The Politics Thread 3.0

[Captain Kinopio]

I actually thought his conference speech was pretty good. He needs to ditch this nice politics stuff though. Sure keep the reasoned debate and lose the rah rah rah crap but in his speech whenever he was full on attacking the Tories I thought he came across well, really passionate about what he believes in and motivational that things could be better. However when he resorted to, 'wouldn't it be great if everything was just nice' and 'war is a bit rubbish really isn't it yeah' I did roll my eyes at how lacking in substance it all was.

[Shadow]

Jeremy Corbyn vs. Eamonn Holmes on Sky News

This should be the end of Eamonn Holmes' career; that was a staggeringly awful interview. You can see the look of utter contempt building on Corbyn's face. He looks almost offended by Holmes' idiocy.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

What I havent liked since the tories were elected is that almost every press outlet has hounded the labour leadership at almost every opportunity. The mail have been running around 7 articles a day, most of it full of lies. and it's got a lot worse since corbyn was elected. But the general public are lapping it up as the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years time school pupils are taught about the great financial crisis of 2008 that was caused by labour spending too much on brios in the public sector.

I'm not a traditional one party voter, I've always sat in the middle so I'm not a labour supporter but Im finding the lies the media have been spreading about labour for the last few years bloody annoying. Fist waving angry I am. Ggrrrrrr.

[Herdanos]

What I havent liked since the tories were elected is that almost every press outlet has hounded the labour leadership at almost every opportunity. The mail have been running around 7 articles a day, most of it full of lies. and it's got a lot worse since corbyn was elected. But the general public are lapping it up as the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years time school pupils are taught about the great financial crisis of 2008 that was caused by labour spending too much on brios in the public sector.

I'm not a traditional one party voter, I've always sat in the middle so I'm not a labour supporter but Im finding the lies the media have been spreading about labour for the last few years bloody annoying. Fist waving angry I am. Ggrrrrrr.

Yeah, it's frustrating isn't it. The vast majority of the print and broadcast media in this country are embarrassing in their coverage of Labour - look at The Sun's headlines this past week.

[captain red dog]

It was incredible the slant the media were putting on his refusal to use nuclear weapons yesterday.

[furiosum]

In fairness it is pretty stupid to publicly say you would never use them in any circumstances. I suspect many past PMs would never have used them, but publicly saying as much defeats the entire point of them as a deterrent.

[Winckle]

It was incredible the slant the media were putting on his refusal to use nuclear weapons yesterday.

"This man doesn't want to blow up the world in a nuclear holocaust, and why that's a bad thing."

[Moggy]

It was incredible the slant the media were putting on his refusal to use nuclear weapons yesterday.

"This man doesn't want to blow up the world in a nuclear holocaust, and why that's a bad thing."

To be fair, what is the point of being a world leader with access to nuclear weapons if you don't want to blow gooseberry fool up? It seems such a waste to have all that power there and not vaporise some fools.

[captain red dog]

In fairness it is pretty stupid to publicly say you would never use them in any circumstances. I suspect many past PMs would never have used them, but publicly saying as much defeats the entire point of them as a deterrent.

I disagree, realistically if he was PM he would serve for 10 years max so he is saying he wouldn't use them during his term, and the decision to renew trident is already out of his hands.

I can't forsee a situation at all where Nukes would even need to be considered. If it didn't happen during the cold war it sure as heck ain't going to happen now.

Even if ISIS managed to detonate a Nuke in London, responding with a nuclear attack of our own would be absolutely ridiculous.

[Meep]

Nuclear weapons are useless as defensive measures. If it actually comes to the point of retaliation you have already lost; any strike after your enemy's weapons are already inbound is pointless. The only practical way to use them is to get your retaliation in first. The only way you stand a chance of winning in a nuclear stand off is by striking first and striking hard, hopefully leaving your enemy so devastated they cannot mount much of a response.

This is why MAD is an extremely dangerous position. It gives every incentive for one side to strike first. The only reason we survived the cold war was because the Russians were extremely tolerant of US intimidation (whenever the shoe was on the other foot the US nearly flipped the strawberry float out). I am intensively grateful for the superhuman restraint displayed by the soviets during that period. If there was ever a similar standoff in which both parties were equally aggressive it would not end well.

[Errkal]

Except the minute yours are launched the enemy would know and then launch their and so you are both dead.

They are a stupid expensive waste, they will never get used because everyone loses if they are. I agree with the no renew approach because they gain nothing by having them. If you have a mental willing to launch you are dead, if you have them then you can launch and they die but you do as well so the end result is the same, the only difference is you die knowing they died too.

The money is better spent on stuff that actually benefits people rather than on a weapon that will only be used so that someone dies as well as you.

[Moggy]

They are actually the perfect defensive weapon as they stop you getting invaded/attacked by other powers. Even madmen like Stalin wouldn't have risked a "hot" war with the West while nuclear weapons could or would have been used.

[Errkal]

Except the minute yours are launched the enemy would know and then launch their and so you are both dead.

They are a stupid expensive waste, they will never get used because everyone loses if they are. I agree with the no renew approach because they gain nothing by having them. If you have a mental willing to launch you are dead, if you have them then you can launch and they die but you do as well so the end result is the same, the only difference is you die knowing they died too.

The equation doesn't stay the same when only one side has nukes.

If they have nukes and you don't you for, if you have nukes you both die, same out come for you either way.

[Errkal]

I still think it is a waste of money, sure it means you die knowing they die, but it is still the same outcome, plus whether we have them or not is irrelevant as the US won't get rid so someone launches they no doubt will and everyone is strawberry floated anyway.

I would rather the money was spent fixing issues in our society than on something that purpose is to ensure the other side die as well.

[Squinty]

It was incredible the slant the media were putting on his refusal to use nuclear weapons yesterday.

"This man doesn't want to blow up the world in a nuclear holocaust, and why that's a bad thing."

The spin on this whole thing is incredible.

[Stugene]

In fairness it is pretty stupid to publicly say you would never use them in any circumstances. I suspect many past PMs would never have used them, but publicly saying as much defeats the entire point of them as a deterrent.

I disagree, realistically if he was PM he would serve for 10 years max so he is saying he wouldn't use them during his term, and the decision to renew trident is already out of his hands.

I can't forsee a situation at all where Nukes would even need to be considered. If it didn't happen during the cold war it sure as heck ain't going to happen now.

Even if ISIS managed to detonate a Nuke in London, responding with a nuclear attack of our own would be absolutely ridiculous.

What if ISIS forms its own country and acquires nukes, then uses them? You mention not responding to London being nuked. So you'd allow the whole UK to be destroyed, potentially?

What if you stopped posting?

You would not stop a radical terrorist organisation from using a nuclear device by having one yourself. Repercussion would only strengthen their cause.

Also, the chance of ISIS getting their hands on not only a nuclear warhead, but also a delivery system, a launch site or sub, enough fuel, the scientific know-how to get the thing off the ground and guide it all the way across the Middle East and Europe without it being detected and either shot down or disabled mid-flight are so infinitesimally small that you are really grasping at strawberry floating straws here.

The equation doesn't stay the same when only one side has nukes.

If they have nukes and you don't you for, if you have nukes you both die, same out come for you either way.

If you have nukes you're less likely to be put in a position where you die, though. I'd rather have less chance of dying, knowing others would die if they launch... than a greater chance of dying but knowing my enemy will do great.

For a man who wants to see all life in the universe destroyed, you you'd think you would understand weapons of mass destruction.

If anyone launches a nuke, everyone else does. Everyone launches their nukes at everyone else's nuclear launch facilities and major cities in retaliation. That's it. That's the deterrent system.

Having a nuke does not stop people from launching a nuclear attack. It is just a guaranteed murder vehicle for total annihilation of thousands of people in the blast, and millions in the fallout. Please continue supporting the murder of innocent civilians by the nuclear weapons of a dead country.

And they are not our nukes. They are Americas.

[That]

Having a nuke does not stop people from launching a nuclear attack.

It seems to work reasonably well at preventing states from launching a nuclear attack. I agree it wouldn't deter a stateless organisation.

To turn the question on its head - and sticking to the familiar Cold War scenario for now - I'm interested to hear what else could discourage Russia from launching their arsenal at the States and Western Europe instead of the threat of retaliation?

[furiosum]

In fairness it is pretty stupid to publicly say you would never use them in any circumstances. I suspect many past PMs would never have used them, but publicly saying as much defeats the entire point of them as a deterrent.

I disagree, realistically if he was PM he would serve for 10 years max so he is saying he wouldn't use them during his term, and the decision to renew trident is already out of his hands.

I can't forsee a situation at all where Nukes would even need to be considered. If it didn't happen during the cold war it sure as heck ain't going to happen now.

Even if ISIS managed to detonate a Nuke in London, responding with a nuclear attack of our own would be absolutely ridiculous.

I agree, I would be amazed if we ever considered using nukes as an aggressive move. The issue is that, as someone else mentioned, the reason the cold war stayed cold was because of fears over one side potentially using nukes. If one side had known the other was completely unwilling to use nukes, there is every chance it might not have stayed a cold war. Its similar to buying a burglar alarm and publicly announcing you never turn it on, I'm sure some people don't set their burglar alarm every night, but if you tell the burglars about it you have a much higher chance of getting robbed.

[Stugene]

Having a nuke does not stop people from launching a nuclear attack.

It seems to work reasonably well at preventing states from launching a nuclear attack. I agree it wouldn't deter a stateless organisation.

To turn the question on its head - and sticking to the familiar Cold War scenario for now - I'm interested to hear what else could discourage Russia from launching their arsenal at the States and Western Europe instead of the threat of retaliation?

An understanding of morality?

[That]

An understanding of morality?

We would hope! But I do feel governments (in all nations, our own included) often fail to channel the moral will of the people. I'm quite sure a majority of Russians would oppose such a needlessly aggressive act of destruction. I have to say, though, that I'm not entirely convinced that such disapproval would necessarily ensure it wouldn't happen.

You are right in that I think any "average person" the world over would be instinctively repulsed by the idea of launching a nuclear weapon as an act of aggression. I'm just not sure your average government would reflect those sensibilities.