• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corbyn Disconnect?

Andalublue said:
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.
Click to expand...

When the UN or another supra national organization guarantees security, your argument will be relevant.

It is also not relevant till then, how many lives are lost on the other side. It was vaguely interesting, when money meant less. But as that factor becomes more important, the legitimately incurred size of collateral damage goes up. Saving very few of your own soldiers is plenty of justification for any number of dead on the side of the enemy. As a matter of fact, it would be irresponsible and illegitimate to waste lives or even treasure of the people that entrusted you with protecting them to spare enemy lives or collateral damage.
 
Come to think of it, I doubt the hypothetical PM would be alive to make such an order of retaliation. Aren't the guys in the sub just going to fall under the command of a far flung British territory or of any surviving ally, failing that make the decision themselves?
 
joG said:
When the UN or another supra national organization guarantees security, your argument will be relevant.
It is also not relevant till then, how many lives are lost on the other side. It was vaguely interesting, when money meant less. But as that factor becomes more important, the legitimately incurred size of collateral damage goes up. Saving very few of your own soldiers is plenty of justification for any number of dead on the side of the enemy. As a matter of fact, it would be irresponsible and illegitimate to waste lives or even treasure of the people that entrusted you with protecting them to spare enemy lives or collateral damage.
Click to expand...

I think the disconnect mentioned in the thread title is broadly shared.

The root of Australia's reluctance to follow through on its commitment to nuclear disarmament is undoubtedly its relationship with the United States. As both the 2009 and 2013 Defence White Papers have made clear, Australia relies on Washington for its security guarantee through the notion of an 'extended nuclear deterrence'; that is to say that if Australia's security was seriously threatened or compromised, the nuclear-armed United States would be seemingly obligated to come to our aid. In 2009, then Australian ambassador to the United States of America Dennis Richardson even made a submission to the United States Congress Nuclear Posture Review calling on them to explicitly confirm this expectation which in his words has assured countries like Australia that "they do not need to develop their own nuclear weapons".
Click to expand...

Australia must walk the walk on nuclear weapons - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Even the author of this article spells it out but seems to mix up cause and effect, coming to the strange conclusion that Australia isn't too loud about nuclear disarmament because of it's military relationship with the US, rather than the more obvious answer that they can be nuclear disarmed because they have a military alliance with the US.
 
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.
Click to expand...

If you are asking that question of some of the European leftist posters on this forum, the answer is 'all of them'.
 
Andalublue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, it clearly wouldn't be of any concern to the European Left.
 
Ben K. said:
I think the disconnect mentioned in the thread title is broadly shared.



Australia must walk the walk on nuclear weapons - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Even the author of this article spells it out but seems to mix up cause and effect, coming to the strange conclusion that Australia isn't too loud about nuclear disarmament because of it's military relationship with the US, rather than the more obvious answer that they can be nuclear disarmed because they have a military alliance with the US.
Click to expand...

I love the hypocrisy of those nations that speak of unilateral nuclear disarmament, or of forbidding nuclear weapons, while doing so because they know that as long as the American nuclear deterrent remains, they are safe.
 
Wiggen said:
If you are asking that question of some of the European leftist posters on this forum, the answer is 'all of them'.
Click to expand...

Now that would be negligent of Mr President.
 
PeteEU said:
So who would the UK bomb with a nuke if ISIS pulled off a mass attack in the UK?
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem. The UK, and Europe, have already been 'invaded' and the enemy is among them. Looking at ''Trident Missiles' and the like is still living in a "Cold War" or "Old War" mentality.

The Chinese showed the new way of waging a war with their movement into Tibet, with few weapons having to be fired. The Muslims, and this was certainly well planned, have done the same thing in Europe.

How are any missiles or nuclear weapons of any sort going to counter the enemy within?
 
PeteEU said:
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.
Click to expand...

Firstly that was always Corbyn's position including during the cold war. he is of the people in Denmark you say you wouldn't trust. I don't trust him and I wouldn't trust him to order the defence of this country.

PeteEU said:
have changed and the 21st threats cant be intimidated by having nukes, so why have them?
Click to expand...

So you think Russia is no longer a threat?

PeteEU said:
~ Even Russia could care less about UK nukes, as Russia knows that the UK only does what the US tells them to do.
Click to expand...

Been through this before.

PeteEU said:
So why have them at all? Rather use the money on special forces to combat the real enemy, radical religious groups around the world.
Click to expand...

Special Forces can sometimes only operate because other forces have bridged a gap for them or provide larger general cover. Besides, the UK has already committed to extra drone strike forces against such groups and we are developing new drones for just such use.

PeteEU said:
~ 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.
Click to expand...

How?

PeteEU said:
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.
Click to expand...

And Syria provides the perfect example of working with Russians... they are currently wiping out the forces we have been supporting.

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

Yeah, just what what happens as Russia and NATO go head to head over Russian strikes on anti Assad forces and over Russian warplanes violating Turkish airspace.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Any weapon is no use whatsoever if they are never going to be used under any circumstance. A weapon is only any use if the threat of use exists and Corbyn would prefer to betray his nation than threaten to defend it.



Same as they have been for the last 60+ years... the chance is minimal because the return threat exists.



Do you really not understand what submarine launched nuclear weapons can do and why we went with them rather than ground launched nuclear weapons? Russia could turn the UK into a barren wasteland but our nuclear subs will still be out there or have launched retaliation. That's the point of a hard to locate nuclear deterrent.

Besides, we have around 160 operational warheads; do you reckon Russia has 160 spare cities or sites they can afford to lose if they opened fire on us?



Back to strawmen again? That's two in this thread...



Read what gunner and I said about proportional response again.



Hyperbole. A bomb could be set off in Birmingham but "blowing up Birmingham" is another matter altogether.



P R O P O R T I O N A L - R E S P ON S E.

See? Now I had to say it slowly.



[/sigh]



I have to explain it all again?
Click to expand...

so what exactly would Russia's motivation be to nuke Britain should we not renew trident? And why has Russia not nuked other non-nuclear countries like Spain or Italy?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
And where do you think those Russian weapons are aimed then? Zimbabwe? :lamo
Click to expand...

you do realise the only reason Russia has nukes pointed at us is because we have nuclear weapons.

Zimbabwe doesn't have nuclear weapons, therefore have none pointed at them.
 
Politicshead said:
so what exactly would Russia's motivation be to nuke Britain should we not renew trident?
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapons are not a weapon of first strike. I think I've said this before?

Politicshead said:
And why has Russia not nuked other non-nuclear countries like Spain or Italy?
Click to expand...

NATO

What you're basically getting at like others, is that we should give up an independent nuclear weapon and rely on US protection. The real point is that someday 300 million Americans are going to ask why they are paying for the nuclear protection of 450 million Europeans who won't do it themselves. Equally, if you rely on someone else to protect you, you become a) subservient (no matter how little or how much) to that person and b) you depend on them not walking away.

Politicshead said:
you do realise the only reason Russia has nukes pointed at us is because we have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of MAD, the only reason we have nukes pointed at Russia is that they have nukes pointed at us.

Politicshead said:
Zimbabwe doesn't have nuclear weapons, therefore have none pointed at them.
Click to expand...

Ah, so do you think Russia has nukes pointed at India and Pakistan as they have them too?
 
Last edited:
Infinite Chaos said:
Nuclear weapons are not a weapon of first strike. I think I've said this before?



NATO

What you're basically getting at like others, is that we should give up an independent nuclear weapon and rely on US protection. The real point is that someday 300 million Americans are going to ask why they are paying for the nuclear protection of 450 million Europeans who won't do it themselves. Equally, if you rely on someone else to protect you, you become a) subservient (no matter how little or how much) to that person and b) you depend on them not walking away.



I'm well aware of MAD, the only reason we have nukes pointed at Russia is that they have nukes pointed at us.



Ah, so do you think Russia has nukes pointed at India and Pakistan as they have them too?
Click to expand...

there are lots of non nuclear countries which are not in NATO which haven't been attacked by Russia. Why?

And yes, Russia almost certainly has weapons pointed at India and Pakistan; and the only reason is because they have nukes.
 
Politicshead said:
there are lots of non nuclear countries which are not in NATO which haven't been attacked by Russia. Why?
Click to expand...

Already answered this:

I'm well aware of MAD, the only reason we have nukes pointed at Russia is that they have nukes pointed at us.
Click to expand...

Politicshead said:
And yes, Russia almost certainly has weapons pointed at India and Pakistan; and the only reason is because they have nukes.
Click to expand...

Haha, not a chance. The historical enmity is China and India and then India & Pakistan.
 
Politicshead said:
there are lots of non nuclear countries which are not in NATO which haven't been attacked by Russia. Why?
Click to expand...

There are some nations that have been. What's your point? Are you under some sort of assumption that posters thinking UK should maintain operational independence think Russia is going to nuke everyone given half the chance?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Firstly that was always Corbyn's position including during the cold war. he is of the people in Denmark you say you wouldn't trust. I don't trust him and I wouldn't trust him to order the defence of this country.
Click to expand...

I understand, but then again I dont trust any politicians anymore...Even the party I normally support in Denmark has turned to the dark side and looks more like the GOP than the Liberal Party I grew up with....

So you think Russia is no longer a threat?
Click to expand...

Any country is a threat. The UK is a threat to France and the other way around.. it all depends to what degree. And based on this, no Russia aint a threat as it once was, and there are far bigger threats out there. Your focus and that of the right on Russia is based on cold war mentalities and ideology and not the realities of the 21st century.

Special Forces can sometimes only operate because other forces have bridged a gap for them or provide larger general cover. Besides, the UK has already committed to extra drone strike forces against such groups and we are developing new drones for just such use.
Click to expand...

And nukes would provide what cover?

How?
Click to expand...

You serious? The threats dont come from nation states anymore. It comes from radical groups that are embedded in society. There are no massive standing armies threatening the UK. Even the so called ISIS army is only a few 10s of thousands. We could wipe them out fast if we would commit to ground troops and work with the Syrian government. But of course that is impossible.

And Syria provides the perfect example of working with Russians... they are currently wiping out the forces we have been supporting.
Click to expand...

Those forces are a threat to their allies.. so no ****. The Russians are doing what we in the west should have done long ago. Instead we failed yet again in finding any allies we can trust on the ground and those we have found, switch sides depending on where the wind blows.

Yeah, just what what happens as Russia and NATO go head to head over Russian strikes on anti Assad forces and over Russian warplanes violating Turkish airspace.
Click to expand...

Seriously.. no one will launch nukes over what is happening in Syria. As for the Russian jets going into Turkey.. a mistake, not the first time. And it is not exactly a card the west should be playing considering we have been violating Syrias airspace for a year plus. Hypocrisy much?
 
PeteEU said:
I understand, but then again I dont trust any politicians anymore...Even the party I normally support in Denmark has turned to the dark side and looks more like the GOP than the Liberal Party I grew up with....
Click to expand...

Yeah but he has openly stated that as PM, he would not use all tools available to defend his country. That's pretty serious.

PeteEU said:
~ Any country is a threat. The UK is a threat to France and the other way around.. it all depends to what degree. And based on this, no Russia aint a threat as it once was, and there are far bigger threats out there. Your focus and that of the right on Russia is based on cold war mentalities and ideology and not the realities of the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Bigger threats? Like what? When a terrorist group gets hold of dirty nukes or neutron bombs then get back to me.

PeteEU said:
~ And nukes would provide what cover?
Click to expand...

Already answered this, you were trying to say the UK should focus on special forces operations and I said we are, through manpower and drone strikes. Then you simply repeat an argument you don't really understand.

PeteEU said:
~ You serious? The threats dont come from nation states anymore. It comes from radical groups that are embedded in society. There are no massive standing armies threatening the UK. Even the so called ISIS army is only a few 10s of thousands. We could wipe them out fast if we would commit to ground troops and work with the Syrian government. But of course that is impossible.
Click to expand...

So the biggest threat is groups like ISIS but we could wipe them out fast? So what argument are you making?

PeteEU said:
~ Those forces are a threat to their allies.. so no ****. The Russians are doing what we in the west should have done long ago. Instead we failed yet again in finding any allies we can trust on the ground and those we have found, switch sides depending on where the wind blows.

Seriously.. no one will launch nukes over what is happening in Syria. As for the Russian jets going into Turkey.. a mistake, not the first time. And it is not exactly a card the west should be playing considering we have been violating Syrias airspace for a year plus. Hypocrisy much?
Click to expand...

I can't predict what will happen in Syria, neither can you. Unfortunately we have US and Russian warplanes operating in near vicinity with each other and they are in attack mode. They don't seem to be co-ordinating well together so I'm hoping we have no serious incidents.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Yeah but he has openly stated that as PM, he would not use all tools available to defend his country. That's pretty serious.
Click to expand...
The use of nuclear weapons would never be, and could never be defensive. What available defensive tools has he ruled out?
 
Andalublue said:
The use of nuclear weapons would never be, and could never be defensive. What available defensive tools has he ruled out?
Click to expand...

Why can't nuclear weapons be defensive?

For discussion's sake: put a number of high yield conventional warheads on the same missiles and are they suddenly defensive?

Anyhow, to answer the first question - the threat of use of nuclear weapons is the defence mechanism. They are an assuredness to an enemy that if they use theirs against us then we would use ours and cause unbearable damage. That is the defence.

So to answer your second question, he has stated an unwillingness to use our ultimate defensive weapon.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Why can't nuclear weapons be defensive?

For discussion's sake: put a number of high yield conventional warheads on the same missiles and are they suddenly defensive?

Anyhow, to answer the first question - the threat of use of nuclear weapons is the defence mechanism. They are an assuredness to an enemy that if they use theirs against us then we would use ours and cause unbearable damage. That is the defence.
Click to expand...
Well, that's what's always put the MAD in Mutually Assured Destruction. That is not defence because no one believes anyone else's assurance that they would use theirs. Everyone knows that no one (with maybe one exception) would use theirs either.
 
Politicshead said:
so what exactly would Russia's motivation be to nuke Britain should we not renew trident? And why has Russia not nuked other non-nuclear countries like Spain or Italy?
Click to expand...

Because of two reasons - one, those countries are no threat to the Russians and their goal of the returned empire in Eastern Europe, and two - they know the US would destroy them should they do so.
 
Politicshead said:
you do realise the only reason Russia has nukes pointed at us is because we have nuclear weapons.

Zimbabwe doesn't have nuclear weapons, therefore have none pointed at them.
Click to expand...

I believe the last prominent British politician to adopt that line of reasoning was Neville Chamberlain. It's the 'If we are mild mannered and do what we are told, no harm will come to us.' A spineless approach to foreign policy, but then again this is the Far Left we are talking about. The Far Left never met a Russian despot they didn't admire - at least once the Czars had gone.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, that's what's always put the MAD in Mutually Assured Destruction. That is not defence because no one believes anyone else's assurance that they would use theirs. Everyone knows that no one (with maybe one exception) would use theirs either.
Click to expand...

Not one of your clearer statements Andy?
 
Andalublue said:
Well, that's what's always put the MAD in Mutually Assured Destruction. That is not defence because no one believes anyone else's assurance that they would use theirs. Everyone knows that no one (with maybe one exception) would use theirs either.
Click to expand...
It depends on the leadership. Under Obama countries are immune to any threats. Under a new American Administration I'm not so certain.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Yeah but he has openly stated that as PM, he would not use all tools available to defend his country. That's pretty serious.
Click to expand...

And you dont understand that point then. You hatred of labour and him is clouding your judgement it seems. Do you really think that anyone would use nukes against anyone? You dont burn down your house to get rid of ants.

Bigger threats? Like what? When a terrorist group gets hold of dirty nukes or neutron bombs then get back to me.
Click to expand...

You are stuck in a cold war mentality. If you seriously think that Russia is a bigger threat to the UK, than ISIS or Al Q type organisations.. then you need a reality check.

Already answered this, you were trying to say the UK should focus on special forces operations and I said we are, through manpower and drone strikes. Then you simply repeat an argument you don't really understand.
Click to expand...

No, I said they could use the money saved on nukes to fund more special forces. They could also use the money on social services, or for you Tory types.. tax cuts for the rich.

So the biggest threat is groups like ISIS but we could wipe them out fast? So what argument are you making?
Click to expand...

So you dont think groups like ISIS are the biggest threat to the UK or US at the moment? That Russia is? Seriously?

And yes, if we were willing to commit the resources and "take off the gloves", then we could wipe out ISIS. It will cost a ton of money, thousands of of our boys and girls lives, and the thousands of Syrian civilians lives.. but it can be done. Notice the "gloves off" part.

I can't predict what will happen in Syria, neither can you. Unfortunately we have US and Russian warplanes operating in near vicinity with each other and they are in attack mode. They don't seem to be co-ordinating well together so I'm hoping we have no serious incidents.
Click to expand...

Yes and whos fault is that? The West refuses to work with Assad, which means refusing to work with the Russians. In the mean time ISIS keeps mass raping little girls and executing people because they looked at someone in the wrong way and of course expand their territory by attacking our allies in Syria.. and we are moaning that the Russians and Assad are trying to tackle ISIS and other rebel groups?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom