Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Ohhhhh Jeremy Corrrrrrbyn
Comments
-
What about Jacob Rees MoggValleyGary said:Would you let Jeremy Corbyn baby sit your kids?
YES OR NO
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.Henry Irving said:
Thank you for that insightful contribution to this debate. That's what a top public school debating society does for you.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY1 -
Does Corbyn need his laptop checking -
YES? OR NO?0 -
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.8 -
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!
0 -
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies2 -
Not using nukes is as good as not having them. So the question is “why would anyone nuke a nation with no nukes?”Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
Answer: because they won’t fight back.0 -
Yes i would let Corbyn look after Jacob Rees Mogg.Callumcafc said:
What about Jacob Rees MoggValleyGary said:Would you let Jeremy Corbyn baby sit your kids?
YES OR NO
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.Henry Irving said:
Thank you for that insightful contribution to this debate. That's what a top public school debating society does for you.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY7 -
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 nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies0 -
Yah, cos all Celtic fans sympathize with The IRA!Friend Or Defoe said: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!
0 -
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.Friend Or Defoe said: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!
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 Defoe1 - Sponsored links:
-
I think @Stu_of_Kunming nailed it, history is not your strong point.Leuth said:
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 nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies0 -
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.Leuth said:
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 nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?1 -
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.Callumcafc said: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.
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.2 -
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.Leuth said:
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 nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?0 -
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.
Reminds me of student politics.6 -
That is not a story about Corbyn 'hosting' terrorists.Henry Irving said: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."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/how-sinn-fein-strolled-through-westminster-1353534.html
I would probably have done and said the same.Henry Irving said:seth plum 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,'Henry Irving said: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.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571924/Corbyn-s-30-years-talking-terrorists.html
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,"
He says he commemorates those who died, not those who killed.0 -
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.Henry Irving said:
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.Friend Or Defoe said: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!
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 Defoe3 -
There weren’t.Leuth said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.Leuth said:
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 nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
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.3 -
I am waiting for 97 more.1
-
Let’s put it this way, number of armed attacks on our country’s soil since our nuclear deterrent: 0.
Why would you want to remove something that has been fundamental to peace?0 - Sponsored links:
-
100% this.kentaddick said:
There weren’t.Leuth said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.Leuth said:
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 nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
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.0 -
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.7 -
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?seth plum said: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.
“I’m alright jack” comes to mind.4 -
Why should we do anything about global warming? Since we’d be dead by the time shit really hits the fan.
Same idiotic logic.2 -
Once the first modern nuclear weapon is used in anger we're all fecked.kentaddick said:
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?seth plum said: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.
“I’m alright jack” comes to mind.0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasakikentaddick said:
There weren’t.Leuth said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.Leuth said:
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 nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
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.
@Callumcafc what word has six letters, begins with N, and aptly summarises what needs to be considered here with this massive derailment?1 -
Nachos?PaddyP17 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasakikentaddick said:
There weren’t.Leuth said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.Leuth said:
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 nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
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.
@Callumcafc what word has six letters, begins with N, and aptly summarises what needs to be considered here with this massive derailment?3 -
Stop being racist.PaddyP17 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasakikentaddick said:
There weren’t.Leuth said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.Leuth said:
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 nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
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.
@Callumcafc what word has six letters, begins with N, and aptly summarises what needs to be considered here with this massive derailment?2 -
Because one of them is happening right now? And the other might never?kentaddick said:Why should we do anything about global warming? Since we’d be dead by the time shit really hits the fan.
Same idiotic logic.
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 claims0 -
Nonces.PaddyP17 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasakikentaddick said:
There weren’t.Leuth said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.Leuth said:
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 nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?Leuth said:
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?kentaddick said:
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.Leuth said:
I thought jokes were allowed on this board?kentaddick said:
Well that’s a dumb and disgusting comparison.Leuth said:"Jeremy, would you rather fuck a dog or a cat?"
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
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
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
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.
@Callumcafc what word has six letters, begins with N, and aptly summarises what needs to be considered here with this massive derailment?3
This discussion has been closed.
