|
What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour |
|
907 | 49.92% |
| Theresa May Team (Conservative) |
|
48 | 2.64% |
| Liberal Democrats |
|
31 | 1.71% |
| UKIP |
|
13 | 0.72% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
25 | 1.38% |
| Green |
|
22 | 1.21% |
| Scottish Socialist Party |
|
12 | 0.66% |
| Scottish Conservative Party |
|
1 | 0.06% |
| Scottish National Party |
|
59 | 3.25% |
| Some Kind of Irish Unionist |
|
4 | 0.22% |
| Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian |
|
3 | 0.17% |
| Some Kind of Irish Nationalist |
|
36 | 1.98% |
| Misc. Far Left Trots |
|
35 | 1.93% |
| Misc. Far Right Fash |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
49 | 2.70% |
| Space Navies Party |
|
39 | 2.15% |
| Independent / Single Issue |
|
2 | 0.11% |
| Can't Vote |
|
188 | 10.35% |
| Won't Vote |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Spoiled Ballot |
|
15 | 0.83% |
| Pissflaps |
|
312 | 17.17% |
| Total: | 1817 votes | ||
|
Pissflaps posted:So we've got dozens of the usual suspect Corbynites defending his position by explaining that they wouldn't want a retaliatory strike because it's pointless anyway. Again, you're framing this as retaliation vs non retaliation. There are other options. E: I'm not particularly invested in making you believe anything seeing as you never change your mind or listen to others anyway.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Tell me: how does Leader X know whether or not Leader Y is bullshitting when Y says they wouldn't press the button? How does Leader X know whether or not Leader Y is bullshitting when Y says they would press the button? In either case, why would leader X ever trust what Y says? How does the issue come down to anything other than simply possessing nuclear capability? How the gently caress is it not a gamble either way?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Again, you're framing this as retaliation vs non retaliation. There are other options. if retaliation is not one of the options then the effectiveness of it as a deterrent is undermined. HAT FETISH posted:Tell me: how does Leader X know whether or not Leader Y is bullshitting when Y says they wouldn't press the button? How does Leader X know whether or not Leader Y is bullshitting when Y says they would press the button? In either case, why would leader X ever trust what Y says? How does the issue come down to anything other than simply possessing nuclear capability? How the gently caress is it not a gamble either way? Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Again, you're framing this as retaliation vs non retaliation. There are other options. Seduction status: playing hard to get
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:For the third time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKbDKsNsjac The correct answer is if a situation comes where nuclear strikes are a legit option,the PM as failed.if the answer you're looking for is someone who will look you in the eye and tell you with out qualms that they will use nuclear weapons either they are lying to you or you want a psychopath as a pm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:if retaliation is not one of the options then the effectiveness of it as a deterrent is undermined. Remember that you're assuming that it's not an option, you don't know it's not, and neither would a foreign state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
IR is hard guys 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:if retaliation is not one of the options then the effectiveness of it as a deterrent is undermined. It's an option, but it's not the binary choice you're framing it as. What if he chose to leave it to the captains discretion, what if he chose to give trump or Merkel control?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't follow your point. The discussion at hand, unless I'm mistaken, is "does it compromise the UK deterrent if Corbyn is unwilling to use nukes" We've established that a) being a member of NATO is sufficient to maintain the deterrent and b) but only if other NATO members are willing to use nukes c) Corbyn is not running for leader of any other NATO members so b is not a concern
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:The correct answer is if a situation comes where nuclear strikes are a legit option,the PM as failed.if the answer you're looking for is someone who will look you in the eye and tell you with out qualms that they will use nuclear weapons either they are lying to you or you want a psychopath as a pm. ....and that situation - that failure - is more likely if a belligerent power believes you will not use your nuclear deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Development is about more than education, it's also a social thing. Having people with downs in mainstream schools, at least at primary level with the appropriate support in place, is a good thing. It also helps normalise their existence which is good given that ld issues outside of autism are basically never discussed outside of a scandal like winterbourne. I too am speaking as an actual medical professional. In our area they are supposed to take the evidence presented by medical professionals and follow their recommendations, in your area it might be different. I'm not looking at every single school like it's a wonderful nurturing environment. Inner city schools have horrendous problems with bullying, the worst of them have problems with knife crime. As I said it's a case by case thing. Of course some children do fine with one on one support, but putting a vulnerable child with downs or severe learning difficulties into one of those sink schools is like throwing them to the wolves. They could of course be put into a unit within the school, but in many schools that's where the special needs children are kept for their own saftey for most of the school day. They only get to use the rest of the school's facilities when the other children are not using them. You are also being very unfair to how well special schools manage socialisation and life building skills. They often do a much better job than mainstream schools, especially at secondary school age. It's genuinely offence and wrong to belittle what they do. The reason special schools are so expensive per child is that this is how much it costs to properly educate and do therapy for those children. Having all the therapists in one place, a school nurse, and a GP, assigned to one place makes more sense than having them roam around different mainstream schools or, worse, having the child have to leave school to go to an appointment somewhere else. Only starting the process at three, no matter how obvious it is is evil. You can pick up on it very early, if a baby does not make eye contact for example. My son had a diagnosis at 18 months old. It is absolutely crucial that therapy starts as early as possible and that they end up in the correct school environment. You start diagnosis at three it could be a year before they even get an appointement, then it will take up to two years for an actual diagnosis to happen. That makes it six years old. You know what they don't need to provide now? ASD nurseries, or one on one support for nursery age children. It has absolutely nothing to do with developmental levels, they are just using that as an excuse to save money,
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:The discussion at hand, unless I'm mistaken, is "does it compromise the UK deterrent if Corbyn is unwilling to use nukes" If the UK is unwilling to use its nuclear deterrent then it has no nuclear deterrent and is not fulfilling its role to help protect other NATO member states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
I'm starting to think that Pissflaps shouldn't be trusted with a nuclear deterrent
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:I'm starting to think that Pissflaps shouldn't be trusted with a nuclear deterrent You know more about my position on the subject than Corbyn's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/underwood_jack/status/870921405793275904
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
Are we to assume that the reason the question was asked repeatedly is that they do not believe Corbyn will renew trident, that once he is prime minister he will renege on the promise to do so? I'm sorry I'm not up on the matter, is this a thing that could happen? If it is, I can see why this is a big weakness for Corbyn personally, if not then he needed to stick to stressing that I guess and point to the audience member's point about it being for future PMs and potential threats years from now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:If the UK is unwilling to use its nuclear deterrent then it has no nuclear deterrent and is not fulfilling its role to help protect other NATO member states. Iceland has no nuclear deterrent - is it "not fulfilling its role to help protect other NATO member states"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Iceland has no nuclear deterrent - is it "not fulfilling its role to help protect other NATO member states"? No, because it's not a requirement of being a NATO member to have your own nuclear weapons. If it was to refuse to use what resources it has as it's disposal to fulfil its NATO obligations then it would be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:I too am speaking as an actual medical professional. In our area they are supposed to take the evidence presented by medical professionals and follow their recommendations, in your area it might be different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:If it was to refuse to use what resources it has as it's disposal to fulfil its NATO obligations then it would be. Article 5 says "if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." The UK could fulfill its obligation while deeming a nuclear retaliation unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Article 5 says Well, obviously. The point of NATO isn't to respond to any threat with a nuclear strike.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
Corbyn stressed that he would keep trident and use it to negotiate multilateral arms reductions. I think Corbyn's approach is more likely to prevent nuclear war than jacking off about how you're going to first strike millions of civilians off the face of the earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Well, obviously. The point of NATO isn't to respond to any threat with a nuclear strike. Perhaps Corbyn has considered all possible scenarios and has deemed nuclear retaliation to be unnecessary in all of them. NATO obligations: fulfilled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Why is "I would not retaliate, I would hope America does on our behalf" an admirable position? Nuclear socialism? Share the nukes? If Britain can maintain its own atomic weapons then doesn't "from each according to his ability" confer some obligation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
He said he'd decide based on the situation at the time. He didn't say he'd never use them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:....and that situation - that failure - is more likely if a belligerent power believes you will not use your nuclear deterrent. MAD kinda sorta works when only two state actors have nuclear weapons.it does not make sense if over 10 countries in the world have nuclear arsenals that can end life as we know it.if you use nuclear weapons you're inviting the world to pound you into submission.as a deterrent its stupid because if you ever use it you're dead either way. How is this not clear? What is the difference between having a gun that will also kill you and not having it to protect you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Why is "I would not retaliate, I would hope America does on our behalf" an admirable position? I'm merely pointing out that the nuclear deterrent is not compromised by Corbyn being PM (personally I'm in favour of NATO having a nuclear deterrent)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
HAT FETISH posted:Again: It's cool how a hypothetical belligerent foreign power would necessarily be 100% trusting of a foreign head of state's public policy on nuclear retaliation. The mere possession of nuclear offensive capability is the deterrent; anti-nuke rhetoric makes for good optics at home, but on the international stage, it must always be treated as a potential smokescreen. Well, sort of? There's two tiers of potential MAD issues I can see here, and neither of them are particularly good. First, a foreign power could believe that any claims of not retaliating would be a total lie, but that still weakens MAD because their intelligence services would have to confirm this to some degree (finding some token efforts to stand down readiness etc) which Corbyn almost certainly would, regardless if it's true or if it's a bluff. Reducing readiness is still a hugely dangerous proposition because it makes the possibility of a first strike more enticing, and it creates potential friction between the UK and their nuclear hellfire onii-san of the US. Second, if they sincerely believe Corbyn's doomsday response (or letter) would nullify the second strike, there's still a huge concern, because the established nuclear deterrent infrastructure will be hugely resistant to that. That could lead to some degree of very very short term coup: the submarine operators ignoring the letter, etc etc etc. Rational nation states behaving or becoming irrational is a huge huge huge risk to MAD, probably one of the most serious ones. In addition, if they sincerely believe that he'd never first strike, they can afford to be much more provocative and make choices that threaten MAD on the assumption that he won't fire first, which sort of undercuts my previous point in a sense, but reinforces it in another: the risk of them behaving irrationally is as dangerous as us behaving irrationally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:If Britain can maintain its own atomic weapons then doesn't "from each according to his ability" confer some obligation? lol i don't remember that part of the communist manifesto
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I'm merely pointing out that the nuclear deterrent is not compromised by Corbyn being PM (personally I'm in favour of NATO having a nuclear deterrent) Does that make his position admirable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
I'm absolutely amazed that there are people in here who are seriously making the argument that because Corbyn didn't explicitly say "I will not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances", this somehow preserves a haze of uncertainty around the situation that might be useful for the purposes of MAD. This is the most unconvincing argument I can possibly think of and you all look like a bunch of twerps who can't see your own hand in front of your face. It's Jeremy Corbyn we're talking about here. It's patently obvious that the only reason he doesn't openly say "won't do it" is because it's politically unviable. He joined CND in 1966 and was a vice-chair before all this leadership nonsense started. If anyone's intelligence assessment of his position doesn't consist of some variation on "He is a lifelong unilateralist who would disarm unilaterally if he thought it was politically viable, and will never authorise the use of Britain's nuclear weapons under any forseeable circumstances", then the officer who wrote it should be sacked and so should anyone who ever hired or promoted them, because they're clearly a complete buffoon. If I were planning a nuclear attack on a Corbyn-led UK, I wouldn't be worrying about whether he might press the button after all; I'd be worrying about the possibility that my first strike would take him out, or otherwise cause him to be replaced by someone who would press the button, or that the submarine commander would find a way to retaliate on his own initative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Does that make his position admirable? I'll let others decide that, I don't give a rat's arse about that particular aspect of the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:He said he'd decide based on the situation at the time. He didn't say he'd never use them. He gave an utterly unconvincing answer on one of his weak points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:
See my point: this is absolutely a major threat to MAD. MAD functions primarily on the assumption that nations behave rationally, and nations risking less rational behavior threatens MAD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I'm absolutely amazed that there are people in here who are seriously making the argument that because Corbyn didn't explicitly say "I will not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances", this somehow preserves a haze of uncertainty around the situation that might be useful for the purposes of MAD. This is the most unconvincing argument I can possibly think of and you all look like a bunch of twerps who can't see your own hand in front of your face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I'll let others decide that, I don't give a rat's arse about that particular aspect of the discussion. There just seems to be a lot of what I can best describe as evoking big vacant glazed-over anime-eyes as folks smugly mouth "Jeremy wouldunt kill billions of peeepol." ... he'd just pawn it off on France and America to do. It's not a good thing, and it makes you wonder what other space cadet weirdness he's got rattling around his head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
If you maintain a nuclear arsenal, history suggests you are far more likely to accidentally trigger nuclear Armageddon yourself through a sequence of horrifying/hilarious miscommunications than you are to actually deploy a retaliatory strike against a premeditated first strike.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
I don't think not wanting to kill millions of civilians in an act that would dwarf the impact of every terrorist atrocity in history is weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
I'd push the button if it meant an end to nukechat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:27
|
|
