Thank you for that insightful contribution to this debate. That's what a top public school debating society does for you.
That’s why you have to love Leuth. Just give him a little whip round his ear and say “off you go you scamp”. He’ll be back around and I look forward to his next mischievous contribution.
The reason I voted for and support Corbyn’s party is because for the first time, it felt like young people were being listened to.
I have just turned 26. In my parents generation, people at that age started thinking about (if they hadn’t already) buying a house and having a family.
There is no way that could’ve even crossed my mind before 35, if ever, if I was still in the UK. It still hasn’t here in the heart of Trumpland but at least 30 sounds feasible now.
Instead, I and others can’t make plans for our futures. We are in thousands of pounds worth of debt to for-profit education establishments. I don’t want that wiped for myself but I don’t want anyone else to have to go through it because it’s bloody awful.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
Not using nukes is as good as not having them. So the question is “why would anyone nuke a nation with no nukes?”
Thank you for that insightful contribution to this debate. That's what a top public school debating society does for you.
That’s why you have to love Leuth. Just give him a little whip round his ear and say “off you go you scamp”. He’ll be back around and I look forward to his next mischievous contribution.
Yes i would let Corbyn look after Jacob Rees Mogg.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I think @Stu_of_Kunming nailed it, history is not your strong point.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
The reason I voted for and support Corbyn’s party is because for the first time, it felt like young people were being listened to.
I have just turned 26. In my parents generation, people at that age started thinking about (if they hadn’t already) buying a house and having a family.
There is no way that could’ve even crossed my mind before 35, if ever, if I was still in the UK. It still hasn’t here in the heart of Trumpland but at least 30 sounds feasible now.
Instead, I and others can’t make plans for our futures. We are in thousands of pounds worth of debt to for-profit education establishments. I don’t want that wiped for myself but I don’t want anyone else to have to go through it because it’s bloody awful.
A valid argument. If it hadn't been for Corbyn I might well have voted labour in the last election as I preferred their programme to that of the Tories, who continue to be a disaster for the country.
For me, Corbyn and his leadership team are beyond the pall for all the reasons I've given many times as well as him being dishonestly pro-brexit. He'd also be a terrible PM regardless of his politics. He's just not a leader.
Even @leuth ,one of Corbyn's biggest champions on here, admits he'd rather have Caroline Lucas as PM. I don't know much about her but by default I agree.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
Can't stand Corbyn - runs party as a cult and has let Momentum use Entryism as a strategy. Opposition within the party has been stifled and it seems you will be promoted if you're his mate.
Evidence 1. Corbyn hosts terrorist in the house of commons and is rebuked by his own party for doing so.
"Donald Dewar, the Labour Chief Whip, read the riot act individually to three Labour MPs - Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn, and Alan Simpson - in his room off the members' lobby.
The Chief Whip said it was a matter of some sensitivity. It had been drawn to his attention the MPs had put the House at some considerable and unacceptable risk.
A Labour source said: "He had been informed by the security services that people with Mitchell McLaughlin were directly involved with the IRA or connected with the IRA. He said this House had been the target in the past and could well be in the present and the future."
Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
There was a minute silence and he kept his gob shut. Did he walk out? No, he said "'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' The eight men shot, were they convicted terrorists? Corbyn clearly believed that they were fighters as he said "'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,"
I would probably have done and said the same. He says he commemorates those who died, not those who killed.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Your only source is Twitter and all the facts I can find, such as him saying he condemns all terrorism is waste of time. There's nothing I can write or show to prove you wrong that will change your mind. You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic and for that reason I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
There weren’t.
The other option was an even more costly invasion of Japan, which considering the battle of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the allies would have had to fight for every inch and would have likely been embroiled in a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam for a decade or so after. Compounded by the Japanese declaring they would slaughter every allied POW if a single American soldier set foot on the shores of japan, breaking the Geneva convention.
Japan was broken by this point at the war, the reason the surrender took so long after the nuclear strikes is infrastructure had been damaged so badly no one was really sure what happened. But they were more than willing to die for their emperor.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
There weren’t.
The other option was an even more costly invasion of Japan, which considering the battle of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the allies would have had to fight for every inch and would have likely been embroiled in a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam for a decade or so after. Compounded by the Japanese declaring they would slaughter every allied POW if a single American soldier set foot on the shores of japan, breaking the Geneva convention.
Japan was broken by this point at the war, the reason the surrender took so long after the nuclear strikes is infrastructure had been damaged so badly no one was really sure what happened. But they were more than willing to die for their emperor.
When I get instantly incinerated in a nuclear attack I won't die any happier knowing it is happening to someone else A modern nuclear war would destroy more or less everything.
When I get instantly incinerated in a nuclear attack I won't die any happier knowing it is happening to someone else A modern nuclear war would destroy more or less everything.
What about everyone else in the world? Will you leave them to deal with not just a nuclear winter but a rogue state willing to use nuclear weapons willy nilly?
When I get instantly incinerated in a nuclear attack I won't die any happier knowing it is happening to someone else A modern nuclear war would destroy more or less everything.
What about everyone else in the world? Will you leave them to deal with not just a nuclear winter but a rogue state willing to use nuclear weapons willy nilly?
“I’m alright jack” comes to mind.
Once the first modern nuclear weapon is used in anger we're all fecked.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
There weren’t.
The other option was an even more costly invasion of Japan, which considering the battle of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the allies would have had to fight for every inch and would have likely been embroiled in a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam for a decade or so after. Compounded by the Japanese declaring they would slaughter every allied POW if a single American soldier set foot on the shores of japan, breaking the Geneva convention.
Japan was broken by this point at the war, the reason the surrender took so long after the nuclear strikes is infrastructure had been damaged so badly no one was really sure what happened. But they were more than willing to die for their emperor.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
There weren’t.
The other option was an even more costly invasion of Japan, which considering the battle of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the allies would have had to fight for every inch and would have likely been embroiled in a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam for a decade or so after. Compounded by the Japanese declaring they would slaughter every allied POW if a single American soldier set foot on the shores of japan, breaking the Geneva convention.
Japan was broken by this point at the war, the reason the surrender took so long after the nuclear strikes is infrastructure had been damaged so badly no one was really sure what happened. But they were more than willing to die for their emperor.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
There weren’t.
The other option was an even more costly invasion of Japan, which considering the battle of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the allies would have had to fight for every inch and would have likely been embroiled in a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam for a decade or so after. Compounded by the Japanese declaring they would slaughter every allied POW if a single American soldier set foot on the shores of japan, breaking the Geneva convention.
Japan was broken by this point at the war, the reason the surrender took so long after the nuclear strikes is infrastructure had been damaged so badly no one was really sure what happened. But they were more than willing to die for their emperor.
Why should we do anything about global warming? Since we’d be dead by the time shit really hits the fan.
Same idiotic logic.
Because one of them is happening right now? And the other might never?
Obviously we should do something about nukes - we should work towards global disarmament. Probably a pipe-dream at this point and we'll always have a planet with a self-destruct switch, but I don't see in practical terms how having nukes will make much difference. It's not like our big rowdy brother wouldn't nuke the shit out of anyone who attacked us anyway - they hardly need the encouragement
Anyway ENOUGH ABOUT NUKES. They're a sideshow. I notice Brendan O'Connell hasn't returned to back up his outlandish claims
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
There weren’t.
The other option was an even more costly invasion of Japan, which considering the battle of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the allies would have had to fight for every inch and would have likely been embroiled in a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam for a decade or so after. Compounded by the Japanese declaring they would slaughter every allied POW if a single American soldier set foot on the shores of japan, breaking the Geneva convention.
Japan was broken by this point at the war, the reason the surrender took so long after the nuclear strikes is infrastructure had been damaged so badly no one was really sure what happened. But they were more than willing to die for their emperor.
Comments
YES? OR NO?
I have just turned 26. In my parents generation, people at that age started thinking about (if they hadn’t already) buying a house and having a family.
There is no way that could’ve even crossed my mind before 35, if ever, if I was still in the UK. It still hasn’t here in the heart of Trumpland but at least 30 sounds feasible now.
Instead, I and others can’t make plans for our futures. We are in thousands of pounds worth of debt to for-profit education establishments. I don’t want that wiped for myself but I don’t want anyone else to have to go through it because it’s bloody awful.
Answer: because they won’t fight back.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
For me, Corbyn and his leadership team are beyond the pall for all the reasons I've given many times as well as him being dishonestly pro-brexit. He'd also be a terrible PM regardless of his politics. He's just not a leader.
Even @leuth ,one of Corbyn's biggest champions on here, admits he'd rather have Caroline Lucas as PM. I don't know much about her but by default I agree.
Reminds me of student politics.
He says he commemorates those who died, not those who killed.
The other option was an even more costly invasion of Japan, which considering the battle of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the allies would have had to fight for every inch and would have likely been embroiled in a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam for a decade or so after. Compounded by the Japanese declaring they would slaughter every allied POW if a single American soldier set foot on the shores of japan, breaking the Geneva convention.
Japan was broken by this point at the war, the reason the surrender took so long after the nuclear strikes is infrastructure had been damaged so badly no one was really sure what happened. But they were more than willing to die for their emperor.
Why would you want to remove something that has been fundamental to peace?
A modern nuclear war would destroy more or less everything.
“I’m alright jack” comes to mind.
Same idiotic logic.
@Callumcafc what word has six letters, begins with N, and aptly summarises what needs to be considered here with this massive derailment?
Obviously we should do something about nukes - we should work towards global disarmament. Probably a pipe-dream at this point and we'll always have a planet with a self-destruct switch, but I don't see in practical terms how having nukes will make much difference. It's not like our big rowdy brother wouldn't nuke the shit out of anyone who attacked us anyway - they hardly need the encouragement
Anyway ENOUGH ABOUT NUKES. They're a sideshow. I notice Brendan O'Connell hasn't returned to back up his outlandish claims