible.
    You seem completely determined to totally ignore the point I am making about non-provocation, to avoid the necessity for conflict. Practice is practice, one country is much like another. By your reckoning it would mean if Putin ever decided to invade and took the front line we would be unable to defend ourselves.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    gave up and went straight to the replies
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    By your reckoning it would mean if Putin ever decided to invade and took the front line we would be unable to defend ourselves.
    No. It would mean if Putin ever invaded (a) our troops would have had the best possible preparation and knowledge of the ground and (b) Putin would know that. They also mean he knows we are keeping an eye on him and haven't gone to sleep in our defence efforts.

    Your strategy would make war more likely by making Putin think we had become soft and were ill-prepared.

    Exercises are not a provocation. The Russians carry them out in border areas all the time, even practising for invasions. NATO is not provoked into attacking Russia. Exercises do not cause a country to invade another. They may act as a pretext for such an invasion but war was inevitable in that case anyway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No. It would mean if Putin ever invaded (a) our troops would have had the best possible preparation and knowledge of the ground and (b) Putin would know that. They also mean he knows we are keeping an eye on him and haven't gone to sleep in our defence efforts.

    Your strategy would make war more likely by making Putin think we had become soft and were ill-prepared.
    I suppose he hasn't noticed that NATO spends about 10 times as much as Russia on armaments. He should get the internet.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    I suppose he hasn't noticed that NATO spends about 10 times as much as Russia on armaments. He should get the internet.
    His generals have probably told him, though, that NATO has a lot more ground to cover as it doesn't know where the attack will be made. He does.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    You seem completely determined to totally ignore the point I am making about non-provocation, to avoid the necessity for conflict. Practice is practice, one country is much like another. By your reckoning it would mean if Putin ever decided to invade and took the front line we would be unable to defend ourselves.
    You don't understand provocation.....Russia throws it's toys out of the pram every oppertunity it gets. They should be ignored and nothing done to appease them because they'll always play the saber rattle card to get attention and their own way, much like North Korea does.

    Russia has 80,000 troops, a good number of tanks and aircraft bordering the Baltic states. The Baltics have 5,000 troops each, no tanks and no aircraft.

    Estonia calls for reinforcement from NATO due to increased Russian activity and the abduction of a border guard. NATO sends 5,000 troops and 2x fighters for air patrol and Russia throws a massive strop about how we've 'Provocated' them.

    It's almost unreal how childish they are.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    You don't understand provocation.....Russia throws it's toys out of the pram every oppertunity it gets. They should be ignored and nothing done to appease them because they'll always play the saber rattle card to get attention and their own way, much like North Korea does.

    Russia has 80,000 troops, a good number of tanks and aircraft bordering the Baltic states. The Baltics have 5,000 troops each, no tanks and no aircraft.

    Estonia calls for reinforcement from NATO due to increased Russian activity and the abduction of a border guard. NATO sends 5,000 troops and 2x fighters for air patrol and Russia throws a massive strop about how we've 'Provocated' them.

    It's almost unreal how childish they are.
    Indeed. Plus Russia encroach on our air space all the time and the RAF constantly have to scramble their planes. We're not invading them lol.

    But still, Russia is an absolute menace at the moment. We cannot allow our policies to kowtow to their flexing. We see in Ukraine how Russia reacts to weakness. It's a shame people like Corbyn and his self-loathing supporters want to implement a foreign policy that amounts to "Look everyone! I'm a pussy hole!" I'm sure that'll work out just fine and the likes of Russia and terrorist groups will leave us be instead of exploiting our obvious weakness.....
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Indeed. Plus Russia encroach on our air space all the time and the RAF constantly have to scramble their planes. We're not invading them lol.

    But still, Russia is an absolute menace at the moment. We cannot allow our policies to kowtow to their flexing. We see in Ukraine how Russia reacts to weakness. It's a shame people like Corbyn and his self-loathing supporters want to implement a foreign policy that amounts to "Look everyone! I'm a pussy hole!" I'm sure that'll work out just fine and the likes of Russia and terrorist groups will leave us be instead of exploiting our obvious weakness.....
    Yet we decided to give a double thumbs up to Putin and Russia by enthusaistically joining them in Syria...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    I can't actually find a youtube clip of it.

    .

    He was being interviewed by the BBC on live television and said somthing like:

    "If I were PM I would never use nuclear weapons under any circulstances."

    :facepalm2:
    How awful that someone wouldn't want to potentially kill millions of innocent people!!?

    I'm no Corbyn supporter, not by a long stretch but it's utterly bizarre and frightening that threatening to kill millions of people is the new 'centre ground'.

    Pathetic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    How awful that someone wouldn't want to potentially kill millions of innocent people!!?

    I'm no Corbyn supporter, not by a long stretch but it's utterly bizarre and frightening that threatening to kill millions of people is the new 'centre ground'.

    Pathetic.
    Another person that doesn't understand the idea behind possesing such weapons.

    By the time we got around to 'potentially killing millions of innocent people' you really wouldn't be in a position to care about it.



    Just to add to some other posts further up the page, Corbyn also wants to take us out of NATO.

    So that's....disarm, leave NATO. Does he want to scrap all armed forces too? It wouldn't surprise me. I genuinly wonder if this guy actually is paid by Russia and Putin sometimes.

    He doesn't live in the real world, can't wait to see the guy go now.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Another person that doesn't understand the idea behind possesing such weapons.

    By the time we got around to 'potentially killing millions of innocent people' you really wouldn't be in a position to care about it.



    Just to add to some other posts further up the page, Corbyn also wants to take us out of NATO.

    So that's....disarm, leave NATO. Does he want to scrap all armed forces too? It wouldn't surprise me. I genuinly wonder if this guy actually is paid by Russia and Putin sometimes.

    He doesn't live in the real world, can't wait to see the guy go now.
    If we had to kill millions of people then trident would have failed as a deterrent, which is its sole justification.

    It's amazing how pro-trident supporters cannot see the gaping flaws.

    Also remind me which party leader decided to enthusiastically back Putin in Syria....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If we had to kill millions of people then trident would have failed as a deterrent, which is its sole justification.
    Which defeats your own argument about how horrible it is to have them......

    This is the exact reason you don't shout about how much you woudn't ever use them because you're such a self-rightious pacifist like Corbyn did.

    Do Corbyn supporters like....deny logic or somthing?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Which defeats your own argument about how horrible it is to have them......

    This is the exact reason you don't shout about how much you woudn't ever use them because you're such a self-rightious pacifist like Corbyn did.

    Do Corbyn supporters like....deny logic or somthing?
    For a start I'm not a Corbyn supporter and want him to go, and have said so for months. Please stop tarring anyone who disagrees with you as a Corbynite and lets have an actual debate.

    I'm not a pacifist either, I support some wars and oppose others, it really depends on the relevant circumstances. Please stop assigning me positions I don't have.

    Opposing wasting billions on trident when we don't need it does not make one a pacifist or a Corbynite. I'm not at all convinced trident is necessary. Our former Conservative defense secretary Michael Portillo says much the same, is he a Corbynite? The major threats we face today are ISIS and Global warming. Care to explain how trident will help us?

    I don't see what logic i'm denying. The justification for trident is that its meant to be a deterrent but if you claim that you would ever use it, you acknowledge it may in fact not be a deterrent at all. If we ever had to use it, it would have failed as a deterrent.

    Saying that you hope our own Prime Minister would not be prepared to kill millions of innocent people does not make you a pacifist or a corbynite, rather it makes you someone who is opposed to mass murder.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Opposing wasting billions on trident when we don't need it does not make one a pacifist or a Corbynite. I'm not at all convinced trident is necessary. Our former Conservative defense secretary Michael Portillo says much the same, is he a Corbynite? The major threats we face today are ISIS and Global warming. Care to explain how trident will help us?

    I don't see what logic i'm denying. The justification for trident is that its meant to be a deterrent but if you claim that you would ever use it, you acknowledge it may in fact not be a deterrent at all.

    Saying that you hope our own Prime Minister would not be prepared to kill millions of innocent people does not make you a pacifist or a corbynite, rather it makes you someone who is opposed to mass murder.
    You misunderstand, I was calling Corbyn a self-righteous pacifist. Since he publically stated he would never use them. You wouden't do what he did...it's illogical and stupid, no matter how much you are against possesing nukes.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    How awful that someone wouldn't want to potentially kill millions of innocent people!!?
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If we had to kill millions of people then trident would have failed as a deterrent, which is its sole justification.
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The justification for trident is that its meant to be a deterrent but if you claim that you would ever use it, you acknowledge it may in fact not be a deterrent at all.
    You understand the role of deterrance.

    Yet you fail to understand how shouting as much as possible about how much you woudn't use a defensive weapon system built upon deterrance undermines deterrance.


    If crunch time ever came, you might never use it, you might use it. It doesn't matter if it came to it and you didn't use it. (Because killing XXX of any people is bad, even though that country has just vaporised XXX of your people) - This scenario is very very unlikely if deterrance is maintained.

    All that matters is your enemy thinks you might use it. Here lies the deterrant.

    If the deterrant works because your enemies think you might use it and any aggressive attack they make could be met with equally devastating retaliation, no one is hurt.

    If it failed because some moron publically stated he wouden't use it under any circumstances, deterrant effect undermined, weapon useless and increased possiblity of attack on your country, possibility people die.

    We face Russia as a threat at the moment. They are a moderate threat, we may also face new threats in the future. Possibly China, which has a similar history of bullying it's neighbours as it is doing now. You can also face political blackmain and be more susceptible to political pressure.

    We are currently, far far too relient on nukes for defence atm as our conventional forces and indeed those of Europe arn't that strong.

    I cannot see that there are currently any drawbacks to possesing nuclear weapons other than their (in reality) miniscule cost. Even the cost is largely irrelivant when you consider how much they offset the need for maintaining the very very large conventional forces that you would need to give you the same level of protection and secuity/political power.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    You misunderstand, I was calling Corbyn a self-righteous pacifist. Since he publically stated he would never use them. You wouden't do what he did...it's illogical and stupid, no matter how much you are against possesing nukes.







    You understand the role of deterrance.

    Yet you fail to understand how shouting as much as possible about how much you woudn't use a defensive weapon system built upon deterrance undermines deterrance.


    If crunch time ever came, you might never use it, you might use it. It doesn't matter if it came to it and you didn't use it. (Because killing XXX of any people is bad, even though that country has just vaporised XXX of your people) - This scenario is very very unlikely if deterrance is maintained.

    All that matters is your enemy thinks you might use it. Here lies the deterrant.

    If the deterrant works because your enemies think you might use it and any aggressive attack they make could be met with equally devastating retaliation, no one is hurt.

    If it failed because some moron publically stated he wouden't use it under any circumstances, deterrant effect undermined, weapon useless and increased possiblity of attack on your country, possibility people die.

    My point is that I am simply not convinced about the necessity of trident.
    I'm not a pacifist or a Corbynite, I just don't feel that we need it and don't feel a strong enough case has been made for it, it seems more based upon paranoia than any actual real life threat.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    It's either Corbyn as leader of Labour or there is no Labour.

    Anyone that thinks he won't win the leadership challenge is a fool.

    Those MP's better not go off to form a party or it will be another conservative government at next election.

    Which probably means more cuts and worse for students and working class people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    My point is that I am simply not convinced about the necessity of trident.
    I'm not a pacifist or a Corbynite, I just don't feel that we need it and don't feel a strong enough case has been made for it, it seems more based upon paranoia than any actual real life threat.
    Ukraine wasen't convinced either, hence why it got rid of them. It also got Russia to sign and aggreement saying they would respect Ukrainian territory if they gave their nukes up.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see nuclear proliferation. I'd like to see a slow reduction to a point where the current nuclear powers had about 200 each. Both Russia and the US have about 7,300 each. Everyone else who has them, between 80 and 350.

    Russia is just too much of a threat right now and for the forseable future. They saber rattle and posture on a regular basis, not to mention annexing and invading their neighbors.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Ukraine wasen't convinced either, hence why it got rid of them. It also got Russia to sign and aggreement saying they would respect Ukrainian territory if they gave their nukes up.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see nuclear proliferation. I'd like to see a slow reduction to a point where the current nuclear powers had about 200 each. Both Russia and the US have about 7,300 each. Everyone else who has them, between 80 and 350.

    Russia is just too much of a threat right now and for the forseable future. They saber rattle and posture on a regular basis, not to mention annexing and invading their neighbors.
    Do you really think Ukraine would have prevented it had they been in possession of Nuclear weapons?
    Do you really think they'd have fired at Russia knowing full well they'd be obliterated?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Do you really think Ukraine would have prevented it had they been in possession of Nuclear weapons?
    Do you really think they'd have fired at Russia knowing full well they'd be obliterated?
    I don't know, I can't predict the future. Has there ever been an invasion of a nuclear state to date? No, there hasn't.

    Well this is deterrance in action for you, the answer is, I don't know. Do you?

    The real question as you said is.... Would they have been invaded in the first place? Would Russia invade knowing Ukraine could chose to drop a small sun on Moscow?

    Sure, Ukraine would be finished, but it would have been conquored anyway. If Ukraine thought it was facing the reality of loosing, would they have fired? Possibly, again this is the deterrance....it's already failed in this scenario so it doesn't matter if they do or don't.

    Here is a question for you. Hypothetically speaking, if you were going to invade another country next to you:

    Would you invade your neighbour if he had a weaker conventional army than you?
    Would you do it if he had nukes? Would you invade knowing there is a posibility your capital city could be obliterated?

    It all depends if the Russians thought Ukraine might launch against them for aggression, it's a hell of a gamble to play as the aggressor.

    However, what I can tell you as a fact is: Ukraine didn't have nukes and Russia invaded. So in this case there was no deterrance at all. This is what happened, any other scenarios are mere speculation.

    As it stands, because they are devious enough, Russia has maintained plausible deniability, they didn't openly invade. Would they have used the same tactic? Probably.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.