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.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

Because he's got principles and he's prepared to stand by them publicly rather than saying what he thinks will appeal to a certain proportion of the electorate?

Or does he realise that a great many voters are fully aware that if nuclear weapons ever have to be used, their deterrent effect will have been proven to be entirely useless, and it would be the human race's way of committing actual hara-kiri?

I don't think that nuclear weapons are any kind of deciding factor in elections, to be honest. People choose to cast their vote based on stuff like the economy, being able to afford a roof over their head and put food on the table, little things like that, not about the willingness of the Prime Minister to participate fully in the great global immolation.

And why are you so bothered about Corbyn stating his position publicly? Are you bothered about the fact that Cameron won't say what's in the content of his letter in the nuclear submarines? Because all PMs have to write that letter, and they all have a choice as to what their orders are, and they all keep it entirely to themselves - NOBODY else knows apart from them, and the letters are destroyed unopened when the PM leaves office.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

Perhaps so. In which case he is in the wrong job ;) And of the electorate eligible to vote only 0.55% voted for JC.
Therein lies the rub! It's supposed to be a deterrent for which you need a poker face to persuade the enemy that if they turn one of our cities into glass (even that sh1thole London) then we will do it back, but twice as hard. To show your hand, even before going for election is IMHO pretty dumb.

See above.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

We currently have nukes. We may not have them in the future. Far from end of mate. Unless I missed the part about their perpetual existence and guaranteed renewal when out of date

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

Touche mon brave! But I get the impression (and I cannot give accurate facts as the great British public do not get polled on the subject) that a lot of us want to be able to hold the big stick up as a warning to any big bad bullies out there that if the screw with us we will do it back, only harder.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

I'm trying to make sense of that statement and failing. You'll have to help me. 380,000 people were eligible to vote for Corbyn in the leadership election and 251,417 did. That's a bit more than 0.55%.

You can't be referring to the General Election because that would be an utterly pointless comparison to make.

Maybe in mikewot world nuclear retaliation is a major election issue. In the real world of the UK I don't believe it is.

I also don't believe that there's any likelihood of any enemy with strategic nuclear weapons trying to turn any UK cities into glass if Corbyn is ever elected or not. Or rather, if it's ever a likelihood, then the international situation will be so lethal that civilisation would be doomed anyway so there'd be nothing whatsoever to be gained by firing back other than some utterly futile sense of revenge.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

45,844,691 eligible voters in UK based on the total number of names in the United Kingdom appearing in Electoral Registers published on 1 December 2010 and based on a qualifying date of 15 October 2010.

LOL! Having served in HM Forces I am more aware than most of the general public of the effects of nuclear war (we practised for surviving the effects) and how servicemen feel about it. Again you, like others, miss the point. It is now and always was intended as a deterrent. The big stick you do not ever want to use but if those big bullies make you then by goodness you most certainly will. Is that too subtle?

But can you absolutely guarantee that with certainty? No you cannot and I personally (and I suspect many other Britons) are not willing to gamble on that risk. I want some aces up my sleeve and I do not want some halfwit saying that no no no I would never use them. DOH!!

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

Oh, so you were referring to the General Election rather than the Labour leadership election.

Can you explain why? Using your logic, I could point out that Cameron got 0.075% of the national vote. What relevance does it have?

But as I said, it's an utterly pointless comparison to make. It's a worthless metric. So what's your point? Only 1.5% of the electorate were eligible to vote for Corbyn in the last GE, just as only 1.7% were eligible to vote for Cameron - the UK uses a constituency system, you see, and you can only vote for candidates standing in the constituency in which you're registered to vote. Coincidentally, both of them won their constituencies with 60.2%.

You clearly think you're making some kind of incisive, meaningful point, though. So what is it? I'm agog.

You're ex-military and you want to be sure that everybody dies. I get it.

I remain unconvinced that it's a major election issue outside the tattooed *****wit fraternity.

Mark Steel covered it pretty well, I thought: There must be something wrong with Jeremy Corbyn if he doesn't want to cause a nuclear holocaust

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

Any discussion on whether Britain should or shouldn't hold nuclear weapons usually misses the point. Trident or its replacement, as a weapons system, is inherently flawed because if you're reached the point where you need to press the button you're already lost. See Threads for illustration.

Britain holds nuclear weapons, and IMO, should continue to hold nuclear weapons for the single reason that the post-war world security was built around the fact that we would. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons names the UK as one of the five nuclear states along with the United States, Russia, China and France. It's no coincidence that these are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. We are also one of the three nuclear powers in NATO which continues to give us serious clout at a time when our conventional forces are continually shrinking.

To unilaterally disarm ourselves, or effectively do so as Mr Corbyn has done by unequivocally ruling out the use of the nuclear option under any circumstances, then this places our position at the world's top table in serious jeopardy. India, for example, is the world's largest democracy with a population twenty times the size of our own and an economy three times larger. It also possesses nuclear weapons albeit outside the NPT. Other paranuclear states, such as Brazil, Japan and Germany, could easily build themselves nuclear weapons if the political situation permitted it. If we did not renew our nuclear deterrent then our position at the UN Security Council would be become untenable and our position to influence world events would be severely and irreparable diminished.

The only mainstream political party which wants the UK to unilaterally disarm is the SNP, a party whose main aim is to oversee the breakup of the Union and for Scotland to create some kind of North Atlantic social democratic idyll à la Norway et al. They have no interest in Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom having any kind of influence on the world stage.

I suspect Mr Corbyn and his supporters are unfazed by this. Indeed, perhaps they would actively welcome it. However it is not the policy of the Labour Party or indeed the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. I appreciate that Mr Corbyn is a principled man and wants to remain true to the views he has held for his entire political career but he is still acting as if he is a backbench rebel rather than party leader. This cannot continue if he wishes to lead Labour into the 2020 General Election. If he cannot reconcile his personal convictions with the compromises his role now requires then I suspect his days as leader of the Labour Party are numbered.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

Yes, trying to put into perspective the percentage who voted for him.

You are agog? Have you consulted a doctor about it?
What a very curious viewpoint, you believe that all military personnel want everyone in the world dead? wow! What soldiers really want is no one shooting at them. I guess that the word 'deterrent' has fallen on a closed mind.
And there is the crucial word, 'cause'. Who in the world wants to 'cause' nuclear holocaust? No one I know, just the reverse.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

And there is the nub of my raising the thread. I believe it is too late, he has already publicly stated his position, too late to put the genie back in the bottle. He has, in one sentence, fatally undermined any confidence that HM Forces may have had in his ability as the leader of the country and exposed his soft underbelly to the likes of that not very nice Mr Putin who seems very determined in an expansionist policy.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

There are currently several threads on BE regarding his potential run as leader. I think I gave him six months in one which was greeted by derision by some posters but Trident is a prime example of how quickly it can unravel. No-one can expect to disagree so strongly with his own Shadow Cabinet and ignore party policy in public and still remain as leader.

Defence is just the first area he has happened to openly strayed from the party line. Economic policy, particularly in regards to welfare reforms, is where he will really come a cropper. He can either compromised his own views and lose his core support or stay true which puts him on a direct collision course with the Parliamentary Labour Party.

It is really a matter of not if, but when, he will have to go.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

I only post in here, too frightened to post elsewhere on the bored as, although I am ex-military and therefore a lean, mean killing machine, I do not have a personal nuclear deterrent to stop people posting nasty replies and making me run to my mummy.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

Can you explain why? Using your logic, I could point out that Cameron got 0.075% of the national vote, and he ended up as PM.

You won't find any MP from any party who got more than zero point zero something of the national vote. The MP who got the most votes of all at the last GE (Steve Rotheram, Labour, Liverpool Walton) only took 0.07% of the national vote.

But as I said, it's an utterly pointless comparison to make, for reasons that it appears I need to explain below. It's a completely meaningless, worthless metric.

So to reiterate, what's your point?

Only 1.5% of the electorate were eligible to vote for Corbyn in the last GE, just as only 1.7% were eligible to vote for Cameron - the UK uses a constituency system, you see, and you can only vote for candidates standing in the constituency in which you're registered to vote.

So in other words, even though there were 45,844,691 eligible voters in the last GE, only 68,777 of them were legally permitted to vote for Corbyn (it's illegal to vote in any other constituency than the one in which you are registered, it's called "electoral fraud"), and 60.2% of them did.

So what insightful, incisive, meaningful point do you think you're making? In my experience, when people make completely irrelevant points that have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion, it's because they don't really have a proper argument.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

I will try to make it simple. Could you, if you paid 3 quid, vote for CMD? No only his constituents could vote for him as an MP. Could you, if you paid 3 quid, vote for Comrade Corbyn to be leader of the labour party? Yes you could. Too subtle?

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

OK, so you've realised that if you were a paid-up member of the Labour Party, you could vote in the leadership election. Well done you.

Presumably you're not aware that the same thing happens in all the other parties? Including the leadership election in which Cameron became leader of the Tories? Cameron got 134,446 votes from Tory Party members. Corbyn got 251,417 from Labour Party members.

So once again, given that you don't seem to be questioning the validity of Cameron's claim to be leader of the Tory Party, what's your point? How is any of this relevant?

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

How did you manage to come to that conclusion!!??
I shall try to make it simpler. No I shan't, just gives you the opportunity to spout more wibble :rofl:

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

OK, so the obvious inference would seem to be that have some sort of issue with the way party leaders are elected. You would apparently prefer that everybody on the electoral register be permitted to vote in leadership elections, not just members of the party concerned.

So what good do you think that would achieve?

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

Oh my goodness! Thinking not logical yours is young skywalker! Do you believe that in a General Election the punters vote for the local numpty or for the party headed by the person they believe will do the best job for the country? I believe that has a significant bearing on how people choose to vote. People in Cornwall would vote for Sidney Hathwaite from 't opp North if he were't local candidate cause he was the only conservative candidate they could vote for and they want to vote conservative. By a logical process of deduction one could conclude that, irrespective of the members of his constituency voting for CMD, there was actually a large groundswell of support across the whole country (excepting us blue painted trogs North of the border) who embraced cuddly CMD to their bosoms (metaphorically speaking). Not so our comrade who I suspect most of the general public had never heard of prior to the leadership battle.
After this rather rambling prelude those who voted for the comrade, those paid up members of the labour party, were a fraction of the total electorate. It would be interesting to see who would vote labour in a GE if the comrade still held the levers of power. However I doubt he will last that long.

Re: Corbyn & Nuclear
 

People vote for the local MP who represents the party they want to run the country. Obviously there are exceptions, such as tactical voting.

What, you mean during the 2005 Conservative leadership election? Or the 2015 GE?

I know a lot of Tories who don't like Cameron (they don't think he's a big enough *****), but voted Tory anyway because - get this - they were Tory voters.

Most of the general public had never heard of Cameron before he became party leader. He was not a prominent Tory politician at the time, and he had almost no public profile compared to other three main candidates.

Similarly, Blair was largely an unknown quantity to the majority of the public when he became Labour leader. Politics junkies obviously knew about him, but Joe Public didn't.

The same as in any leadership election in any party. Nothing unusual or meaningful about that.