|
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 | ||
|
"Would you actually nuke someone" is irrelevant, if it ever gets that far MAD failed anyway. "Would you say you'd be willing to nuke someone as part of the elaborate shell-game of nuclear security the entire world has been invested in due to cold war dick-waving" is all that matters, and Corbyn said "maybe", so our part of the charade's done. Nobody's going to nuke us. The Type-59 is a communist tank made by China, which is probably more of an actual threat than the idea of them glassing Liverpool.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted: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. Adopting a position that increases the chances of millions of people being killed in an initial first strike is worse than helping prevent that in the first place by stating you would retaliate. spectralent posted:"Would you actually nuke someone" is irrelevant, if it ever gets that far MAD failed anyway. "Would you say you'd be willing to nuke someone as part of the elaborate shell-game of nuclear security the entire world has been invested in due to cold war dick-waving" is all that matters, and Corbyn said "maybe", so our part of the charade's done. Nobody's going to nuke us. See Trin Tragula's post. Nobody believes his maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
spectralent posted:"Would you actually nuke someone" is irrelevant, if it ever gets that far MAD failed anyway. "Would you say you'd be willing to nuke someone as part of the elaborate shell-game of nuclear security the entire world has been invested in due to cold war dick-waving" is all that matters, and Corbyn said "maybe", so our part of the charade's done. Nobody's going to nuke us. North Korea might, with all that money we've been giving them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
dispatch_async posted:I'd push the button if it meant an end to nukechat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted: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. I'd be more worried the US would turn my country into an irradiated crater the second I launched nukes at any country at all, let alone a western nation, let alone the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
CoolCab posted: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. *You're completely right about rational/irrational actors though – "shouldn't" is the key word here. However I feel like this is inviting a whole side argument about the rationality (re: preserving national security and global standing) of stating your reluctance to launch a strike while knowing you're surrounded by allies who are treaty-bound to do so on your behalf if it comes to it, and I don't wanna poo poo the thread up with this issue too much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
josh04 posted:North Korea might, with all that money we've been giving them. Coincidentally also have Type-59s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
Zoran posted: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 11:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tomosgjames/status/870687114324721664
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Fair enough, I'll try and do more research into early stage ld Thanks for discussing it though. My 11 month old son has DS and it's useful reading the perspectives of those with broader experience of it. We would never send him to a troubled inner city school but we are currently assuming he will go to a mainstream one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Fair enough, I'll try and do more research into early stage ld Early stage therapy is absolutely fascinating as well. A good name to start with with early years stuff is Professor Jonathan Green. https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/Jonathan.Green.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:What is the difference between having a gun that will also kill you and not having it to protect you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Serene Dragon posted:Agreed. It's worse than boatchat. given our nukes are stored on submarines, technically i guess it's just a subset of boatchat. Boats: not even once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/parliawint/status/870959794332590081
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AlecShelbrooke/status/870670771387064322
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/parliawint/status/870965131043377152
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Adopting a position that increases the chances of millions of people being killed in an initial first strike is worse than helping prevent that in the first place by stating you would retaliate. People already explained to you that as a NATO member we face zero increased danger and your only counterargument is that we wouldn't be fulfilling our treaty obligations. Which aside from being wrong (nuclear weapons always explicitly remain under the control of the country possessing them), is only an argument if people give a poo poo about fulfilling our treaty obligations. It's not an argument that says there's actually any increased danger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Why does anybody give a poo poo about stated positions on nuclear weapons by politicians anyway, if the global situation deteriorates drastically enough that nukes are used all the campaign talk has long gone out the window anyway. It's not like Corbyn or anyone else is going to go "well Russian-Alien hybrids are storming our shores from their strange cloaking ships but I gave a promise to the Daily Mail so swings and roundabouts"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
No one actually gives a gently caress about Nuclear Weapons. They are used as a litmus test to decide on the strength of a leader and/or as a stick to beat them with (see:pissflaps). As hosed as that is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
the THUGGISH, and VIOLENT action of drawing a knob is completely disgusting. so much for the tolerant left
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
I like that Jeremy Corbyn said he wouldn't use nuclear weapons and I agree on disarmament. If that makes us look weak to some crazy country then OK. If they are really that crazy they want to invade and attack then let them. We have allies who would most certainly help out. I really, really don't understand why people care so much that he is against nuclear weapons. They are awful things and I wish they did not exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Nuclear weapons are good actually
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Unsurprisingly... https://twitter.com/wefail/status/870914048921128960
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
it's a question that should have been really really easy to answer and it's honestly kind of infuriating that this is the hill he chooses to die on
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Distract from nukechat using... plugchat! Look at these horrifying things they use in the US theatre! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
I don't really care if we're not fulfilling our treaty obligations because even if you accept MAD for the sake of argument (a concession, not something uncontroversial - it's untested hypothesis based on simplistic logic, never an official policy and not very relevant now we're out of the cold war), under the extremely unlikely circumstance that there's a nuclear scare there need to be as few moving parts as possible to minimise the possibility of accidental escalation. This isn't a fanciful hypothetical, there were multiple moments in the cold war where we almost all died that way. So, one nuclear power on our side and one on theirs. There's not going to be a nuclear scare that threatens us and not the United States within Corbyn's lifetime, nor will there be a military threat that can overcome our moat and conventional military. Essence of Decision is the book that changed how I thought about nuclear weapons and I recommend it if you want a good read about the Cuban Missile Crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:Distract from nukechat using... plugchat!  IEC 60309 4 lyfe
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
ronya posted:it's a question that should have been really really easy to answer and it's honestly kind of infuriating that this is the hill he chooses to die on He's not dying on anything. Much like every other hyped-up "gaffe" so far it's already common knowledge that Corbyn doesn't like nukes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Ditto Iran which doesn't have even have nukes. Why would Iran be interested in nuking Britain rather than - just to pick a county totally at random - Israel, for example? We're basically the supreme boogeyman puppetmaster in the eyes of the Iranian government (and many Iranians) - there is some seriously bad blood between our countries from the last century or so that we're largely oblivious to over here. We've done everything from steal their oil, their army and treasury (check out the 1919 Anglo-Iranian agreement) to occupying the country in WW2. Oh, and we caused a famine and brought down their democratic government and replaced it with a brutal dictatorship. There's a reasonably sized contingent who still see Britain's hand behind many of the events in the Middle-East. Prince John fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
If nuclear weaponry and the ability to kill millions is that important to a potential voter. They were unlikely to vote for the avowed pacifist to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Sounds like the British just get mad when you tell them in the scheme of MAD they are quite irrelevant
Dead Cosmonaut fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:He's not dying on anything. Much like every other hyped-up "gaffe" so far it's already common knowledge that Corbyn doesn't like nukes. he could have, and should have, publicly revised his opinion, as he readily did with Northern Ireland this is a general election now is not the time to dredge up moribund planks from the 1980s
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
I like that he doesn't flip flop just to win. That is the sort of integrity that I like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
But realtalk: I'm not totally sure what I think of the nuke question but I also don't care because it's completely irrelevant outside the fever dreams of pink-faced men who read clancy novels. You might as well ask what his policy on the possibility of alien contact is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Sounds like the British just get mad when you tell them
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
No one is going to nuke anyone jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:Distract from nukechat using... plugchat!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
jabby posted:People already explained to you that as a NATO member we face zero increased danger and your only counterargument is that we wouldn't be fulfilling our treaty obligations. Which aside from being wrong (nuclear weapons always explicitly remain under the control of the country possessing them), is only an argument if people give a poo poo about fulfilling our treaty obligations. It's not an argument that says there's actually any increased danger. This isn't correct. What about the nuclear weapons sharing agreements with Germany, Italy etc?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Peel posted:I don't really care if we're not fulfilling our treaty obligations because even if you accept MAD for the sake of argument (a concession, not something uncontroversial - it's untested hypothesis based on simplistic logic, never an official policy and not very relevant now we're out of the cold war), under the extremely unlikely circumstance that there's a nuclear scare there need to be as few moving parts as possible to minimise the possibility of accidental escalation. This isn't a fanciful hypothetical, there were multiple moments in the cold war where we almost all died that way. So, one nuclear power on our side and one on theirs. There's not going to be a nuclear scare that threatens us and not the United States within Corbyn's lifetime, nor will there be a military threat that can overcome our moat and conventional military. My approach to nuclear weapons chat is to ask people how many nukes America has lost. When they reply "how many?" I wave my arms in the air and scream "MORE THAN ZERO!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:He's not dying on anything. Much like every other hyped-up "gaffe" so far it's already common knowledge that Corbyn doesn't like nukes. Yeah as much as a couple of people were saying he'd hosed the whole election, the backlash really hasn't materialised. Broadcasters have been obliged to show both him and May looking uncomfortable, and her on a much more important topic. Papers have been reasonably split and even the Murdoch press hasn't pushed the nuke thing super hard. It's just not a new issue and there's not much more political capital to be gained. And now today the top story is Fallon saying high earners won't pay more tax and May immediately backtracking. Even a Corbyn wobble can't stop this Tory foot-shooting machine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 13:04
|
|