Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
That is true... for Jan 17 2016.
But unless you can see the future, it is the governments responsibility to plan for future possibilities.
It takes years to build and commission such weapon systems. You can't just build it overnight if things take a dramatic turn on the world stage.
Upgrading trident is looking decades ahead.
theoretically, what situation would President Steve0 or PM Bally launch the UK's nuclear weapons and, who would you suggest might be the target? (as this is an independent nuclear deterrent, you d be pressing the button (and ending the human race) not based on what the USA tells you to do)
Obviously if you cant answer this, then i ll assume you ll be getting rid of Trident?
for a starter, i ll say i would nt... ever and the main threat to world security/trade is China, people like DC and GB need to realise china is only interested in the greater china and not in anything else what so ever.0 -
Hello again Mamba
As I said before, the whole point of our nuclear capability is not that we want to obliterate the human race, but to ensure that any potential nuclear aggressor would think it likely that we retaliate in kind.
I believe I said in the other thread that if our PM, whoever it may be on the day, chose not to launch a counter strike in order that some semblance of civilisation and mankind endured, I would be ok with that. It would be too late at that stage anyway, the deterrent policy would have failed.
IF I were to be PM and Stevo, I suppose he would have to be Chancellor rather than SoS for Defence, my stance would be that I would definitely retaliate, whether or not that was actually the case.
I certainly wouldn't be building a fleet of nuclear boats for no other reason than keeping a union happy.0 -
Hi there chancellor Bally!
Its a hard question to ans for the pro bomb lobby, which is why few can answer it!
US has nuclear weapons and that hasnt stopped china from expansionism in the Pacific, cocking a snoot at the USA and Japan, knowing full well the US will not launch a nuclear strike over some Atols there, despite the implications.
However if the US hadnt closed its Island bases, for conventional weapons/Navy, china would have been deterred earlier on, a majority of the worlds trade goes through this area and we ll be leaving it in charge of North Koreas only ally and close one at that!, a brutal dictatorship and nuclear, conventional and trade power and we are worried about Iran :roll:
To me, nuclear weapons, esp for the UK are a throw back to when we were a world power and those days are long gone, we need money for an external EU/UK border force, health and education so we can match china or otherwise we ll be a run down country, begging for investment from china BUT with a nuclear bomb...... just in case! or are we at this stage already?
corbyn should have just batted the question away with " its all up for review" and left it at that, saying what he said, was foolish in the extreme.0 -
Nice thought but given that it is not a realistic prospect, it's a theoretical conversation with no real world application. The real question is whether we should have them or not.Indeed they can't be uninvented, but that doesn't answer the question of whether we'd be better off with or without them.
I think we've both just asked the same question. The "we" in my post refers to Britain.0 -
Anyone for a bit of Flying Picketing? And I don't mean a sing song with group from the 80s.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-repeal-thatcher-sympathy-strikes-ban0 -
Yep saw that. No surprise there really from New Old Labour - back to the 70's.Anyone for a bit of Flying Picketing? And I don't mean a sing song with group from the 80s.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-repeal-thatcher-sympathy-strikes-ban
While we're at it, let's help to head off the next round of politically motivated strikes and stop hard left union barons trying to hold a City to ransom:
https://www.conservatives.com/Zac_Goldsmith/tubestrikecampaign"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yep saw that. No surprise there really from New Old Labour - back to the 70's.Anyone for a bit of Flying Picketing? And I don't mean a sing song with group from the 80s.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-repeal-thatcher-sympathy-strikes-ban
While we're at it, let's help to head off the next round of politically motivated strikes and stop hard left union barons trying to hold a City to ransom:
https://www.conservatives.com/Zac_Goldsmith/tubestrikecampaign
Yes, the rail unions are going to lose this one, driverless trains are going to happen whether they like it or not.
But good old Zac would no doubt be against the jnr docs strike too? and that had over whelming support from union members, so the tories are against ALL strikes - yes?0 -
I know Jeremy Corbyn's far more interesting than David Cameron but are the papers so desperate that they think this is news?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12104166/Jeremy-Corbyn-wont-name-his-cat-and-instead-simply-calls-it-the-cat.html0 -
"It's unclear whether his own bicycle cost £475 - but the socialist MP did reveal that his bike is 'like' the one he recommended, and is also a red Raleigh, so it is likely it cost a similar amount."
Just how shite can reporting get?
Can I get a red Passoni for £475 please?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I don't think so as strikes are still perfectly legal bit you'd need to ask quite a few tories to be sure
Yep saw that. No surprise there really from New Old Labour - back to the 70's.Anyone for a bit of Flying Picketing? And I don't mean a sing song with group from the 80s.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-repeal-thatcher-sympathy-strikes-ban
While we're at it, let's help to head off the next round of politically motivated strikes and stop hard left union barons trying to hold a City to ransom:
https://www.conservatives.com/Zac_Goldsmith/tubestrikecampaign
Yes, the rail unions are going to lose this one, driverless trains are going to happen whether they like it or not.
But good old Zac would no doubt be against the jnr docs strike too? and that had over whelming support from union members, so the tories are against ALL strikes - yes?
. But Zac Goldsmith is definitely against more tube strikes, as am I. Ditto any politically motivated strikes "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Out of interest (I don't know) were there many more strikes under Ken than Boris?
And what were the comparable proportional amounts of spending on TfL?
That'd be a better indicator for which party will manage tube staff relations better.0 -
-
I don't think so as strikes are still perfectly legal bit you'd need to ask quite a few tories to be sure
Yep saw that. No surprise there really from New Old Labour - back to the 70's.Anyone for a bit of Flying Picketing? And I don't mean a sing song with group from the 80s.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-repeal-thatcher-sympathy-strikes-ban
While we're at it, let's help to head off the next round of politically motivated strikes and stop hard left union barons trying to hold a City to ransom:
https://www.conservatives.com/Zac_Goldsmith/tubestrikecampaign
Yes, the rail unions are going to lose this one, driverless trains are going to happen whether they like it or not.
But good old Zac would no doubt be against the jnr docs strike too? and that had over whelming support from union members, so the tories are against ALL strikes - yes? . But Zac Goldsmith is definitely against more tube strikes, as am I. Ditto any politically motivated strikes
what do you call a politically motivated strike? the bar for strike action is very high and as union leaders are not up in court, this strike is legal, and the membership under current laws have voted for industrial action, so at the very least, you and Zac are against legal strikes, so all strikes?
answer the question.0 -
So, you're a regular contributor on political threads arguing the case for the left, but you need me to explain what a politically motivated strike is. Honestly?
I don't think so as strikes are still perfectly legal bit you'd need to ask quite a few tories to be sure
Yep saw that. No surprise there really from New Old Labour - back to the 70's.Anyone for a bit of Flying Picketing? And I don't mean a sing song with group from the 80s.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-repeal-thatcher-sympathy-strikes-ban
While we're at it, let's help to head off the next round of politically motivated strikes and stop hard left union barons trying to hold a City to ransom:
https://www.conservatives.com/Zac_Goldsmith/tubestrikecampaign
Yes, the rail unions are going to lose this one, driverless trains are going to happen whether they like it or not.
But good old Zac would no doubt be against the jnr docs strike too? and that had over whelming support from union members, so the tories are against ALL strikes - yes? . But Zac Goldsmith is definitely against more tube strikes, as am I. Ditto any politically motivated strikes
what do you call a politically motivated strike? the bar for strike action is very high and as union leaders are not up in court, this strike is legal, and the membership under current laws have voted for industrial action, so at the very least, you and Zac are against legal strikes, so all strikes?
answer the question.
Here's an example if you can't even be bothered to use google:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/budget-2015-boris-johnson-says-6023694
I've already answered the other question - read my reply above, it's clear enough even for you."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So, yet again, you dont answer the questions, you havent on this nor on if you d press the nuclear button.
Boris Johnson says strike is politically motivated! woo wee what a surprise.
as i said, to have a legal strike in this country is very difficult, the days of political strikes are long gone, so i can safely say your against all strikes, not much of a surprise really.0 -
You appear to be having problems expressing yourself clearly. What question do you claim I have not answered?So, yet again, you dont answer the questions, you havent on this nor on if you d press the nuclear button.
Boris Johnson says strike is politically motivated! woo wee what a surprise.
as i said, to have a legal strike in this country is very difficult, the days of political strikes are long gone, so i can safely say your against all strikes, not much of a surprise really."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I have worked out that the cost per job saved is approx. £100bn as this loony left idea of ineffectual submarines is intended to save one job - Corbyn's.I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there...
In which case why spend such an amount on a capability that can be duplicated elsewhere? Type 45 destroyers and Type 23 frigates have missile launch capabilities. How big would a missile on your non nuclear armed sub have to be? Such a missile would have a tiny fraction of the power of its nuke brother and have no strategic value at all.
Never mind, we would have spent all that money to keep McCluskey happy, so all would be well in the lefty world.
Submarines are more difficult to detect and destroy. That's why they carry nuclear weapons and not surface ships.
Agreed. That's why they are perfect for nukes and a waste of money otherwise..
As I said above, building trident subs and arming them with missiles of inconsequential strategic value to keep the unions happy is lunacy, even by the lefty standards we have recently come to expect."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But isn't this one of the reasons we keep Trident anyway?
the UK's Nuclear Weapons industry is very large, to disband trident would cause huge job losses, easier to keep it sailing around the world, doing what exactly?
Anyway steve0, you didnt answer my question on what circumstances you d fire trident (if you cant ans, then your just like Corbyn)
nor did you ans the one about if you d support any strike, you dont support the tube or jnr Doc's both legal but somehow you accuse both of being political eh?0 -
It isn't the main reason for keeping the nuclear deterrent, of course. The main reason is deterrence in a dangerous and uncertain world which is hard to predict what things will be like in 35 years (the estimated lifespan of the new system).But isn't this one of the reasons we keep Trident anyway?
the UK's Nuclear Weapons industry is very large, to disband trident would cause huge job losses, easier to keep it sailing around the world, doing what exactly?
Anyway steve0, you didnt answer my question on what circumstances you d fire trident (if you cant ans, then your just like Corbyn)
nor did you ans the one about if you d support any strike, you dont support the tube or jnr Doc's both legal but somehow you accuse both of being political eh?
The whole point about this is deterrence - mutually assured destruction. So logically it a weapon of last resort but you have to be prepared to press the button if someone launches a nuclear strike against the country - and that is my position. The knowledge that each side is prepared to do that kept the peace between US and USSR for long enough. Otherwise it is not a deterrent. But you see the circular logic that it is the fact that you are prepared to do it means that you won't need to.
Do I oppose any strike? No. I am sure there are situations where there are valid reasons to strike and the law allows it with certain conditions attached. I do believe that it should be a last resort and that strikers need to look at the wider impact of their actions - taking the tube strike as an example, the impact on businesses and people in London - the vast majority of whom are not involved in the dispute. Unfortunately many strikes are not carried for the right reasons in my view - hence my support for the union bill.
Now - questions to you and Lookyhere:
1. Would you never press the button if you had the nukes?
2. Do you support any strike?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The whole point about this is deterrence - mutually assured destruction. So logically it a weapon of last resort but you have to be prepared to press the button if someone launches a nuclear strike against the country - and that is my position. The knowledge that each side is prepared to do that kept the peace between US and USSR for long enough. Otherwise it is not a deterrent. But you see the circular logic that it is the fact that you are prepared to do it means that you won't need to.
The existence of nuclear weapons was one of the most important sources of tension between the two superpowers, especially the Cuban Missile Crisis. Which side do you think would have attacked, by the way?
Did you read that link I posted about probability and nuclear war? As I said, nuclear war becomes more likely than not when the weapons have been held onto for a certain period of time. Unfortunately, it is impossible to calculate that length of time. It might be that the probability of nuclear war reaches 25 or 50% within a century of the weapons' invention (i.e. within our lifetimes and those of our children). If we can't scrap them entirely, the numbers should at the very least be numbered to allow humanity (and other species) to avoid complete annihilation.0 -
??????????????????????????nuclear war becomes more likely than not when the weapons have been held onto for a certain period of time0 -
Ok steve0, in no way could i ever launch nuclear weapons, for a tiny un important ex power like the UK to strut the world stage pretending otherwise, is just crazy, esp as the nation most likely to cause us trouble is the chinese and look how we suck up to them?
Even the most hawkish of hawks will never ever launch independently from the USA, so if they want us to have them, they can at least pay for them.
Spending 100b on Tridents replacement is even more crazy than having Trident subs roaming the world without nukes, though i m guessing they d have Cruise missiles which have been extensively used, so not an entirely unrealistic scenario.
As for strikes, in the current legislative environment, i see them as a result of management failure, so any legal strike, is genuine and i d support it.0 -
I suppose you do have a point there, for example the tube drivers - it's an appalling management failure that they didn't sack them all years ago and automate the trains.As for strikes, in the current legislative environment, i see them as a result of management failure, so any legal strike, is genuine and i d support it.
But seriously, to say that all strikes are caused by management failure is no more plausible than saying that they are all caused by Moscow-funded Trots.0 -
If we were to have an independent nuclear deterrent then I could see the merit in it even if the cost might be prohibitive but I can't see the point in us paying for Trident when apparently it is dependent on American cooperation to keep it operational and to provide GPS for it to actually work. It also ties us into the USA as a target as our nuclear capability is so closely tied to theirs it's going to be seen as part of the same arsenal. I can't really see that there is a good argument for keeping that except for politicians who fear being seen as weak.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
??????????????????????????nuclear war becomes more likely than not when the weapons have been held onto for a certain period of time
Read the link I posted. Although the likelihood of nuclear war is very low in any given year (certain crisis years excepted), the longer the given time period, the higher the probability of it happening.0 -
CBA to read it - but I assumed it would be something like that. Bit of a gambler's fallacy going on there, I think. A bit like insurance companies putting up your premium every year because every year the chance of you having had an accident increases.
??????????????????????????nuclear war becomes more likely than not when the weapons have been held onto for a certain period of time
Read the link I posted. Although the likelihood of nuclear war is very low in any given year (certain crisis years excepted), the longer the given time period, the higher the probability of it happening.0 -
CBA to read it - but I assumed it would be something like that. Bit of a gambler's fallacy going on there, I think. A bit like insurance companies putting up your premium every year because every year the chance of you having had an accident increases.
??????????????????????????nuclear war becomes more likely than not when the weapons have been held onto for a certain period of time
Read the link I posted. Although the likelihood of nuclear war is very low in any given year (certain crisis years excepted), the longer the given time period, the higher the probability of it happening.
No, it's not a fallacy, it's basic statistics. If a nuclear war is a 1 in 1000 year event, then there's a 10% chance that one will occur over the course of a century. The problem is that nuclear war is a 1 in X year event, and we have no way of accurately calculating X, ergo no way of calculating the chances of a nuclear war happening over time period Y.0 -
CBA to read it - but I assumed it would be something like that. Bit of a gambler's fallacy going on there, I think. A bit like insurance companies putting up your premium every year because every year the chance of you having had an accident increases.
??????????????????????????nuclear war becomes more likely than not when the weapons have been held onto for a certain period of time
Read the link I posted. Although the likelihood of nuclear war is very low in any given year (certain crisis years excepted), the longer the given time period, the higher the probability of it happening.
No, it's not a fallacy, it's basic statistics. If a nuclear war is a 1 in 1000 year event, then there's a 10% chance that one will occur over the course of a century. The problem is that nuclear war is a 1 in X year event, and we have no way of accurately calculating X, ergo no way of calculating the chances of a nuclear war happening over time period Y.
Lies, damn lies and statistics!!
That assumes there WILL be a nuclear war in period Y, this is not the case. To say it is a 1 in a 1000 year event does not mean that 999 years after the last one then it is a certainty in the next year.
Statistically if a cyclist has an accident once a year, it could mean he had 3 in one year and none in two years.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
CBA to read it - but I assumed it would be something like that. Bit of a gambler's fallacy going on there, I think. A bit like insurance companies putting up your premium every year because every year the chance of you having had an accident increases.
??????????????????????????nuclear war becomes more likely than not when the weapons have been held onto for a certain period of time
Read the link I posted. Although the likelihood of nuclear war is very low in any given year (certain crisis years excepted), the longer the given time period, the higher the probability of it happening.
No, it's not a fallacy, it's basic statistics. If a nuclear war is a 1 in 1000 year event, then there's a 10% chance that one will occur over the course of a century. The problem is that nuclear war is a 1 in X year event, and we have no way of accurately calculating X, ergo no way of calculating the chances of a nuclear war happening over time period Y.
Presumably according to you, that would mean that if we had 999 years without a nuclear war, nuclear war would be a statistical certainty in year 1000.
Poor use of statistics there I'm afraidYou live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
I suppose you do have a point there, for example the tube drivers - it's an appalling management failure that they didn't sack them all years ago and automate the trains.As for strikes, in the current legislative environment, i see them as a result of management failure, so any legal strike, is genuine and i d support it.
But seriously, to say that all strikes are caused by management failure is no more plausible than saying that they are all caused by Moscow-funded Trots.
I've been on the end of some pretty horrendous changes in T&Cs (and there is xxxx all u can do about it, other than leave and lose your redundancy terms) and the bar to call a strike is so high (if the work place even recognises a trade union, which in the private sector is rare) then yes, if the work force feel so aggrieved that they lose pay and risk their jobs to go on strike, i d say that is a management failure.
maybe there are a few cases where the work force is so unreasonable they d down tools on a whim but then they d be in breach of their TC and could be sacked, few would risk this as you ll get no unemployment benefit and into the bargain get a bad employment record.0
