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

Corbyn does want nuclear submarines - just without any missiles Watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Er... nothing.
    So you'd rather let a group of Neo-Nazis or a group of "they're not communists, honest" communists as they have been seen throughout history take over huge amounts of the world and all the death and torture and the likes that come with it than stop them, I suppose at least your hands would be clean, right?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NoPunInThisName)
    Even as a Corbyn supporter, I have to take a step back and think, "that's a little bit of insane right there".

    Still, unilateral disarmament is the way forward and those who disagree, well, is violence and aggression the solution?
    What is the calculus for unilateral disarmament?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    What is the calculus for unilateral disarmament?
    "the crypto-capitalist Corbyn has thrown away his country's protection. that is so brave of him. we shall not attack because we admire his bravery"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you'd rather let a group of Neo-Nazis or a group of "they're not communists, honest" communists as they have been seen throughout history take over huge amounts of the world and all the death and torture and the likes that come with it than stop them, I suppose at least your hands would be clean, right?
    I highly doubt even said Neo-Nazis or communists could inflict death tolls in the billions, not to mention that the chaos that results from the exchange would make it much easier for them to achieve that.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    I highly doubt even said Neo-Nazis or communists could inflict death tolls in the billions, not to mention that the chaos that results from the exchange would make it much easier for them to achieve that.
    And a nuclear exchange would unlikely inflict death tolls in the billions, global Naziism should kill over a billion, Mao managed to kill a tenth of his population, Stalin killed 20m, Gulag populations of 4-5m pretty much every year, yeah, great conditions, so many people surviving...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And a nuclear exchange would unlikely inflict death tolls in the billions, global Naziism should kill over a billion, Mao managed to kill a tenth of his population, Stalin killed 20m, Gulag populations of 4-5m pretty much every year, yeah, great conditions, so many people surviving...
    Actually studies have shown that the nuclear winter caused by even a small regional nuclear exchange would disrupt the world's agricultural output enough to cause up to a billion deaths. A global all-out nuclear exhange could well bring about our extinction.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Yes it is debated and was being reasonable with the figure. It is not the highest, nor the lowest estimate. Still, remember we spend 100 billion on healthcare every year. Another 50 billion goes on medical supplies. So even if it was 100bil over 40 years to replace Trident, at 4 bil a year, that's still a pretty good deal.
    I'm aware. In fact, I'll be honest here and say, in the grand scheme of things, I think the money that would be spent on Trident is quite insignificant (as you said, the NHS, at the moment, costs two billion+ a week). If I were pro-nuclear weapons, I imagine - as I said - I'd be more likely to find the price justifiable. As I'm not, I - obviously - don't.

    I'd much rather it be spend on something that contributes positively to our society - as I'm against nuclear weapons, any other place it's spent is - in my opinion - money better spent.

    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Why are you against nuclear weapons?
    I think I've went into this in other responses.

    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Also, please define 'use', just curious to see what you put forward.
    I'm for the global ban on nuclear weapons - therefore, I'm against anything that requires the existence of nuclear weapons to begin with.

    If you are pro-nuclear weapons, you have to - as a byproduct - acknowledge the fact that you are considering the possibility they will have to be used - in my opinion, if you are pro-nuclear weapons, you are pro-the use of them. You may not be someone who denies this, but I have had many people argue they are a deterrent and nothing more - if you believe nuclear weapons will never be used, why are they needed? If all were under this assumption, it wouldn't be a deterrent - it would be, for lack of better words, an empty threat.

    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Yes, I think everyone is of the consensus that SSBN's without nukes is a bit silly, except Corbyn of course. This takes us back to the original question of why is he so die-hard against nuclear weapons, to the point that he's said keep the subs as long as they don't have nukes?

    Why is the nuke thing so important? Beyond anything else, its like his no.1 objective. The cynic in me says is starting to grow suspicious that there could be an alternate agenda here.
    Curious - what sort of alternate agenda would you propose?

    Corbyn is not the only one who is "so die-hard against nuclear weapons." Let us not forget about the Green Party and ICAN. Also, the many people who support Corbyn for his views (including me). Are you suggesting they, also, have an alternate agenda?

    It's important to realize that, as someone who opposes that belief, you are much more likely to be cycnical about it. Just because you don't agree with an opinion doesn't mean it can't be a valid opinion.

    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Just going to put it forward that far more people have died as a result of conventional weapons than nukes. By keeping them, you keep the MAD status quo, which is currently, reasonably safe and stable. By getting rid of them, you make the situation worse as you unbalance that MAD situation. Just because you get rid of them doesn't mean anyone else will, that's pixie and unicorn territory.

    So, I can't really see any reason, at all, to get rid of them.
    In this incidence, what would you classify as a 'conventional weapon'?

    If we are to assume you mean non-nuclear war devices, as nukes have been used a lot less than conventional weapons, it's logical to assume conventional weapons have - at the moment - killed more. Also, if we are differentiating them, conventional weapons do not result in the radioactive aftereffects that nuclear weapons do. It's estimated 135,000 were killed in Hiroshima - of those 135,000, it's estimated only a portion were killed instantly (approx. half - due to the amount of casualties, the exact numbers remain unknown). The rest of the fatalities were caused by the aftereffects. (Source.)

    I want to make it clear I'm not advocating the use of 'conventional weapons' - in a ideal world, neither would be used. However - I'm aware nuclear weapons is a lot more realistic of a fight to start with.

    And I'm aware that many find the idea of a world without nuclear weapons idealistic, but in my opinion, that opinion means that idea will always remain idealistic because there is no one willing to try to make it a reality. By campaigning for a nuclear weapon-free world, we already have a better chance of achieving that than I we let cynicism prevent us from doing so - I want change and change doesn't happen unless you make it happen.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Grunch: as a devout Corbynite, this is a pretty thick policy. Tbh I wish he'd just get Benn to decide his foreign policy - while I agree with him on most matters, it's less important, and easier for right-wing rags to turn into fodder for frothing lunatic xenophobes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Actually studies have shown that the nuclear winter caused by even a small regional nuclear exchange would disrupt the world's agricultural output enough to cause up to a billion deaths. A global all-out nuclear exhange could well bring about our extinction.
    Then why are we still here? We have lived through ice ages and many Volcanic winters.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Then why are we still here? We have lived through ice ages and many Volcanic winters.
    You simultaneously underestimate and demonstrate the destructive power of the human race. You demonstrate the destructive stupidity of people by comparing planetary events which, although damaging, do not come close to the devastation of a nuclear apocalypse, which is the thing you're underestimating.

    Notwithstanding the above, your argument doesn't explain or justify in any way whatsoever the need to create, maintain and/or use nuclear weapons.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weigl)
    You simultaneously underestimate and demonstrate the destructive power of the human race. You demonstrate the destructive stupidity of people by comparing planetary events which, although damaging, do not come close to the devastation of a nuclear apocalypse, which is the thing you're underestimating.

    Notwithstanding the above, your argument doesn't explain or justify in any way whatsoever the need to create, maintain and/or use nuclear weapons.
    The thing is that we can actually look at the effects of various firestorms and otherwise large fires in recent history as well as Volcanic eruptions. On the Volcanic side looking at Krakatoa we get 20m tons of sulphur in the atmosphere giving up to 5 years of cooling of up to 1.2K, figures varying by source. What we have globally is currently about 4,000 active nuclear weapons, i.e. those that are sat on the top of a missile or ready at short notice to be loaded onto a plane (supposing they aren't already loaded) to be flown out to their target, so we need each to put into the stratosphere the equivalent of approximately 5000 tons of sulphur each, on average. Now, it seems near impossible to get estimates of the amount of fallout. What we do get, however, is heights of mushroom clouds and if we take Ivy King as a guideline for the sorts of weapons used (being at about 500Kt which is higher than the yeild of the US sub based warheads, and consequently our own given our design is based on the American's) we see a mushroom cloud from 40,000ft to 78,000ft which is pretty low for a volcano, only need a "cataclysmic" eruption for that (which isn't as bad as it sounds, you're looking at Mt St Helens, or that Icelandic one a few years back). What this means is a limiting of direct fallout ejection for long term impact.

    So next we need to consider what it actually is that causes nuclear winters. Well, it tends to be the soot from firestorms after detonation, not the mushroom cloud that has the major impact and here we can look at significant events in recent history, the main one being the burning of Kuwaiti oil fields during the Gulf War, fires that raged for nearly a year and the effects there can be examined and there those preaching doomsday from it severely overestimated the impact. Further consideration of the firestorm being the issue suggests that models overestimate impact. So many base themselves off of the likes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with Oriental cities at the time being known to burn well, there is a reason after all why the US had relentless fire bombing campaigns against Japan whilst sticking to conventional explosives in Europe. Modern cities have a tendency of not burning too easily.

    As for justifications of nuclear weapons. Creation, a necessary part of maintenance. Maintenance, I quite like there not being major international conflicts, particularly there being none that I have to get involved with. Use, hopefully it doesn't come to that, threat of use on the other hand, see previous point.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    he wants jobs for coal miners but wants less fossil fuels to be burned
    he wants iran to be allowed to have nukes, but wants *us* to have none
    *explain* this, corbynites...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    he wants jobs for coal miners but wants less fossil fuels to be burned
    he wants iran to be allowed to have nukes, but wants *us* to have none
    *explain* this, corbynites...
    His foreign policy is nuts and I won't defend it (I am in favour of disarmament, but not unilaterally). As for the jobs for coal miners thing, if the state provided properly for them (either with creation of new public sector jobs or increased redundancy payments) I'm sure he'd be fine with them no longer being coal miners.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
    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.