The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[The Camel]

Corbyn wants grown up politics and policy to be debated. Sounds good but then one day later

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565

So he wouldn't use it if we had it? What happened to the policy debate?

Badly worded answer.

He should have said something like "I cannot imagine any circumstances where I would use it"

[MintTrav]

But surely no-one would ever use it.

Which leads to the question of what the point is of having it.

If you would use it, I can see a reason for having it. But if you would never use it, you are just throwing your money away.

Why do we pretend we would use it when we know that we would never go through with it?

[George2Loose]

But surely no-one would ever use it.

Which leads to the question of what the point is of having it.

If you would use it, I can see a reason for having it. But if you would never use it, you are just throwing your money away.

Why do we pretend we would use it when we know that we would never go through with it?

It's one long levelling war. Bit like poker

[TightEnd]

you don't think ISIS would use nukes against us if it had them? (in theory)

a prime minister is only a temporary custodian of the position. to mothball the lot in this global environment seems a bit naive

I admire that he has principles, but he seems to have shocked even his shadow cabinet colleagues in saying he'd never use it.

I believe that he also said on hustings that he would never use our armed forces full stop.

just as well there are 243 weeks until the election to get a position clear i suppose

[doubleup]

Forget ISIS, Putin has been sabre rattling with nukes

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-threatens-to-use-nuclear-force-over-crimea-and-the-baltic-states-10150565.html

[MintTrav]

you don't think ISIS would use nukes against us if it had them? (in theory)

I don't understand what your point is.

If ISIS had them, it wouldn't make us safer to have them as well.

[TightEnd]

It does because the one time you would use them is when someone is about to use them on you. Without that deterrent, you have no leverage.

[DaveShoelace]

It does because the one time you would use them is when someone is about to use them on you. Without that deterrent, you have no leverage.

This.

It's a paradox but we are actually safer because we have the threat of retaliation, it's a basic game theory thingy. Rational actors and all that.

If Corbyn got in and said he would never use them, that would actually be a big threat to national security.

[MintTrav]

So would you ever set them off? You personally? You know that you are going to kill hundreds of thousands of people, maybe more. You will turn part of the world into ruins and destroy the lives of many more than you actually kill. And perhaps it will escalate even further from there.

Are you willing to destroy a large part of the world, killing and maiming so many adults and children directly and potentially leading to the end of mankind and causing your own destruction? I don't believe that any government would. Once that button is pushed, everyone loses. Until it is pressed, no matter how bad things get, there is a possibility of another way out. You would be willing to press it? Sorry, I don't believe you.

The whole deterrent argument depends on people believing that you would go through with it. Do you believe yourself that you would do it? Or maybe you are just showboating, but keeping in the back on your mind that you will pull back at the last second. If your enemy rumbles that, you have no deterrent anyway.

[DaveShoelace]

So would you ever set them off? You personally? You know that you are going to kill hundreds of thousands of people, maybe more. You will turn part of the world into ruins and destroy the lives of many more than you actually kill. And perhaps it will escalate even further from there.

Are you willing to destroy a large part of the world, killing and maiming so many adults and children directly and potentially leading to the end of mankind and causing your own destruction? I don't believe that any government would. Once that button is pushed, everyone loses. Until it is pressed, no matter how bad things get, there is a possibility of another way out. You would be willing to press it? Sorry, I don't believe you.

The whole deterrent argument depends on people believing that you would go through with it. Do you believe yourself that you would do it? Or maybe you are just showboating, but keeping in the back on your mind that you will pull back at the last second. If your enemy rumbles that, you have no deterrent anyway.

I wouldn't do it, but I'm just some guy. We elect people into power to make these impossible decisions for us.

I believe most world leaders, or at least most of them that support things like trident, would be prepared to do such a thing.

[horseplayer]

the daily mail were right

he is a threat to national security

lol

[mulhuzz]

It does because the one time you would use them is when someone is about to use them on you. Without that deterrent, you have no leverage.

Would it?

Because I don't think ISIS give a fuck.

Maybe this would be case in Cold War, but this is a new era...

[RickBFA]

It does because the one time you would use them is when someone is about to use them on you. Without that deterrent, you have no leverage.

Would it?

Because I don't think ISIS give a fuck.

Maybe this would be case in Cold War, but this is a new era...

They are an effective deterrent and have been for decades against a reasonably rational enemy.

But you are right ISIS don't give a fuck.

Even so it's a pretty stupid statement by Corbyn to show his hand publicly.

[mulhuzz]

It does because the one time you would use them is when someone is about to use them on you. Without that deterrent, you have no leverage.

Would it?

Because I don't think ISIS give a fuck.

Maybe this would be case in Cold War, but this is a new era...

They are an effective deterrent and have been for decades against a reasonably rational enemy.

But you are right ISIS don't give a fuck.

Even so it's a pretty stupid statement by Corbyn to show his hand publicly.

That said, maybe people said 'ussr don't give a fuck' in 196x.

Anyway, I think since we have it, we might as well keep it. And agree re Corbyn showing hand. Silly, naive.

[TightEnd]

the nirvana fallacy and nuclear weapons

a really good read

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-and-nirvana-fallacy