The Politics Thread 3.0

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue May 09, 2017 3:36 pm

captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:The whole point of having nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to your enemies. Only crazies like Kim Jong-Un have them to use as an offensive weapon (and I'm not convinced he is that crazy), they are actually a defensive weapon, nobody can use them without inviting their own destruction.

With that in mind, you absolutely have to say that you would use nuclear weapons if you are asked. There's no deterrent if you say you wouldn't use them. Even if you would never ever use them, you still say you would as it stops other powerful nations messing around with you too much.

When people like Corbyn are asked the "would you use nuclear weapons?" question, all they have to do is answer "only as a last resort or as a retaliation". Job done.

But the scenario that Russia would use them on us is so unlikely that it isn't worth considering. If a superpower like the USSR didn't use them at the height of the cold war, there is no benefit in issuing a statement of mutually assured destruction against them today. It's counter productive if anything.

States like North Korea will not give a strawberry float either way.


You're arguing for disarmament, as I said that's a valid argument but is a completely different discussion.

If we are going to have nukes, then we have to say we are prepared to use them. Otherwise they are absolutely pointless. It's like having a burglar alarm but putting a sign next to it that reads "The alarm doesn't work, we're not at home and the keys are under the mat". You'd have been better off just not putting the alarm on the wall.

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Preezy » Tue May 09, 2017 3:42 pm

Please stop talking about my house on the internet, Moggy.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue May 09, 2017 3:43 pm

Preezy wrote:Please stop talking about my house on the internet, Moggy.


I didn't tell anybody that your alarm code is 54274. :x

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Tue May 09, 2017 3:43 pm

Moggy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:The whole point of having nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to your enemies. Only crazies like Kim Jong-Un have them to use as an offensive weapon (and I'm not convinced he is that crazy), they are actually a defensive weapon, nobody can use them without inviting their own destruction.

With that in mind, you absolutely have to say that you would use nuclear weapons if you are asked. There's no deterrent if you say you wouldn't use them. Even if you would never ever use them, you still say you would as it stops other powerful nations messing around with you too much.

When people like Corbyn are asked the "would you use nuclear weapons?" question, all they have to do is answer "only as a last resort or as a retaliation". Job done.

But the scenario that Russia would use them on us is so unlikely that it isn't worth considering. If a superpower like the USSR didn't use them at the height of the cold war, there is no benefit in issuing a statement of mutually assured destruction against them today. It's counter productive if anything.

States like North Korea will not give a strawberry float either way.


You're arguing for disarmament, as I said that's a valid argument but is a completely different discussion.

If we are going to have nukes, then we have to say we are prepared to use them. Otherwise they are absolutely pointless. It's like having a burglar alarm but putting a sign next to it that reads "The alarm doesn't work, we're not at home and the keys are under the mat".

Well Corbyn has been very clear that he wants to properly pursue disarmament and that's a stance I would tend to agree with.

However I don't think it's helpful for any world leader to be publicly declaring that they would use nuclear weapons. It isn't a yes or no question in my opinion as you would have to take an incredible hypothetical question to answer.

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Preezy » Tue May 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Moggy wrote:
Preezy wrote:Please stop talking about my house on the internet, Moggy.


I didn't tell anybody that your alarm code is 54274. :x

:lol: nice try, but I changed it to 12345 8-)

As for nukes, I'm right behind Moggy and Karl. No point having nukes if the baddies know you'll never use them.

Image
User avatar
Lucien
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Lucien » Tue May 09, 2017 3:46 pm

Moggy wrote:When people like Corbyn are asked the "would you use nuclear weapons?" question, all they have to do is answer "only as a last resort or as a retaliation". Job done.


Have you considered applying for Labour's Shadow Home Office position?

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue May 09, 2017 3:57 pm

Lucien wrote:
Moggy wrote:When people like Corbyn are asked the "would you use nuclear weapons?" question, all they have to do is answer "only as a last resort or as a retaliation". Job done.


Have you considered applying for Labour's Shadow Home Office position?


I passed the maths test and so I wasn't suitable.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue May 09, 2017 4:00 pm

captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:The whole point of having nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to your enemies. Only crazies like Kim Jong-Un have them to use as an offensive weapon (and I'm not convinced he is that crazy), they are actually a defensive weapon, nobody can use them without inviting their own destruction.

With that in mind, you absolutely have to say that you would use nuclear weapons if you are asked. There's no deterrent if you say you wouldn't use them. Even if you would never ever use them, you still say you would as it stops other powerful nations messing around with you too much.

When people like Corbyn are asked the "would you use nuclear weapons?" question, all they have to do is answer "only as a last resort or as a retaliation". Job done.

But the scenario that Russia would use them on us is so unlikely that it isn't worth considering. If a superpower like the USSR didn't use them at the height of the cold war, there is no benefit in issuing a statement of mutually assured destruction against them today. It's counter productive if anything.

States like North Korea will not give a strawberry float either way.


You're arguing for disarmament, as I said that's a valid argument but is a completely different discussion.

If we are going to have nukes, then we have to say we are prepared to use them. Otherwise they are absolutely pointless. It's like having a burglar alarm but putting a sign next to it that reads "The alarm doesn't work, we're not at home and the keys are under the mat".

Well Corbyn has been very clear that he wants to properly pursue disarmament and that's a stance I would tend to agree with.

However I don't think it's helpful for any world leader to be publicly declaring that they would use nuclear weapons. It isn't a yes or no question in my opinion as you would have to take an incredible hypothetical question to answer.


Then Corbyn just needs to answer the question with "I wouldn't be able to use them as I will be getting rid of them". Job done.

If you want to be the leader of a nuclear state then it's absolutely 100% helpful to say you would use them. That's the entire point of having them.

User avatar
Lucien
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Lucien » Tue May 09, 2017 4:17 pm

Moggy wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Moggy wrote:When people like Corbyn are asked the "would you use nuclear weapons?" question, all they have to do is answer "only as a last resort or as a retaliation". Job done.


Have you considered applying for Labour's Shadow Home Office position?


I passed the maths test and so I wasn't suitable.


:lol:

User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: The north of Ireland.

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Meep » Tue May 09, 2017 6:34 pm

My position on nukes has always been an expensive white elephant. Seeing as we are already under the protection of the US and our so called "independent" deterrent is a fantasy at best we should honour our treaty obligations in the gradual movement to worldwide disarmament.

All the smaller nuclear states, like the UK and France, should disarm first to clear the way to gradual reduction amongst the larger players. However, we also need to stamp down hard on any country like North Korea that tries to join the nuclear club. They just make disarmament much more difficult so they should be discouraged very harshly.

User avatar
satriales
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by satriales » Tue May 09, 2017 6:47 pm

The whole point of Trident is that 'the enemy' doesn't know where it is located, but there are multiple autonomous underwater drone projects underway by Russia and other countries that would likely make Trident completely redundant in the next five years. Even if you support the idea of a nuclear deterrent, Trident is still a waste of money.

User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Oblomov Boblomov » Tue May 09, 2017 7:00 pm

We should just claim we've got like ten of the strawberry floaters but actually get rid of all of them.

Image
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Preezy » Wed May 10, 2017 9:40 am

Meep wrote:My position on nukes has always been an expensive white elephant. Seeing as we are already under the protection of the US and our so called "independent" deterrent is a fantasy at best we should honour our treaty obligations in the gradual movement to worldwide disarmament.

Are we really under the nuclear protection of the US though? Are they really going to nuke another country in defence of us, if they've not been directly attacked themselves? I doubt it.

Image
User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Lagamorph » Wed May 10, 2017 9:48 am

Today is the day the CPS announce if they plan to prosecute anyone over the Tory spending case.

Nominations for the General Election candidates also close tomorrow.

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Wed May 10, 2017 9:49 am

Lagamorph wrote:Today is the day the CPS announce if they plan to prosecute anyone over the Tory spending case.


Theresa May will sack the head of the FBI before that goes any further.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Wed May 10, 2017 9:51 am

Lagamorph wrote:Nominations for the General Election candidates also close tomorrow.


As Karl and Gecko won't let us use GRcade money for Horror Channel adverts, maybe we could use it to field a few candidates in the election - the GRcade Party will make shitting on tits compulsory!

User avatar
Cheeky Devlin
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: The Dark And Lonely Regions, Where Nobody Goes.
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Cheeky Devlin » Wed May 10, 2017 11:12 am


Check out some of our stuff!
Image Image Image Image

DONATE TO SICK KIDS SAVE POINT 2016 HERE!
User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by BID0 » Wed May 10, 2017 11:16 am

Moggy wrote:The whole point of having nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to your enemies. Only crazies like Kim Jong-Un have them to use as an offensive weapon (and I'm not convinced he is that crazy), they are actually a defensive weapon, nobody can use them without inviting their own destruction.

With that in mind, you absolutely have to say that you would use nuclear weapons if you are asked. There's no deterrent if you say you wouldn't use them. Even if you would never ever use them, you still say you would as it stops other powerful nations messing around with you too much.

When people like Corbyn are asked the "would you use nuclear weapons?" question, all they have to do is answer "only as a last resort or as a retaliation". Job done.

He never said he wouldn't use them, he just said his stance is...
  • End goal working with other nations to have a nuclear free world
  • Not giving the military a blank cheque to fire Nukes off at their discretion

Which I would agree as being pretty sensible.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Wed May 10, 2017 11:27 am

Cheeky Devlin wrote:Tories off the hook.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2017-39839907


Well I bet nobody saw that coming. :slol:

User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by lex-man » Wed May 10, 2017 2:31 pm

There was never enough evidence. They would have needed an actual email or plan that showed they were planning to overspend.

So either the tories campaign was incompetent and they didn't properly track spending or they were smart enough to not leave evidence that there overspend was intentional.


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Albear, Buffalo, Denster, Dowbocop, ignition, Lagamorph, lex-man, PaperMacheMario, Pedz, Preezy, Trelliz and 51 guests