Corbyn Disconnect?

Infinite Chaos · Oct 1, 2015

Manc Skipper said:
What does the UK have that Russia could want? (Apart from an outstanding gas bill)

What does any one have that Russia would want yet they have a huge nuclear arsenal, bigger than the US.

Ben K. · Oct 1, 2015

PeteEU said:
No that is not what I am thinking. My point and I suspect Corbyn as well, is that what use are they? They cost the UK taxpayer billions a year, money that could be better spent elsewhere. What protection do they actually give the UK? The only nuclear power that is remotely threatening the UK is Russia, and what are the chances they will use them? And one has to ask.. would the threat of nuclear retaliation by the UK even be a threat to Russia, since the UK most likely would be a barren radioactive wasteland by the time any "retaliation" is ordered? Or are you the first strike kind of guy?

Then there are the real threats of a modern world.. terrorists and rouge organisations that have little if any links to nation states. What use are nukes against them? So ISIS blows up Birmingham or something .. who do you target? Mosul? Raqqa? If it is AL Q.. who then? Karachi? Cairo since thats where their leader is from? How about Jeddah since thats where Osama was born? How about your 7/7 bombers.. nuke what British city in retaliation?

So again, other than a massive financial drain and a political penis extender, what use are the UK nuclear weapons? There are simply no "enemies" and situations where they would be relevant.. not now, and one could argue, not ever.

This is sort of why it's hard to parse his statement without considering his attitude to NATO. Anybody in NATO is a de facto nuclear weapon state - they are potential targets and are home or proximal to reciprocal delivery systems (italy, germany, turkey etc. aren't nuclear powers but sort of have them). Heck, even non-NATO europeans are pretty much in that club by proximity.

I think a bigger thing is, even if you have the noblest intention of global nuclear disarmament - why on earth would you not negotiate with the leverage you have?

PeteEU · Oct 2, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
What does any one have that Russia would want yet they have a huge nuclear arsenal, bigger than the US.

Err no.. that is false. The US has far more nukes than Russia and it has been so since forever. At its height, the US had 15k+ nukes, and Russia about 8k. Now days we are down to about 2100 for the US and 1600 for the Russians.

PeteEU · Oct 2, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
Same threat we've had for 60+ years... Russia.

Ahh, so you are still stuck in the cold war I see. What threat is that exactly? Invasion? Bill collectors coming to get money owed?

Haha. You think Russia would ignore 160 nukes going off if they forced us to launch?

Forced you to launch? At what point would you be forced to launch your nukes? And if you did launch the 160 nukes,.. it would be over for all of us..But again, why would Russia be forcing you to launch your nukes?

You're speaking with your heart, not your head. A country threatens us with nuclear annihilation, we show that we can defend ourselves or inflict a very heavy price if they dared to attack. God's sake, this has been the policy 60+ years, you never got it before?

Russia has threatened to nuke the **** out of the UK? Where? When?

That's a different point. You're trying to prove that the UK should hand over or disarm. The point of having an ultimate weapon is to dissuade.

No it is not a different point.. it is the exact same point. Why would Russia nuke the UK or anyone? The consequences would hit them almost as hard as the nuked nation. It makes no sense what so ever.

Erm, why has Putin stepped up nuclear bomber patrols on EU airspace? And this includes before Ukraine?

Ever think it might be a reaction to NATO expansion and aggression? It is funny that you never hear about US/UK/NATO planes buzzing Russian airspace (or even violating it) and yet NATO has been doing this since the end of the cold war... but that is okay I am guessing?

You not been reading about Russian interdiction flights for the last 30 years? You think those Ivans are just flying past to admire big ben?

It is called training, the same training that NATO has been doing against Russia for the last 30 years. It is the same bs the Americans are doing against the Chinese... it is dangerous and aggressive and it is fully with in the right of Russia/China or whoever to react to such aggressive tactics.

P R O P O R T I O N A L - R E S P ON S E. there is no policy to nuke a small terrorist group. It;s your mistaken belief the Russians are no threat, I'm hear to disagree with you.

Then why have nukes? Again why have expensive nukes if there are no enemies to threaten them with?

Nothing to worry about here either LOL.

And if I show pictures of NATO planes near Russian airspace or expanding NATO influence into.. I dunno.. Ukraine, then that is not to worry about? We are again back to old cold war mentalities. Why did the Cuban missile crisis happen? Because the Americans were arrogant enough to think that the Russians would have no problems with them putting nukes in Turkey.. So the Russians responded by putting nukes on Cuba.. Time and time again the actions of NATO/US have been ignored but when Russia reacts to obvious aggressive tactics, then they are the bad guys. And no I dont support Putin or the Russians, but as I have often said.. it takes two to tango. Russians rarely do stuff without a reason.

Serenity · Oct 2, 2015

joG said:
Tell me. You really cannot imagine circumstances that would not be best dealt with with a nuclear weapon?

No, I can not. We do not have nuclear weapons here, I don't support genocide, and I'm quite happy living in a Country where 84 per cent of Australians encourage our government to continue to support efforts to ban nuclear weapons.

joG · Oct 2, 2015

PeteEU said:
To be honest? Alien invasion when we have nothing to lose.

Other than that, the use of a nuclear weapon, especially the modern ones, is the absolutely most insane way of "winning" a war. Not only do you kill a hell of a lot of people, but you make the impact areas and large zones around, uninhabitable for many many years, and the winds will push radioactive clouds and rains much much further away and onto yourself.

Look at Chernobyl. The radioactive clouds spread all the way to Southern Spain and across the Atlantic. And that was not really an airburst..

So no, nukes are idiotic and expensive.

Really. That is, what you believe. I don't see one argument there that would even briefly sway my opinion that nuclear weapons must be used under certain circumstances. I know, you are by far and away not alone in that opinion. But one can tell that the long Pax Americana in Europe has queered the rationality. For curiosity's sake, how much standard of living would you be willing to forgo in order to avoid using an atomic weapon. Or how many of your fellow citizens would you be willing to have slaughtered in the field that an atomic strike could save?

joG · Oct 2, 2015

Manc Skipper said:
What does the UK have that Russia could want? (Apart from an outstanding gas bill)

Are you clowning me or do you really think that way? I can hardly believe people could have looked at history so superficially as to not understand that there is always a casus belli nobody had thought of or did not think possible.

joG · Oct 2, 2015

Serenity said:
No, I can not. We do not have nuclear weapons here, I don't support genocide, and I'm quite happy living in a Country where 84 per cent of Australians encourage our government to continue to support efforts to ban nuclear weapons.

How many of your nation's soldiers would you be willing to let die in order to avoid saving them with a nuclear bomb? 10.000? The rest made to slaves? Would you really pay that price?

William Rea · Oct 2, 2015

Manc Skipper said:
Why is refusing to commit indiscriminate murder with a weapon of mass destruction a bad thing?

Nuclear weapons are probably the biggest and most expensive penis extensions in international politics; Penis extensions tend to ultimately be useless and provide no satisfaction to anyone, especially not the people being ****ed while accommodating them.

William Rea · Oct 2, 2015

PeteEU said:
So who would the UK bomb with a nuke if ISIS pulled off a mass attack in the UK?

Who cares? Just one look at those shiny big mother****ers gives me a military boner like you would not believe. Nuclear weapons reflect the size of political egos and nothing else.

William Rea · Oct 2, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
Telling potential aggressors you would never as leader authorise the use of the ultimate defensive weapon and then showing that you haven't conferred with your potential Home Secretary on immigration results smacks of the amateur.

For one, the majority of the country believes in keeping Trident (and staying part of NATO) and it would be hard to argue that there are no minuses to immigration that is not selective at least. We are on the road to a manifesto that Michael Foot would have drooled over.

I for one am furious with Corbyn for this. He said he wanted to end austerity and here he is denying the boys their toys to save money.

PeteEU · Oct 2, 2015

joG said:
Really. That is, what you believe. I don't see one argument there that would even briefly sway my opinion that nuclear weapons must be used under certain circumstances. I know, you are by far and away not alone in that opinion. But one can tell that the long Pax Americana in Europe has queered the rationality. For curiosity's sake, how much standard of living would you be willing to forgo in order to avoid using an atomic weapon. Or how many of your fellow citizens would you be willing to have slaughtered in the field that an atomic strike could save?

Who says that a nuclear strike would save anyone? You seem to have the delusion that it is a clean weapon.. it aint, it is dirty as hell. The consequences of a nuclear strike is mind boggling. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small... nuclear weapons of the 21st century are not as small and do far more damage. Fatboy was 22 kt TNT. The B83 nuclear bomb is up to 1200 kt TNT.. The So there is almost no situation where using one would be "the right thing to do".. by anyone.

Infinite Chaos · Oct 2, 2015

PeteEU said:
Ahh, so you are still stuck in the cold war I see.

And please explain why you think Russia is now a trustworthy country with which we can lower our guard?

PeteEU said:
What threat is that exactly? Invasion? Bill collectors coming to get money owed?

4000+ nuclear weapons but you knew that already.

PeteEU said:
~ Forced you to launch? At what point would you be forced to launch your nukes? And if you did launch the 160 nukes,.. it would be over for all of us..But again, why would Russia be forcing you to launch your nukes?

Ah, you think if there was a situation where Russia launched that we should just fight back with conventional weapons? Or better still, we roll over and play poodle?

PeteEU said:
~ Russia has threatened to nuke the **** out of the UK? Where? When?

And where do you think those Russian weapons are aimed then? Zimbabwe? :lamo

PeteEU said:
~ No it is not a different point.. it is the exact same point. Why would Russia nuke the UK or anyone? The consequences would hit them almost as hard as the nuked nation. It makes no sense what so ever.

So why does Russia keep those weapons? We're getting to a point where you branch off into Ukraine. The cold war "ended" in 1990 (thereabouts) and should have been the end of nuclear weapons. The US went down from some 30,000 to 5,000 and Russia dropped their numbers too but they still remain. You want the UK to get rid of theirs and you're not complaining about Russia's.
Equally, you're not complaining about how European NATO countries have kept the capability to launch US weapons which means they are even less independent that UK weapons.

Stupid position to complain about one and be blind to another.

PeteEU said:
~ Ever think it might be a reaction to NATO expansion and aggression?

I knew Ukraine would enter the picture.

PeteEU said:
~ It is funny that you never hear about US/UK/NATO planes buzzing Russian airspace (or even violating it) and yet NATO has been doing this since the end of the cold war... but that is okay I am guessing?

Post some images please, I can easily find NATO interceptors warning off Russian bears and blackbirds easily. I don't see the images the other way around.

Post some please.

PeteEU said:
~ It is called training, the same training that NATO has been doing against Russia for the last 30 years. It is the same bs the Americans are doing against the Chinese... it is dangerous and aggressive and it is fully with in the right of Russia/China or whoever to react to such aggressive tactics.

Training right through the English Channel huh? Why are you not so perturbed by Russian flights and shipping right on our borders?

PeteEU said:
~ Then why have nukes? Again why have expensive nukes if there are no enemies to threaten them with?

Because we don't all believe the same as Jeremy Corbyn and most of the rest of the UK believes in a solid defence policy.

PeteEU said:
~ And if I show pictures of NATO planes near Russian airspace or expanding NATO influence into.. I dunno.. Ukraine, then that is not to worry about?

Please do. I'm curious. Can you find any around Russian borders too?

PeteEU said:
~We are again back to old cold war mentalities. Why did the Cuban missile crisis happen? Because the Americans were arrogant enough to think that the Russians would have no problems with them putting nukes in Turkey.. So the Russians responded by putting nukes on Cuba.. Time and time again the actions of NATO/US have been ignored but when Russia reacts to obvious aggressive tactics, then they are the bad guys. And no I dont support Putin or the Russians, but as I have often said.. it takes two to tango. Russians rarely do stuff without a reason.

Um, whose side are you on again?

William Rea said:
I for one am furious with Corbyn for this. He said he wanted to end austerity and here he is denying the boys their toys to save money.

Good 'en, don't agree with you but it's a good 'en.

PeteEU said:
Who says that a nuclear strike would save anyone?

Nobody ever said nuclear strikes would save anyone: that's another reason why you're arguing from a misinformed position. They are weapons of last resort and also to prevent the other side launching theirs.

PeteEU · Oct 2, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
And please explain why you think Russia is now a trustworthy country with which we can lower our guard?

Did I say Russia was trustworthy? Hell the UK aint trustworthy, so why should the rest of Europe or the world trust them? Why trust anyone with nukes?

4000+ nuclear weapons but you knew that already.

No, not 4000+ nuclear weapons, and the Americans have more than the Russians.. so are the Americans a threat also? How about rogue nations like Israel? Or North Korea, or Pakistan/India?

Ah, you think if there was a situation where Russia launched that we should just fight back with conventional weapons? Or better still, we roll over and play poodle?

Again why would the Russians launch nukes? Nukes leaves nothing behind to conquer.. so what the hell is the point?

So why does Russia keep those weapons?

Because the Americans are... yes there is insanity involved in this. You are keeping your nukes because of the Russians, and the Russians are doing it because you have nukes and the Americans have them.. stupidity and insanity at its worse.

We're getting to a point where you branch off into Ukraine. The cold war "ended" in 1990 (thereabouts) and should have been the end of nuclear weapons. The US went down from some 30,000 to 5,000 and Russia dropped their numbers too but they still remain. You want the UK to get rid of theirs and you're not complaining about Russia's.Equally, you're not complaining about how European NATO countries have kept the capability to launch US weapons which means they are even less independent that UK weapons.

Stupid position to complain about one and be blind to another.

Listen I want to get rid of all nukes.. it is a doomsday weapon that no one should have. In this case we are talking about the UKs nukes.. not Russias or the Americans or Israel or China. UK.. cant afford the nukes (nore can other countries).. so why have them?

Post some images please, I can easily find NATO interceptors warning off Russian bears and blackbirds easily. I don't see the images the other way around.

Of course you dont, just as you did not see them during the cold war. Does not mean they dont happen. The US has lost at least one plane by China in the last decade and continue to spy on China. And they would for some reason not do that to Russia? Come on..

Training right through the English Channel huh? Why are you not so perturbed by Russian flights and shipping right on our borders?

Yes just as the UK and US train in Poland and the Baltic states and elsewhere. I dont like that either for the record. Do I wish Russia would not train outside its borders.. sure, but I cant really fault them, when our own governments are doing it as well.

Because we don't all believe the same as Jeremy Corbyn and most of the rest of the UK believes in a solid defence policy.

That is not an answer, but a political statement. Again what are nukes good for?

Please do. I'm curious. Can you find any around Russian borders too?

Sure if I looked, but you would dismiss them as they most likely came from a Russian source. But the fact that you dont think it is happening is shocking, since the Americans have been caught doing it many times with downed aircraft. Or did you miss those reports also?

Um, whose side are you on again?

What do you mean? Are you against historical facts? Do you deny that the Cuban missle crisis was a response to America planting nukes in Turkey? That these nukes were removed soon after the Cuban missile crisis?

Nobody ever said nuclear strikes would save anyone: that's another reason why you're arguing from a misinformed position. They are weapons of last resort and also to prevent the other side launching theirs.

You said that they would save people.. so someone did say it. And nukes are not a weapon of last resort, but a weapon of ending human kind. That is why I am so against them.

Infinite Chaos · Oct 3, 2015

PeteEU said:
Did I say Russia was trustworthy?

You seem pretty hell bent on complaining about democracies having nuclear weapons but very little complaint about a hostile neighbour having them, and when they are aimed at us.

PeteEU said:
~ Hell the UK aint trustworthy, so why should the rest of Europe or the world trust them?

Um, we haven't taken over any neighbours or make vassal states in over 2-300 years at least. Can you say the same about the country you would prefer we were naked against?

PeteEU said:
Why trust anyone with nukes?

Good question, now go and ask the Russians and Americans to disarm.

PeteEU said:
~ No, not 4000+ nuclear weapons

yes 4000+ but not all armed and ready to strike. Same with the US.

PeteEU said:
and the Americans have more than the Russians.. so are the Americans a threat also? How about rogue nations like Israel? Or North Korea, or Pakistan/India?

Simple answer, no. And I don't accept Israel is a rogue nation so don't derail the thread.

PeteEU said:
~ Again why would the Russians launch nukes? Nukes leaves nothing behind to conquer.. so what the hell is the point?

So why do they have them? Genuine question.

PeteEU said:
~ the Russians are doing it because you have nukes and the Americans have them.. stupidity and insanity at its worse.

Well, we come back to your original point about trust in a neighbour. Nukes are an insanity and only bargained away through both sides agreeing to disarm. Not by one side disarming and hoping the other leaves us alone.

PeteEU said:
~ Listen I want to get rid of all nukes.. it is a doomsday weapon ~ .. so why have them?

See above.

PeteEU said:
~ Of course you dont ~ Come on..

No, I won't "come on."

You made a claim and you can't prove it. The internet does not belong to the US, they cannot hide pictures posted by Russian airplanes of NATO or American bombers flying close to Russian borders. We release these pictures all the time because it happens all the time.

PeteEU said:
~ Yes just as the UK and US train in Poland and the Baltic states ~ are doing it as well.

Difference is the UK and US are invited by Poland and Baltic States because they are wanted back by Russia. Did you not notice the huge rush westwards by these countries?

Would you have ignored their pleas and let them fall back under Russian power just because you don't want us to have nuclear weapons?

PeteEU said:
~ That is not an answer, but a political statement. Again what are nukes good for?

Answered many times and your position of sacrificing Eastern states is disgusting Pete.

PeteEU said:
~ Sure if I looked, but you would dismiss them as they most likely came from a Russian source.

No, humour me and post B2 bombers or UK airplanes buzzing Russian airspace in the same way their bombers buzz ours. I don't care what source as long as they are not from a computer game.

PeteEU said:
~ But the fact that you dont think it is happening is shocking, since the Americans have been caught doing it many times with downed aircraft. Or did you miss those reports also?

I know about spyplanes in the past ~ there's an international agreement between Russia and the US on allowing such overflights now. That's an easy one to find pictures for too.

Get me pictures from the last 20 years, any Russian source of our bombers and interdiction craft buzzing Russian borders please.

PeteEU said:
~ What do you mean? Are you against historical facts? Do you deny that the Cuban missle crisis was a response to America planting nukes in Turkey? That these nukes were removed soon after the Cuban missile crisis?

I mean whose side are you on? We had reds under our bed such as Arthur Scargill and many others who wanted the UK to become more like the USSR and wanted us to appease Russia. You talk of aggressive expansion Eastwards - we didn't roll tanks into Poland, Slovakia etc to take them from Russia: those nations were desperate to get away and join us. Their economies have grown and their peoples are free. That has enraged Russia yet you want US to stop or disarm while Russia remains a hostile neighbour.

PeteEU said:
~ You said that they would save people.. so someone did say it. And nukes are not a weapon of last resort, but a weapon of ending human kind. That is why I am so against them.

You don't understand what I'm saying. Try and re-read my comment.

William Rea · Oct 3, 2015

Here's my take as someone who is old enough to have lived through a period of time when there was a serious belief that a nuclear war was imminent and tangible fear of this threat in the general population of the UK.

Trident would not be a UK independent deterrent, in effect we would be renting it from the USA and as such, we would simply be buying a service that costs billions that we can ill afford; It is pretty much a 'token' political gesture to the USA on our part. I know that this will be seen as 'anti-American and it is definitely not but, if we are going to go nuclear then I would prefer for the UK to be developing our own strategic deterrent under the umbrella of NATO so that we can control the budget in relation to our other defence needs. My position on this has softened somewhat over the years in that I was completely against all nuclear weapons and pretty much a pacifist but, what I am actually against is the madness of the tactics of Mutually Assured Destruction; I could accept a small UK held tactical nuclear weapons capability and have no problem with that being part of an overall NATO capability.

However, despite all this, any UK politicians who want to purchase nuclear services or undertake development of independent nuclear capability have to first convince me that it is not a very expensive vanity project. At the moment, I can see no strategic reason whatsoever for anything other than tactical battlefield nuclear weaponry.

Andalublue · Oct 3, 2015

William Rea said:
Here's my take as someone who is old enough to have lived through a period of time when there was a serious belief that a nuclear war was imminent and tangible fear of this threat in the general population of the UK.

Trident would not be a UK independent deterrent, in effect we would be renting it from the USA and as such, we would simply be buying a service that costs billions that we can ill afford; It is pretty much a 'token' political gesture to the USA on our part. I know that this will be seen as 'anti-American and it is definitely not but, if we are going to go nuclear then I would prefer for the UK to be developing our own strategic deterrent under the umbrella of NATO so that we can control the budget in relation to our other defence needs. My position on this has softened somewhat over the years in that I was completely against all nuclear weapons and pretty much a pacifist but, what I am actually against is the madness of the tactics of Mutually Assured Destruction; I could accept a small UK held tactical nuclear weapons capability and have no problem with that being part of an overall NATO capability.

However, despite all this, any UK politicians who want to purchase nuclear services or undertake development of independent nuclear capability have to first convince me that it is not a very expensive vanity project. At the moment, I can see no strategic reason whatsoever for anything other than tactical battlefield nuclear weaponry.

Great post, William.

The thing I have never been able to get my head around is the idea that Trident is the only nuclear option. It may well be the most expensive, it's certainly not independent, and I really doubt that a system developed during the Cold War is going to be an appropriate defensive system in a post-Cold War scenario. We no longer have any nuclear-armed enemies, unless you include N. Korea :roll:. MAD can no longer be the basis for thinking about nuclear conflict. Warfare has changed 100% since 1989, yet the military-industrialist haven't.

Infinite Chaos · Oct 3, 2015

William Rea said:
~ tactical battlefield nuclear weaponry.

Problem with tactical battlefield weapons is that they can be tracked and taken out relatively easily as compared to something hidden away in the sea.

Andalublue said:
Great post, William.

The thing I have never been able to get my head around is the idea that Trident is the only nuclear option. It may well be the most expensive, it's certainly not independent, and I really doubt that a system developed during the Cold War is going to be an appropriate defensive system in a post-Cold War scenario. We no longer have any nuclear-armed enemies, unless you include N. Korea :roll:. MAD can no longer be the basis for thinking about nuclear conflict. Warfare has changed 100% since 1989, yet the military-industrialist haven't.

The submarines are British built and regularly over run on costs, the nukes are British built. It's the delivery system that is American. I would prefer the subs came in on budget and I would prefer we built the missile systems too but we are were we are.

William Rea · Oct 3, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
Problem with tactical battlefield weapons is that they can be tracked and taken out relatively easily as compared to something hidden away in the sea.

The submarines are British built and regularly over run on costs, the nukes are British built. It's the delivery system that is American. I would prefer the subs came in on budget and I would prefer we built the missile systems too but we are were we are.

Good points. I was kind of outlining what I could support in terms of nuclear weapons and the submarine based MAD approach is over my line in the sand. With a quarter of the cost of Trident (£25bn) perhaps could we develop some tactical stealth and give some new options to NATO? And yes, the MOD is currently a money pit but, perhaps if our bureaucrats stopped getting a hard on for vanity projects and stopped throwing money at private engineering companies like confetti then we would get some value. Trust me, I have seen the kind of money that can be made from MOD contracts!

Last month I took the extraordinary step of joining a political party for the first time in my life. I am considering becoming active within that party, I felt enfranchised by the direction that the party that I had joined was taking. Corbyn disconnect? Not for me IC.

Nilly · Oct 3, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
So why do they have them? Genuine question.
.

Same reason we have them, to deter other people from nuking Russia.

You seem to be convinced that we only have nukes for defensive purposes but dem dirty other countries wants to use theirs offensively. They've got itchy trigger fingers and can't wait to nuke us tohell and back.

No country considers nukes an offensive weapon. Countries have them because they're scared of each other. If anything, Corbyn's proposal is saying that he's not scared of Russia.

No country has anything to gain from nuking another country.

Infinite Chaos · Oct 3, 2015

Nilly said:
Same reason we have them, to deter other people from nuking Russia.

You seem to be convinced that we only have nukes for defensive purposes but dem dirty other countries wants to use theirs offensively. They've got itchy trigger fingers and can't wait to nuke us tohell and back.

Nt really because if they were an offensive weapon for anyone they would have been used a long time ago in the cold war or anytime in the last 25 years since the cold war ended. Surely, if a leader thought he could get away with it and wipe out his enemy country then they would have been used.

Nilly said:
~ If anything, Corbyn's proposal is saying that he's not scared of Russia.

Well this I agree but not for the reasons you might feel. Corbin comes from a wing of the Labour Party that I despise and have always mistrusted. It's a part that in the 70's and 80's had some level of infiltration by the KGB and who would happily have had us be more like the USSR.

Some of these groups and actors had Soviet paymasters so why would Corbyn fear his past allies? The CND in the UK received funding through the KGB in the 80's and Corbyn has been roundly praised by them.

For me, the disconnect is of a man who has stood for PM but who would stop at certain points if his country ever needed him to order its defence. His past does not convince me he has left those affiliations behind.

joG · Oct 4, 2015

Serenity said:
No, I can not. We do not have nuclear weapons here, I don't support genocide, and I'm quite happy living in a Country where 84 per cent of Australians encourage our government to continue to support efforts to ban nuclear weapons.

So how many American lives and standard of living would you be willing to lose to avoid using a nuclear weapon. That is, what it boils down to.

joG · Oct 4, 2015

PeteEU said:
Who says that a nuclear strike would save anyone? You seem to have the delusion that it is a clean weapon.. it aint, it is dirty as hell. The consequences of a nuclear strike is mind boggling. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small... nuclear weapons of the 21st century are not as small and do far more damage. Fatboy was 22 kt TNT. The B83 nuclear bomb is up to 1200 kt TNT.. The So there is almost no situation where using one would be "the right thing to do".. by anyone.

And? That is not really much of an argument.

Andalublue · Oct 5, 2015

joG said:
So how many American lives and standard of living would you be willing to lose to avoid using a nuclear weapon. That is, what it boils down to.

Why should that be a concern for anyone but Americans? No one wants to see any lives lost, but far more would be lost by using nuclear weapons than would ever be lost by NOT using them.

PeteEU · Oct 5, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
Well this I agree but not for the reasons you might feel. Corbin comes from a wing of the Labour Party that I despise and have always mistrusted. It's a part that in the 70's and 80's had some level of infiltration by the KGB and who would happily have had us be more like the USSR.

I understand you fully. In Denmark we have the same type of people and I would not trust them further than I could throw them.

However on this issue, I have to concede that he is correct. Threats have changed and the 21st threats cant be intimidated by having nukes, so why have them? Even Russia could care less about UK nukes, as Russia knows that the UK only does what the US tells them to do. So why have them at all? Rather use the money on special forces to combat the real enemy, radical religious groups around the world.

Some of these groups and actors had Soviet paymasters so why would Corbyn fear his past allies? The CND in the UK received funding through the KGB in the 80's and Corbyn has been roundly praised by them.

Yes and the Tory party received tons of dirty money from US conservatives.. your point being? I know you dont like the far left wing and its links to the Soviets.. I certainly dont, but we have to remember that the world has changed. Just with the Nazis, where the Soviets and West worked together, we need to do so again against the radical religious types. Both Russia, the UK and US all have internal religious fanatics that are a problem.. we have our common enemy.

However, nukes aint gonna do jack **** when it comes to those fanatics.. and it is draining our financial power to combat them.

Corbyn Disconnect?

Infinite Chaos

Ben K.

PeteEU

PeteEU

Serenity

Stay Human

joG

joG

joG

William Rea

William Rea

William Rea

PeteEU

Infinite Chaos

PeteEU

Infinite Chaos

William Rea

Andalublue

Hello again!

Infinite Chaos

William Rea

Nilly

stb

Infinite Chaos

joG

joG

Andalublue

Hello again!

PeteEU