On 1 Oct 2015 at 2:53pm Jez we can. wrote:
Give your opinion and vote in this Daily Telegraph poll.
Check it out here »
On 1 Oct 2015 at 3:14pm Gerty wrote:
To be honest with you I'm more interested in what Lewes Labour think. Having for years slavishly and tribally followed whoever has led the Labour Party to the right, and played their part in driving that narrative in the country as if there was no alternative view possible, are they now following Corbyn or are they sticking to their previous position?
On 1 Oct 2015 at 4:48pm em wrote:
The scorn and bias of the media in dealing with him has awoken many to the fact that we do not in reality live in a democratic society. People are not free to present alternative ideas to the electorate and obtain a fair hearing for them.
But still I think there will be some effect. For an entire generation, broadcast media and print newspapers had never given the slightest indication that there might be a moral dilemma involved in pushing a button to kill a billion people directly, and set off a chain of events that will destroy all human life. The spluttering fury by the establishment at the revelation that there are in existence the kind of people who would not do that, is a wonder to behold.
But all that rage is revealing the existence of the moral dilemma to people from whom it has been effectively hidden as a topic of legitimate and serious debate. People will start to think. That is why Corbyn is so dangerous to the establishment. He has opened a Pandora’s box of ideas.
On 1 Oct 2015 at 5:17pm mark2 wrote:
They are hardly a British affair anyway. the USA provides the missiles - there would be no weapon without their help. I rather suspect that they would have the overriding finger on the button in any case.
I agree that this whole issue has been effectively hidden from public discourse for many years.
On 1 Oct 2015 at 5:19pm Sussex Jim wrote:
No. We must have a nuclear deterrent: just as we have locks on our doors to deter burglars.
On 1 Oct 2015 at 6:19pm Zzz... wrote:
Comparing locks on our doors to nuclear weapons is just about the most trite and stupid thing you've said (and you distinguish yourself by writing something stupid every time you come here!). Nukes might deter someone from nuking the UK but who would want to do that to a tiny little country at the ars3 end of Europe, and why? They don't stop the threats we actually face, threats like terrorism (in all its forms) and cyber-espionage.
And our deterrent is far from independent. We will not fire it unless the US let us.
On 1 Oct 2015 at 6:23pm mark2 wrote:
Sussex Jim I can see where you're coming from. But I do think things have changed. The UK can become a target even if we do have nuclear weapons behind that locked door. (even though we're not really in ultimate charge of them.)
Also nuclear weapons have obviously not deterred terrorist 'burglars' from creating mayhem in this country. Actually a greater risk is the possibility of terrorists gaining access to nuclear material themselves - more likely whist we continue to engage in that 'market'.
On 1 Oct 2015 at 7:07pm Clifford wrote:
As long ago as 1964 Harold Wilson spoke about Britain's 'so-called independent, so-called deterrent'. He was right then and it's absurd that the argument still goes on. The top brass agree with him now. Britain needs proper conventional forces, not a 50,000-strong army.
On 1 Oct 2015 at 7:58pm Fairmeadow wrote:
We should certainly not give up our nukes unless/until the French give up theirs.
On 1 Oct 2015 at 9:53pm Earl of Lewes wrote:
@Fairmeadow - You could be right. The French haven't forgiven us for Agincourt, Waterloo or any of the other occasions when we've given them a sound thrashing. They wouldn't dare face us in battle, but I can imagine them holding us to ransom with the threat of nuclear armageddon. Also, the fact that we have better pop music and a more successful capital city will only add to their resentment.
On 1 Oct 2015 at 10:23pm Sussex Dim wrote:
Sussex Jim is right about locks on our doors and nuclear weapons. They are exactly the same. I have a burglar alarm that will destroy the whole town of Lewes if a burglar tries to get in. It is logic like Sussex Jim's that has made our country what it is today.
On 1 Oct 2015 at 10:45pm wrote:
You live up your name Dim don't you..
On 1 Oct 2015 at 10:57pm Jez we can. wrote:
Using other peoples alias is a bit lame or probably you will arrogantly call it Satire.
Your so narcissistic your Dimmer than Dim!
On 2 Oct 2015 at 6:36am No need to wrote:
crow Jez, a poster called corus made a good point and it appeared the yah-boo replies had diminished. Don't spoil it.
On 2 Oct 2015 at 8:14am Pah wrote:
Last night on the news a 10-minute segment on Russia’s use of airstrikes in Syria, and the threat that presented of armed confrontation between Russian and Nato forces, was followed by a J Corbyn saying it was inconceivable that this country could be threatened with a Nuclear power…….
The West had a deal with Ukraine ,( the only ex nuclear country other than South Africa I know of ), it was that if they gave up their nukes they would be under our protection. Well that went well ....
The Argentine leader a Mrs Kirchner ( ominously ) thinks the new Labour leader will help its bid to take over the Falkland Islands. She is quite right . Corb opposed the 1982 Falkands War and has also called for 'joint administration' over the islands between Britain and Argentina . Clearly he would not defend them so its v bad news for the panicking Islanders . Rather crap for the families of the brave British soldiers who protected our sovereignty and a small Island form its vast Fascist neighbour . I doubt a man who cannot sing our anthem or respect the Queen cares about that
Leaving France as the only European Nuclear power is clearly a strategic idiocy and effectively ditching the USA ( to whom it is important that we are in the game ) would not be wise should we need the USA`s vast defence expenditure to sort out another genocidal war while the EU deploys messages of displeasure .
I think it worth reminding ourselves that Corbyn`s wish to leave us without defence ( also follow Costa Ricas example and get rid of our army,.. or certainly never use it ) and dismiss America as an ally is not an isolated blip Perhaps you are not all aware that occasion on which he compared America to ISIS was on Russia today and ( let us not forget) blamed Russia’s invasion of on NATO
He is on the side of just about anyone who opposes America Britain and the West from the IRA to Hamas via Putin`s nasty aggressive regime ,( don`t even mention Israel or his support for an investigation into “Jewish influence on Government Policy”).
There is absolutely no sensible argument for unilateral nuclear disarmament either for this country or the alliance of the r Western democracies that remain the world’s best hope.I agree with the Parliamentary Labour Party, the shadow cabinet and most of the country. Jeremy Corbyn is a disgrace to the country to democracy and to the Labour Party
The cost of the nuclear deterrent is about £3bn per annum which is about 15% ( say) of our foreign aid budget so it is really not expensive as often claimed
On 2 Oct 2015 at 10:00am wrote:
Typical Tory economics fail.
Even a year 7 school child could work out 3 billion is not 15% of 11.4 billion.
Did you get that maths off Gideon? He's not very good at Sums either.
Or is it just another lie?
On 2 Oct 2015 at 10:22am Slarty wrote:
@Pah - taking your example of the Falklands.
If the situation were to rise again, who do we nuke?
A) The island (and kill all the Falklanders and leave the island uninhabitable for a few generations)
B) Argentina (and not worry about the innocent civilians because their government is trying to take over an island that the UK has sovereignty over)
C) None of the above because nukes are pretty pointless as a weapon unless you really want to mess up the earth a bit more.
Answers on a postcard please.
On 2 Oct 2015 at 10:27am Clifford wrote:
So how come 'our' nuclear deterrent hasn't persuaded the Russians to lay off Syria, Pah? Nor did the Russian possession of 'their' nuclear deterrent prevent the US and UK invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor did 'our' deterrent stop Argentina stupidly invading the Falklands (if they hadn't they would have the islands on lease now. It was what the Tories were planning).
On 2 Oct 2015 at 11:35am OffRoad wrote:
Clifford, trident is a second strike system designed to deter existential threats to this country from major powers. Its ludicrous to pick up issues that while, of huge importance, are not existential threats and say, well trident didn't help you there, did it?
I don't understand the moral case for abandoning trident but remaining in nato, a military alliance backed by American nuclear weapons that are deployed all over Europe. Its basically saying we are pacifists while simultaneously freeloading.
Europe has been living under a peace dividend and American nuclear umbrella for decades. We are complacent and naive about great power geopolitics as a result. The essential point about trident is that it protects us if, at some point, the yanks were to abandon euros, either through retreating into isolation (remember they entered both wars reluctantly and in the face of public opinion), or if western Europe became a theatre of a clash once again. This is obviously unlikely in the foreseeable future. However Britain is on the faultline between the eurasian and American worlds, and is of vital strategic importance to whichever powers dominate those in the future. We need to think decades ahead before abandoning something like this.
On 2 Oct 2015 at 11:52am Pah wrote:
UK GDP just over 2.9bn ,0.7% Foreign Aid about £20bn£3bn a year ( it is a bit more to be fair )Say 15-20% of this budget.A rounding error on government expenditure
Corbyns` wish to leave the Falkland Islanders to their fate is unconnected to the U D question other than as further evidence of his lack of interest in British standing and obligations in the world , ( and incidentally his betrayal of the soldiers who died fighting there .)
We are not at war with Russia and we won`t be, that’s the point. Do you think Putin would have rolled into an armed Ukraine?
It is an insurance policy, it is exceedingly unlikely, that my house will burn down but I don’t let the cover lapse. I don`t know what may happen in the next 50 years but to divest ourselves of a deterrent, an army we will use ,and our primary allies will strike most people as dangerously irresponsible .
Of course I am probably just a right wing Nazi who gets his opinions undiluted from the Daily Mail so I can be discounted –I think that’s the approach isn`t it?
On 2 Oct 2015 at 12:04pm Jez we can. wrote:
Doh! Dimmer than Dim
anything coming from you is bad News.
Scum of the Earth!
On 2 Oct 2015 at 12:12pm OffRoad wrote:
I tell you who is dim - a man who got two es at a level, who has never held any position of responsibility or had to make difficult choices, and pretends that the answers to the worlds problems lie in a set of principles and kneejerk anti Americanisms that he inherited unquestioningly from his parents. But I suppose that also makes him less dim than people who think he's the messiah.
On 2 Oct 2015 at 12:40pm Strike 2 Jez wrote:
one more left on this thread.
On 2 Oct 2015 at 2:35pm Slarty wrote:
Q. Do you think Putin would have rolled into an armed Ukraine?
Q. Yes, yes I do. And if he did....
Who would Ukraine have been nuked?
A) Moscow (and not worry about the innocent civilians because their government is trying to take over an area that in not theirs and who, in return, would have retaliated and wiped Ukraine off the face of the earth)
B) The area invaded by Russia (and not worry about their own innocent civilians and leave the area uninhabitable for a few generations)
C) None of the above because nukes are pretty pointless as a weapon unless you really want to mess up the earth a bit more.
On 2 Oct 2015 at 2:44pm Mark wrote:
I think that Clifford has won this one with a nice concise, punchy post. Why insure against an existential threat that barely exists anymore? Having the ability to make a second strike against a cataclystmic attack was of dubious value 40 years ago. What was ever the point? It’s certainly worthless now. I insure my house against fire (and flooding!) I don’t insure it against sudden invasion by Martians.
On 2 Oct 2015 at 4:30pm Pah wrote:
Slarty - On that basis the USSR would have invaded Europe and they did not. All we can say is that the evidence is against you. MAD worked .( Throughout this period the KGB financed CND via the British Communist Party )
On 2 Oct 2015 at 5:38pm OffRoad wrote:
The Soviet plan for the invasion of Western Europe was released by the Polish government a few years ago. Link below.
This is the key bit: "Maps associated with the released plan show nuclear strikes in many NATO states, but exclude both France and the United Kingdom. There are several possibilities for this lack of strikes, one of the most significant being that both France and the United Kingdom are nuclear weapons states, and as such retain nuclear arsenals that could be employed in retaliation for nuclear strikes against their nations."
Check it out here »
On 2 Oct 2015 at 5:43pm OffRoad wrote:
"nukes are pretty pointless as a weapon"
You'd better tell that to Mr Putin who is busy adding another 40 intercontinental nukes to the thousands the Russians already have. Why do you think they are stockpiling them?
Check it out here »
On 2 Oct 2015 at 9:47pm The real Jez we can wrote:
My name "Jez we can" is being used to make rude and disrespectful comments about others here.I am a JC supporter and I started this thread to open a debate about JC`s views on nuclear weapons.The person making inane and rude comments is not me.No matter how much I disagree with others views on this subject ,if you see rude comments it will not be me.Thank you.
On 2 Oct 2015 at 11:08pm wrote:
omg you serious?
On 3 Oct 2015 at 10:25am Gift wrote:
I not sure nuclear bombs are a deterrent. The nuclear powers know the consequence of all out conflict, everyone will be affected, and after all globally life is still being affected by the nuclear testing 50 years ago. The use of nuclear weapons will only ever be used if the perpetrator is insane and frankly the insane are not likely to be deterred by deterrents. To retaliate is just revenge and ultimately suicide. Better to spend the resources on dealing with conflicts by ‘beefing up’ conventional options i.e. diplomacy, education and yes modernizing and supporting conventional military and using the change for health, environment and housing etc.
On 3 Oct 2015 at 1:54pm OffRoad wrote:
Let's say nuclear bombs are not a deterrent. What do you think would happen if NATO went in en force to support pro-western groups in Ukraine or Belarus, for example? Or if we had helped, in a more obviously military way, the Georgians when they had their 'colour' revoluation?
"To retaliate is just revenge and ultimately suicide." - You don't understand game theory do you? The point is no-one dares do anything because there is an outside chance you might just be mad enough to retaliate.
On 3 Oct 2015 at 4:16pm Mark wrote:
OffRoad, your diagrams with scary arrows pointing towards western Europe are from 1976! That's 39 years ago. Get with the programme.
On 4 Oct 2015 at 6:56am OffRoad wrote:
Very true. Things can change pretty quickly. What do you think the world will be like in another 39 years time?
On 4 Oct 2015 at 2:39pm Gift wrote:
It is true, I have limited knowledge of ‘game theory’ and then only applied in a Biological context when John Maynard Smith was one of our lecturers in the early eighties and of course the film ‘Dr Strangelove’ that satirizes ‘game theory’. It is just a game. I read today that Dennis Healy was in favor of a deterrent for NATO i.e. that could mean the USA not the UK, why do we need it, are our 200+ warheads (most of which are not armed) going to impact on the 15,000 plus warheads in the Russia and the USA? Further, perhaps you know, is the 100 billion for the trident (2) improvement just for the deliver system? Could we not just use the money to bring about a bit of equality?
I don’t like Russia’s Macho culture but don’t you think that NATO has a significant covert roll in the Ukraine? Belarus is not on good terms with NATO (over 70% of the population is pro Russian) but that has not stopped NATO applying economic pressure. Perhaps this game theory? The Russians have good historical reasons for being a bit paranoid, should we be tweaking the bear’s tail?
On 4 Oct 2015 at 9:15pm OffRoad wrote:
OK, so you're saying nuclear deterrents do work but would should just freeload off the Americans? What happens if they abandoned NATO and Europe? They have been in splendid isolation before. I agree that NATO has been overly expansionist but that was not my point - it was that there is a good chance Russia would use a nuke (perhaps a small tactical device) if NATO were to become more aggressive.
The problem is changed. I don't think anyone foresees a major strategic exchange - it's more the small, tactical, battlefield weapons that are a problem. Either in frontiers between nuclear powers (e.g. India/Pakistan) or because of NATO's conventional superiority against everyone - which means that countries such as Russia feel pressed into investing in nuclear capability as it is the only way to feasibly resist the US's conventional forces.
On 9 Oct 2015 at 6:29pm belladonna wrote:
the only problem is if the IS nutters get hold of nukes. They will not negotiate (unlike Iran) and will push the button regardless of deterents.