Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The nuclear deterrent debate

letthegoodtimesroll
letthegoodtimesroll Posts: 10,622
in Not Sports Related
The Sky news coverage makes it look like pariiament was half empty for the debate. Don't MPs give a toss ?
«134

Comments

  • cafctom
    cafctom Posts: 11,372
    Love how Theresa May mugged off that SNP MP.

    "Can we cut to the chase, would you press the red button and potentially kill 100,000 people?"

    "Yes"
  • JiMMy 85
    JiMMy 85 Posts: 10,196
    This is vageluely related and worth a watch. In fact, all their videos are worth a watch!

    http://youtu.be/NbuUW9i-mHs
  • Oggy Red
    Oggy Red Posts: 44,955
    letthegoodtimesroll said:

    The Sky news coverage makes it look like pariiament was half empty for the debate. Don't MPs give a toss ?

    It would be full if they were discussing MP pay rise.

  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,341
    Oggy Red said:

    letthegoodtimesroll said:

    The Sky news coverage makes it look like pariiament was half empty for the debate. Don't MPs give a toss ?

    It would be full if they were discussing MP pay rise.

    Or, indeed, if the result of the vote made any difference whatsoever.
  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,860
    Maybe they have made their minds up already.
  • seth plum
    seth plum Posts: 53,448
    cafctom said:

    Love how Theresa May mugged off that SNP MP.

    "Can we cut to the chase, would you press the red button and potentially kill 100,000 people?"

    "Yes"

    I believe (from memory) he asked 'innocent' people, or 'innocent men women and children'. The key word being innocent.
  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,860
    We all know innocent people would die. Did you expect her to say I would only push the button if I only got the baddies?
  • Alwaysneil
    Alwaysneil Posts: 13,811
    I wondered who was asking the question, SNP or May.

    Would have been a bit surprised if SNP had said yes so quickly, less surprised about the PM
  • soapy_jones
    soapy_jones Posts: 21,355
    edited July 2016
    FFS! she's the first minister!

    Of course she should press the red button if the situation arose, that's what she and it is there for!

    What does Jock McFiddle MP for Belknocky South expect her to say, the silly socialist twerp...

  • seth plum
    seth plum Posts: 53,448
    MrOneLung said:

    We all know innocent people would die. Did you expect her to say I would only push the button if I only got the baddies?

    I posted for greater accuracy.
    And of course it will resonate when other violent incidents are condemned because people will say 'innocent' lives have been lost.
  • Sponsored links:



  • ValleyGary
    ValleyGary Posts: 37,984
    It would be a really shit deterrent if she said no
  • nth_london_addick
    nth_london_addick Posts: 35,919
    Press it press press it
  • iainment
    iainment Posts: 8,040
    It is no deterrent.
  • letthegoodtimesroll
    letthegoodtimesroll Posts: 10,622
    ValleyGary said:

    It would be a really shit deterrent if she said no

    Corbyn probably would.

    Just reminded me of when Greenwich council used to stick up those posters about the borough being nuclear free and all the time there was supposedly a nuclear reactor in the naval academy for training purposes.
  • letthegoodtimesroll
    letthegoodtimesroll Posts: 10,622
    Of course, worse case scenario and a scenario occurs where the button is pushed then the world would be relying upon the survivors to repopulate the earth and in the UK's corner that would presumably mean our new PM.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,341
    The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?

    In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

    Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,039
    Chizz said:

    The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?

    In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

    Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?

    Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.

    We would be utterly foolish to disarm at this time.
  • Alwaysneil
    Alwaysneil Posts: 13,811
    Oh it's a deterrent is it?

    What does it deter?

    On its own I would suggest it deters very little.

    Allied to US and other NATO nuclear weapons though it can be argued it deters non-NATO nuclear states from launching an attack that wipes out NATO civilians and military positions.

    Whether our force is material enough to make a difference is open to question. As is I guess the downside to our relationship in NATO should we choose to spend the money elsewhere and leave it up to someone else or just contribute to a NATO pool. I think the political ramifications of not doing it are probably at least as significant as the costs.

    The other concern would be whether subs and trident missiles are the best way to go.

    I recall historically there were rumours the UK got fobbed off by the US with trident and could have had a deterrent at least as agile or better with air bases missiles at a fraction of the cost.

    If Russia is the opposition, they may be able to target the bases quicker than the planes can scramble but is that very realistic?

    I dunno, seems like a lot of money to spend on trident without any clear analysis of why it's the best thing to do.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,341
    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?

    In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

    Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?

    Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.

    Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
  • Alwaysneil
    Alwaysneil Posts: 13,811
    Then the tin foil covers for the campervan Windows will come in very handy.
  • Sponsored links:



  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,039
    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?

    In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

    Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?

    Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.

    Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
    Not sure you understood my point.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,341
    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?

    In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

    Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?

    Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.

    Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
    Not sure you understood my point.
    Understood it perfectly.

    The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,039
    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?

    In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

    Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?

    Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.

    Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
    Not sure you understood my point.
    Understood it perfectly.

    The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
    What would we gain from claiming that we wouldn't do so ?
  • Fiiish
    Fiiish Posts: 7,998
    Brexit voters want May to stop hesitating and fire the nukes as soon as possible. Who at and consequences of don't matter.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,341
    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?

    In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

    Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?

    Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.

    Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
    Not sure you understood my point.
    Understood it perfectly.

    The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
    What would we gain from claiming that we wouldn't do so ?
    Would you press the button in those circumstances?
  • WSS
    WSS Posts: 25,070
    edited July 2016
    Is it a nuclear deterrent in the sense that it deters a nuclear attack or is it a nuclear deterrent that is in fact nuclear and can/will be used in retaliation to any major attack (Pearl Harbour-sequel)?
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,039
    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?

    In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

    Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?

    Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.

    Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
    Not sure you understood my point.
    Understood it perfectly.

    The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
    What would we gain from claiming that we wouldn't do so ?
    Would you press the button in those circumstances?
    I'd be dead.
  • AddicksAddict
    AddicksAddict Posts: 15,794
    edited July 2016
    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?

    In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

    Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?

    Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.

    Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
    Not sure you understood my point.
    Understood it perfectly.

    The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
    What would we gain from claiming that we wouldn't do so ?
    Would you press the button in those circumstances?
    That really isn't the point. I'd rather not have the damn things, but if we do have them, other people have got to believe we would use them. Yes, it would be utterly pointless to actually do it, but Johnny/Ivan/whatever Foreigner has to be deterred from launching a pre-emptive strike by thinking that even if that strike did effectively lay waste to the UK, up to forty of his own major centres of population are going to cop it as a result. That's why it's called a deterrent. Of course, it's not going to deter a terrorist, or group thereof, which begs the question of who we are supposed to be deterring. It's only useful as a deterrent against another nuclear state.

    I actually think it's much more about two things. First, the French have nuclear weapons so we have to have them. Second, we need to be seen as Billy Big Bollocks to justify our elevated position at the UN where we are one of the five permanent members of the security council. That's my opinion, of course, others are free to make up their minds.
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,625
    M.A.D.
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,730
    The problem is that there is Russia, but if they nuked us, it is inconceivable the Americans would let them get away with it - that is the deterrent. The biggest threat is some terrorist dirty bomb - but the people doing that are likely to be citizens of this country. Trident won't be much use in putting that sort of attack off. Maybe spend 10 billion of the31 billion on anti terrorisom and the rest on the NHS. Then tell everybody we still have a deterrent, even if we don't! Simples.

Categories

“Marketplace”