Corbyn & Nuclear
 

OK I accept that a lot of people have passionate feelings about whether or not the UK should have nuclear weapons. However JC's latest on not pressing the button if he were PM just boggles my mind. WTF! The things he believes in (and seems to have had some U turns on) just show he lives in la la land but this one my flabber has never been so gasted!

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

while any healthy democracy needs a functioning opposition to work properly, this man scares the shit out of me, if he is the alternative maybe we can suspend opposition for a while.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

I think sometimes 'we' don't give the average labour voter enough credit. They're not all idiots, just like all Tories aren't pick-****ing Eton-ites.

Labour voters will end up pushing back on some of this idiocy and he'll end up losing by a great distance to the next Tory leader who will move ever so slightly right in a couple of areas to nick those smart Labour voters.

Anyway, that's what I reckon.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

My argument against Trident is that this useless piece of US-engineered crap costs 25% of the Defence Budget. As useless as the Maginot line, and more expensive.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

I do not want this thread to descend into CND discussion. We have nuclear weapons it's a done deal.
What is under discussion is JC and his curious, to my mind, view that we should not replace Trident and instead spend the cash persuading other countries to disband their nuclear deterrent, which he wouldn't use anyway therefore completely negating the deterrent.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

Corbyn has a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming PM.

I'm not worried about him. He's a sideshow freak. His sole use is to keep some people happy and occupied with delusional fantasies while the Tory machine pushes on ahead full steam and life for most people continue as usual.

But I do think that the BREXIT referendum will throw the political establishment many surprises and Corbyn will quickly be dispatched to the dustbin of irrelevant historical footnotes and soon forgotten.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

It's about 6%

On the topic Corbyn is playing a dangerous game here given the voters, MPs, his Shadow Cabinet and the big unions all disagree with him on nuclear weapons.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

What I find most curious is that he's a politician and should be skilled in the art of not saying what he is thinking and being economical with the truth. Yet he straight out said he would not push the button. That is what perplexes me, what game is he playing?

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

He's used to talking in a little bubble to the small group of far left extremists who are an echo chamber.People forget he's basically an old amateur, a bit thick, who has been elevated way beyond his ability.
It's like IDS as Tory leader, but much, much worse.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

O...that sort of a thread. Why didn't you say? I didn't realise this was supposed to be one of those very linear agreement type threads :blink:.

In which case, ignoring the logical problems in conventional and prevailing views, his can appear pretty unconventional. However obviously there is also some merit in his views which we would be foolish to ignore...or discuss on this thread. So what I think we can summarise here is that, without actually discussing specific issues pertaining to the views expressed, any opinion any of us could venture on any of his views would be pretty shallow and meaningless.

So, yeah, Corbyn...what a complete mental. Except also not really that mental. Something I think we can all agree on in one way or another :nod:.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

Did you not see post number 5? No CND rhetoric, we have nukes, you cannot put pandora back in the box so deal with it. End of.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

The champagne socialists will have their 5 minutes of fame and when they suddenly realize that the voters will not tolerate them they will quickly disappear. What I find more concerting is how we are perceived on the world stage, whatever happened to proper statesmen!As for Corbyn and the Nuclear Deterrent (as that is what it is supposed to be, a deterrent) his stance on not pressing the button is mind boggling, surely a situation that called for the use of nukes would be pretty bloody serious!

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

My understanding was that Corbyn has long advocated dismantling the capability so his views about not using the system he is proposing to dismantle should not be that surprising. Most of us understand using a system you no longer possess would be...very tricky at best.

So his views are those of a CND advocate. I don't want to come across as thick but it appears to me you couldn't have a meaningful discussion about his views on pushing the button and still avoid a discussion on CND. If the button isn't going to be connected to the fireworks discussing whether or not it should be pushed is pretty irrelevant.

Do you sort of see what I mean? :blink:

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

No. As per your previous hand wringing post about thousands dying blah blah blah that ends up as a CND hamster wheel and I do not want this thread to end up that way, there are hundreds of those on the interwebnet if that's what floats your boat.
The question is around WTF does JC think he's doing by publicly stating that if he was PM he would never push the button. Why is he, as a forked tongued politician, saying this? He is surely aware that it is committing political hari kiri. Is he already fed up of being in the limelight or is there some other hidden agenda?

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

He obviously never studied Machiavelli:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.

Hence it comes that all armed prophets have been victorious, and all unarmed prophets have been destroyed.

The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws.

A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it is to neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art.

Because there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together.

And therefore a prince who does not understand the art of war, over and above the other misfortunes already mentioned, cannot be respected by his soldiers, nor can he rely on them. He ought never, therefore, to have out of his thoughts this subject of war, and in peace he should addict himself more to its exercise than in war; this he can do in two ways, the one by action, the other by study.