Comrade Corbyn silly remarks / Trident

[Conniff]

Jeremy Corbyn has said that there will be a discussion about Trident. He has also said that he will not press the button under any circumstances.

So if he won't press the button, what is the point of any discussion, he has pre-empted the outcome.

 

On the same light. He has said he will nationalise the railways. While I am not necessarily against that, announcing it now will make any present company think again about new rolling stock and probably pull the contracts.

What is the point of spending a shed load of money on new rolling stock if you aren't going to get any use out of them.

[SabreSheep]

Not really.

 

Any new nuclear deterrent wont come into effect until 2026 All it means is that if Trident is renewed, he will not be the one to use it. There is a get out clause in that the process for nuclear launch mandate that he nominates a deputy whose name is kept in the sub vault who can authorise launch in his absence or being incapacitated.

 

His current deputy has made it clear that he supports trident. So therefore if the event arose where nuclear strike was required, JC could resign and pre authorisation falls to the deputy. The deterrent is not reduced and still effective while JC stands by his principles.

[Conniff]

He has actually said 'he will not press the button under any circumstances', that has nothing to do with 2026 and the renewal.

 

His defence secretary Maria Eagle told the BBC "I'm surprised he answered the question in the way that he did", saying it "undermined to some degree" Labour's policy process.

 

The 'could' are all supposition and don't come into play.

[SabreSheep]

Good point.

 

Although my "Could" scenarios are just as credible as the actual scenario of pushing the button

 

"Jeremy Corbyn has said that there will be a discussion about Trident.........what is the point of any discussion, he has pre-empted the outcome."

 

The discussion to be had IS OVER RENEWAL. Just because he says he wont put his finger on the button does not mean the party WILL NOT RENEW it just means HE WONT USE IT. and any replacement will outlast him anyway

[Conniff]

So what would be the point of renewing if that is how the 'discussion' turns out. That's the same a me spending £100,000 on a motorhome, parking it outside my house and saying I won't ever use it.

 

And what even is the point of discussing if he isn't going to use it.

 

This is one man politics, one man rules and bum you lot.

[obiter dictum]

I cannot understand spending 100 million on a system that allows us to nuke someone a few seconds before they nuke us

 

It has been known ever since Wernher von Braun put into service the V2 that you can never hit a balistic ICBM in flight

 

That was why the American Star Wars (SDI) was abandoned

[Conniff]

That's not the question.

 

Corbyn says he will never press the button, but they are going to discuss Trident. What is the point of discussing anything if it's not going to be used.

[obiter dictum]

As far as i am aware Trident is under direct control of the North Atlantic Command (NATO) as to its use and deployment.

 

RAF Northwood in the UK

Edited September 30, 2015 by obiter dictum

[SabreSheep]

That's not the question.

 

Corbyn says he will never press the button, but they are going to discuss Trident. What is the point of discussing anything if it's not going to be used.

 

Again, he has not said it will not be used, only that he will not use it himself. There are plenty of ways the system can be renewed and still used without him pressing the button and it does not compromise the deterrent. THE DISCUSSION IS RENEWL NOT USAGE

[unclebulgaria67]

Nuclear weapons will never be used, but due to a treaty countries that hold nuclear weapons should not go to war with each other. But if Russia decided to attack London tomorrow using conventional weapons, Cameron would not be pressing a button to trigger a nuclear war. UK and NATO would retaliate using conventional weapons.

 

The question to ask is whether the UK would come under nuclear protection umbrella of NATO countries that have nuclear weapons. If the answer is yes, then it does not make any difference whether the UK has them or not.

 

Total nuclear disarmament will never happen, as i could never see US, Russia or China giving up such weapons. I doubt that Pakistan or Israel would be interested either.

 

If the UK does replace Trident, the number of warheads will be the same or less, but compared to the number held by US or Russia it is tiny. I can't see that the UK not holding nuclear weapons would make any difference to UK or world security.

 

The biggest threats to the UK are, terrorism, cyber attacks and events elsewhere which make the world unstable.

 

Corbyn may have a point, but i don't think he will persuade the UK public.

[obiter dictum]

I agree

 

The biggest threat to this country is not the bullet or the bomb

 

It is the laptop and a PAYG internet dongle

 

As to countries not holding nuclear weapons will not be affected by nuclear conflict, watch that film "on the beach" The original version (MAD)

[unclebulgaria67]

As far as i am aware Trident is under direct control of the North Atlantic Command (NATO) as to its use and deployment.

 

RAF Northwood in the UK

 

Think you are correct that UK can only use nuclear weapons after a number of protocols have been gone through. A UK PM or defence secretary could not press a button, without involving NATO command.

[Conniff]

Again, he has not said it will not be used, only that he will not use it himself. There are plenty of ways the system can be renewed and still used without him pressing the button and it does not compromise the deterrent. THE DISCUSSION IS RENEWL NOT USAGE

 

Ok, we are twisting words here. He has said "he will not press the button under any circumstances", he also said they would have a discussion. The discussion is about Trident.

 

What I'm trying to get across is, what is the point in discussing anything if he has already said he will not press the button which is the same as not using it.

[unclebulgaria67]

Ok, we are twisting words here. He has said "he will not press the button under any circumstances", he also said they would have a discussion. The discussion is about Trident.

 

What I'm trying to get across is, what is the point in discussing anything if he has already said he will not press the button which is the same as not using it.

 

He gave his own opinion, but said he wants a discussion.

 

Do you not want party leaders to express their own opinions ?

 

Do you think that someone can only be PM if they are willing to press a button to use nuclear weapons to destroy the world ?

 

Get what you are saying, but Corbyn is trying to be true to himself and cannot suddenly state different views to what he has stated for decades.

 

It is going to be a case of you not supporting Labour led by Corbyn, because you don't agree with him.

[obiter dictum]

With the total amount of nuclear weapons in the world, even after the SALT, we have enough left to blow ourselves up five times over.

 

I am of the opinion we do not need Nuclear weapons, that is not me being any sort of pacifist, the simple fact is we have NATO.

 

It does not matter where in the world these nukes are launched they will still travel the same distance as they are re-entry vehicles (MIRV)

 

Nuclear weapons are nothing more than redundant white elephants to countries outside the USA and Russia

[Conniff]

No, what I am saying as he is the only man who can press the button, and he says he won't, then what is the point of discussing it.

[Conniff]

With the total amount of nuclear weapons in the world, even after the SALT, we have enough left to blow ourselves up five times over.

 

I am of the opinion we do not need Nuclear weapons, that is not me being any sort of pacifist, the simple fact is we have NATO.

 

It does not matter where in the world these nukes are launched they will still travel the same distance as they are re-entry vehicles (MIRV)

 

Nuclear weapons are nothing more than redundant white elephants to countries outside the USA and Russia

 

It matters not about if we or anyone needs them, that is not the point under discussion.

[obiter dictum]

The point being discussed is exactly the point of view of Corbyn.

 

My last post states that opinion

 

Why waste 100 million on an unnecessary uprade when that money is better spent on essential services??

 

Trident is under the command of NATO, not who is prime minister

[unclebulgaria67]

No, what I am saying as he is the only man who can press the button, and he says he won't, then what is the point of discussing it.

 

Consequence is that you believe all PM's and leaders of opposition should never have a public opinion on whether they would or would not press the button.

 

If the Labour party votes to have nuclear weapons and to use them if necessary, then Corbyn would have to step down or come up with an alternative decision making process, so it is in many hands to decide.

[Conniff]

It's not about wasting money. It's about the point of having a discussing about something that he says he will not use.

 

Going back to my earlier post, why sit down with the family and discuss getting a motorhome if the driver says, before that discussion, he will 'not' drive it.

[Conniff]

Consequence is that you believe all PM's and leaders of opposition should never have a public opinion on whether they would or would not press the button.

 

If the Labour party votes to have nuclear weapons and to use them if necessary, then Corbyn would have to step down or come up with an alternative decision making process, so it is in many hands to decide.

 

I am not saying he cannot have an opinion. He has not said he will step down if it goes against him only that he will not use them.

[obiter dictum]

As unclebulgaria has stated

 

It is not up to Corbyn, he is not a dictator

 

The question of defence will be decided by the Cabinet/NEC/Party Conference/Delegates/CLP

 

Knowing Corbyn he will let the public decide through a Referendum

[unclebulgaria67]

It's not about wasting money. It's about the point of having a discussing about something that he says he will not use.

 

Going back to my earlier post, why sit down with the family and discuss getting a motorhome if the driver says, before that discussion, he will 'not' drive it.

 

Then someone else can drive and he can be a passenger if he wants

 

We get your point. Corbyn has already stated he will accept democratic process, so if he would not press the button, then he would have to delegate the power. This already is the case. If the current PM was incapacitated, there is a process of delegation. In Corbyns case, he would never have the main role.

[Conniff]

You are purposely missing the point and adding things on.

 

"Going back to my earlier post, why sit down with the family and discuss getting a motorhome if the driver says, before that discussion, he will 'not' drive it."

 

I will believe you know Corbyn when you post up a picture of the two of you having a pint together.

[unclebulgaria67]

You are purposely missing the point and adding things on.

 

"Going back to my earlier post, why sit down with the family and discuss getting a motorhome if the driver says, before that discussion, he will 'not' drive it."

 

I will believe you know Corbyn when you post up a picture of the two of you having a pint together.

 

Some of Corbyns other positions are unlikely to get him accepted by the British public. There is too much video evidence of him speaking to various causes that the majority are against.

 

i think we knew Corbyns position anyway, as he was or is still a member of CND. You could say that his opinions make him unfit to be leader of the Labour party. In any discussion, he could find that the majority are against him and if he could not accept this, then he would have to resign, if he could not accept the majority view.