The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[*_ash_*]

Do you think the whole Palestinian population are terrorists?

 

It shows up how people, everyone, including in here generalises. I do it too. I often find left politics to be very ideological yet in practice won't work with such a high population. Socialism belongs in small communities, I think. Globally, which is what things are like these days, it won't work.

 

The left (also the majority in here) are by far the worst on here for it. Every time anyone mentions being right of centre in some form, they are generalised as being a Daily Mail reading fascist, or racist if the topic is immigration. You must see it I1, because you read/post/contribute in most of them!

 

I've only seen the BBC news headlines about him, and seen his talks on youtube, and he seems to me like a complete ideologist who is simply disguising Labour values (i.e. high taxes and high spending) with fluffy bunny talk to win votes. To be fair, he seems like a decent bloke, but being a decent bloke doesn't make him PM material.

 

I even picked up people in my taxi who are staunch Labour voters, who say that Cameron seems to know what he's doing!

 

Ed tried this and spectacularly failed, and so far, he looks like he'll go the same way.

 

No opposition at all.

 

The Liberals as I said after the election and again upon his win, should be sweeping up from this and become the new opposition.

 

I have to agree with this.

 

We are probably about to spend £millions, if not £billions, paying for an outdated weapon which will never be used. Does that make him an idiot, or us. Heaven knows the money can be better spent.

 

He says he is not a Dictator. He is happy to discuss it. He says he wants to bring a nuclear-free world nearer, and will work to those ends. That sounds good to me.

 

Remember a lot of very wealthy, civilised countries have made the decision to be nuclear weapons free.

 

Who doesn't? He's not saying anything that people in an ideal world don't want.

 

Weren't you a teacher? Did you ever chat with history teachers?

[Anna B]

It shows up how people, everyone, including in here generalises. I do it too. I often find left politics to be very ideological yet in practice won't work with such a high population. Socialism belongs in small communities, I think. Globally, which is what things are like these days, it won't work.

 

The left (also the majority in here) are by far the worst on here for it. Every time anyone mentions being right of centre in some form, they are generalised as being a Daily Mail reading fascist, or racist if the topic is immigration. You must see it I1, because you read/post/contribute in most of them!

 

I've only seen the BBC news headlines about him, and seen his talks on youtube, and he seems to me like a complete ideologist who is simply disguising Labour values (i.e. high taxes and high spending) with fluffy bunny talk to win votes. To be fair, he seems like a decent bloke, but being a decent bloke doesn't make him PM material.

 

I even picked up people in my taxi who are staunch Labour voters, who say that Cameron seems to know what he's doing!

 

Ed tried this and spectacularly failed, and so far, he looks like he'll go the same way.

 

No opposition at all.

 

The Liberals as I said after the election and again upon his win, should be sweeping up from this and become the new opposition.

 

 

 

Who doesn't? He's not saying anything that people in an ideal world don't want.

 

Weren't you a teacher? Did you ever chat with history teachers?

 

The difference is he is a potentially powerful politician saying it, and, as a man of integrity, he's prepared to put his career on the line to do so.

He's opening up a discussion, he's already got us talking and (more importantly) thinking about it. When was the last time that happened?

 

I personally have never taken much notice because I always assumed it was more or less a done deal, written in stone by politicians, and nothing would change it. It didn't matter what I thought.

But now there is just a chance perceptions might change, he is certainly a very persuasive personality, and I will therefore have to think about it, and find out what I can, before I support him on it, or not.

 

Since when was that a bad thing? Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about? Shouldn't we all aim high and at least try for a better world? Maybe JC can even persuade the world towards multilateral disarmament. You never know...

[Eric Arthur]

Out of 190+ countries in the world, [/qUOTE]

65 are involved in wars.

 

That should make you think.

[I1L2T3]

It shows up how people, everyone, including in here generalises. I do it too. I often find left politics to be very ideological yet in practice won't work with such a high population. Socialism belongs in small communities, I think. Globally, which is what things are like these days, it won't work.

 

The left (also the majority in here) are by far the worst on here for it. Every time anyone mentions being right of centre in some form, they are generalised as being a Daily Mail reading fascist, or racist if the topic is immigration. You must see it I1, because you read/post/contribute in most of them!

 

I've only seen the BBC news headlines about him, and seen his talks on youtube, and he seems to me like a complete ideologist who is simply disguising Labour values (i.e. high taxes and high spending) with fluffy bunny talk to win votes. To be fair, he seems like a decent bloke, but being a decent bloke doesn't make him PM material.

 

I even picked up people in my taxi who are staunch Labour voters, who say that Cameron seems to know what he's doing!

 

Ed tried this and spectacularly failed, and so far, he looks like he'll go the same way.

 

No opposition at all.

 

The Liberals as I said after the election and again upon his win, should be sweeping up from this and become the new opposition.

 

 

 

I find something quite different. The generalisations are usually made in right wing arguments. There's often no room for nuances, no room for discussion. Everything is black or white. A lot of the stuff trotted out on here is just regurgitation of tired and inaccurate sound bites

[Eric Arthur]

That's a bit of a generalisation.

 

It would be like saying that left wing arguments think they have the monopoly on compassion while pouring incredible bile on those they don't like. Which is true and writ large in the Guardian comments under articles.

[I1L2T3]

In the thermonuclear age, to be a nuclear minnow is still enough to deter any sane enemy. If in some alternative reality, there was a potential conflict between us and America. Do you believe that America would risk losing it's 50 biggest cities to defeat us in a conflict?

 

China has the right nuclear strategy when it comes to nuclear deterrence. It is enough to cripple your enemy to deter, everything else is overkill. Do you really believe that the ability to make the rubble bounce a few more times is any more terrifying than being destroyed?

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2015 at 23:33 ----------

 

 

You may well believe that the ability to destroy "the enemy's" 20/50 biggest cities as being an irrelevance compared to America's ability to destroy every city/town and village three times over.

 

I think that they are of equal deterrence, because both would bring about the end of life as we know it.

 

They are not equal. Think about it. Russia has a vast land mass with over 150 cities with 100,000+ population. Trident could cripple maybe a dozen cities but it could not totally destroy Russia. The chances are that Russia would still be a functioning country afterwards with intact towns, cities, military and infrastructure.

 

Our 'independent' deterrent is not really independent at all. It can only work in a joint strike with the USA who will have duplicated many times over all the trident targets anyway.

 

It's practically useless. Unless of course you want to reimagine its use as a threat against non-nuclear potential adversaries but that is the rocky and dangerous road to nuclear proliferation.

[Eric Arthur]

They are not equal. Think about it. Russia has a vast land mass with over 150 cities with 100,000+ population. Trident could cripple maybe a dozen cities but it could not totally destroy Russia. The chances are that Russia would still be a functioning country afterwards with intact towns, cities, military and infrastructure.

 

Our 'independent' deterrent is not really independent at all. It can only work in a joint strike with the USA who will have duplicated many times over all the trident targets anyway.

 

It's practically useless. Unless of course you want to reimagine its use as a threat against non-nuclear potential adversaries but that is the rocky and dangerous road to nuclear proliferation.

 

Whether it is a practical deterrent is a bit academic and that is the whole point of a nuclear deterrent. What is more use is the UN Security Council where the real global discussions take place. There are 5 nations that can veto any decision,

• Russia
  
• United States
  
• United Kingdom
  
• France
  
• China
  

 

Here's another list of the designated world nuclear powers

• Russia
  
• United States
  
• United Kingdom
  
• France
  
• China
  

 

You will note the pattern. Having nuclear weapons means that you lead the world in peacekeeping plans.

 

If the UK were to leave the list it is reasonable to assume that the UK will lose its veto. Here is the list of nations which have nuclear weapons and will legitimately feel that they should have gain a veto if the UK loses one.

• India
  
• Pakistan
  
• North Korea
  

 

I don't like the look of any of those nations having a UN Security Council veto and we could build a very good argument that the UK's weapons are are a significant geopolitical investment in world peace. Corbyn struggles to see past Islington.

[I1L2T3]

Whether it is a practical deterrent is a bit academic and that is the whole point of a nuclear deterrent. What is more use is the UN Security Council where the real global discussions take place. There are 5 nations that can veto any decision,

• Russia
  
• United States
  
• United Kingdom
  
• France
  
• China
  

 

Here's another list of the designated world nuclear powers

• Russia
  
• United States
  
• United Kingdom
  
• France
  
• China
  

 

You will note the pattern. Having nuclear weapons means that you lead the world in peacekeeping plans.

 

If the UK were to leave the list it is reasonable to assume that the UK will lose its veto. Here is the list of nations which have nuclear weapons and will legitimately feel that they should have gain a veto if the UK loses one.

• India
  
• Pakistan
  
• North Korea
  

 

I don't like the look of any of those nations having a UN Security Council veto and we could build a very good argument that the UK's weapons are are a significant geopolitical investment in world peace. Corbyn struggles to see past Islington.

 

Do we really need a seat at that table? We haven't exactly led the world in peace have we given our recent participation in wars of questionable legality. We supply and equip dozens of countries, some of them with poor records on democracy and human rights, with weapons.

 

I think we're a little bit too big for our boots these days

[JFKvsNixon]

They are not equal. Think about it. Russia has a vast land mass with over 150 cities with 100,000+ population. Trident could cripple maybe a dozen cities but it could not totally destroy Russia. The chances are that Russia would still be a functioning country afterwards with intact towns, cities, military and infrastructure.

 

Our 'independent' deterrent is not really independent at all. It can only work in a joint strike with the USA who will have duplicated many times over all the trident targets anyway.

 

It's practically useless. Unless of course you want to reimagine its use as a threat against non-nuclear potential adversaries but that is the rocky and dangerous road to nuclear proliferation.

 

Ok let's put to bed the theory that we cannot fire our nuclear weapons without the USA's permission. There is no evidence that supports this theory. This theory came about from committee meetings in Parliament that questioned the independence of the deterrent due to the USA's input in maintance of the missiles.

 

The missiles are not controlled by satellites after launch, they are controlled by inertia guidience and the stars. So if the missiles are to be launched all the MOD has to do is give the order to the submarine and it will do the rest independently. If the British state is destroyed it will go down to the infamous envelopes.

 

In a time of heightened tensions between us and "the enemy", we'd managed to get a couple of Trident boats out, so our potential retaliatory strike will be between 40 - the number carried on a single patrol, and 160 warheads - the maximum number of warheads admitted to be operational. Each with a yeild of up to 100 kilotons - over 6 times more powerful than the bomb that killed well over 100 thousand people in Hiroshima.

 

So let's sum up our deterrence. The ability to use up to 160 warheads each more than 6 times more powerful than Hiroshima is a credible deference against any sane enemy. If need be, the blast and fallout damage will destroy any potential enemy's way of life for ever.

 

We may not have the ability to make the rubble bounce a few times like the USA or Russia, but that ability in my opinion is just nothing more than an act of machismo and a waste of money and resources.

Edited October 1, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[Eric Arthur]

Do we really need a seat at that table? We haven't exactly led the world in peace have we given our recent participation in wars of questionable legality. We supply and equip dozens of countries, some of them with poor records on democracy and human rights, with weapons.

 

I think we're a little bit too big for our boots these days

 

I genuinely didn't expect you to demonstrate the self flagellation that is normal for leftist commentators. Did you miss noticing how crap virtually every other part of the world is in comparison to the UK?

 

I think that the UK is uniquely placed to have a place at the top table. It has a stability, heritage, cultural knowledge, worldwide respect (even if it can be grudging at times) that is unsurpassed by any other nation that I can think of. We started with nothing, we ran the world, we gave it back. We have nothing to prove unlike every other nation on the list. (I say "we" in the context of being British, not in a nationalistic sense.)

 

Let's deal in the real world here, not Jezgeopolitics. Which out of India, Pakistan and North Korea should take the UK's place at the top table and how many people will die for them to get it?

 

I'm sure that we'll agree that stability can have a place above principles.