The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

I find it amazing that somebody supporting pressing a button to blow up the enemy is seen as the normal stance.

major superpowers have operated on this basis since 1963.

its all very well saying "unilateralism" we'll give it up, never be needed etc etc

but if you do it on your own, and you then have no deterrent, and a nuclear power has a massive shift in control, or a rogue nuclear power comes along, where are you then?

idealism is one thing, but a pragmatic view of the world and what unforeseen events might happen in the future is another.

[AlunB]

Barry - There is far more than one approach to foreign relations. Japan and Switzerland are two obvious examples. You can hardly say the current way of doing things is particularly effective. Falklands is an incredibly emotive topic, as many people know people who served and/or died in that war. But I find it hard to say that some form of negotiations over their sovereignty wouldn't be at least sensible. Same with many of Corbyn's points. He's saying there is more than one way of looking at this. And, quite often, he's right.

My comments have not been in relation to the Falklands, I don't particularly have a dog in that fight. In fact, for the most part my comments have been on security within Britain, not foreign policy (I appreciate the two are very closely linked). It's specifically the 'not pressing nuclear button even if we had it' and the 'police shoot to kill' comments so soon after Paris that I object to with Corbyn. The first one being simply a huge balls up in terms of game theory, the second one being horrifying to me given Britain is a big terror target. I don't know much about Japan or Switzerland in that respect if that's what you meant?

I have a feeling we might be juggling and confusing a few issues at this stage, apologies if so.

Yeah sorry, that was my fault. Two separate issues, should have used a new paragraph.

Japan has an army that can only act in self defence. Switzerland has long been neutral. Just two examples of alternative approaches.

Falklands was just a separate issue.

[MintTrav]

I find it amazing that somebody supporting pressing a button to blow up the enemy is seen as the normal stance.

major superpowers have operated on this basis since 1963.

its all very well saying "unilateralism" we'll give it up, never be needed etc etc

but if you do it on your own, and you then have no deterrent, and a nuclear power has a massive shift in control, or a rogue nuclear power comes along, where are you then?

idealism is one thing, but a pragmatic view of the world and what unforeseen events might happen in the future is another.

Where are you if you keep it?

- You gonna nuke them?
- You gonna pretend you'll nuke them?
- You think they believe you?

[Doobs]

I find it amazing that somebody supporting pressing a button to blow up the enemy is seen as the normal stance.

major superpowers have operated on this basis since 1963.

its all very well saying "unilateralism" we'll give it up, never be needed etc etc

but if you do it on your own, and you then have no deterrent, and a nuclear power has a massive shift in control, or a rogue nuclear power comes along, where are you then?

idealism is one thing, but a pragmatic view of the world and what unforeseen events might happen in the future is another.

I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with unilaterally giving up our deterrent.  I have no problem with this and it is a reasonable stance to take.

I'd say there is someting fundamentally wrong with having a deterrent and then telling everyone you will not press the button.   A lot of people aren't going to press the damn button when it comes to it, but your enemey has to believe you could.

[DaveShoelace]

Japan has an army that can only act in self defence.

Didn't know that and find it very interesting. What constitutes self defence? If an army attacks them one day, retreats outside of Japan and looks likely to attack again, can they go after them? (I realise how dumb that sounds)

Switzerland has long been neutral.

Forgive me if I am way off the mark and have arrived at this opinion mostly from James Bond movies, but can't Switzerland afford to be neutral because a lot of countries have financial interests wrapped up there? So an attack of Switzerland would be defended by a lot of countries?

I appreciate my last two questions are GSCE level at best but it's fun to learn stuff.

[Ledders]

How do we know Corbyn is telling the truth when he says he wouldn't press the button? He clearly is (imo) but from a game theory perspective how do you know.

[TightEnd]

Hilarious

Corbynglish as a second language

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/corbynglish-as-a-second-language/

[AlunB]

I don't honestly know the proper answers to either.

Switzerland has been neutral for 200 years I believe, and has maintained it by being useful to all sides and being careful not to piss anyone off really. It does have an army, and a navy despite having no coast, but again it's for self defence.

Japan's self defence army was introduced after WW2, although interestingly was recently amended so that it could help out "allies" in other conflicts where it was seen to be strategically important to do so.

Complex world we live in.

[AlunB]

As far as I can make out Japan's self defence is the equivalent of someone self-excluding themselves from a load of online casinos.

"We can't trust ourselves lads..."

[DaveShoelace]

How do we know Corbyn is telling the truth when he says he wouldn't press the button? He clearly is (imo) but from a game theory perspective how do you know.

There is no good Game Theory reason to say you wouldn't when you would. That could lead to a situation where you get attacked because you appear undefensible, then you attack, then you have two huge lists of casualties.

But if you say you would, even if you know you wouldn't, this acts as a detterent from that ever happening in the first place.

[MintTrav]

A lot of people aren't going to press the damn button when it comes to it, but your enemey has to believe you could.

Exactly. And no-one believes that the UK would use it.

[DaveShoelace]

A lot of people aren't going to press the damn button when it comes to it, but your enemey has to believe you could.

Exactly. And no-one believes that the UK would use it.

Really? I think any country that has been willing to go to war in recent memory would be perceived as potentially being willing to push the button.

[DungBeetle]

A lot of people aren't going to press the damn button when it comes to it, but your enemey has to believe you could.

Exactly. And no-one believes that the UK would use it.

Come off it.

The UK hasn't exactly been docile in recent military escapades.  You don't think people thought Blair might use it if threatened?  Even if it's an outside chance?

[MintTrav]

A lot of people aren't going to press the damn button when it comes to it, but your enemey has to believe you could.

Exactly. And no-one believes that the UK would use it.

Really? I think any country that has been willing to go to war in recent memory would be perceived as potentially being willing to push the button.

Come off it.

The UK hasn't exactly been docile in recent military escapades.  You don't think people thought Blair might use it if threatened?  Even if it's an outside chance?

Totally gobsmacked by those responses. I really didn't think anyone abroad believed we would actually use it and, even more so, people in the UK. Yet you are in the UK and you believe it, so I must be wrong. You believe that the UK could destroy a substantial part of the Earth and risk the end of the whole thing. I don't and I find it hard to comprehend that you do.

I believe 100% that we would never use it (and I thought everyone else did). I also believe that the governments of the other nuclear powers would be too responsible in the end to ever do it.

That is why, for me, the deterrent argument makes no sense.

[RickBFA]

I support the deterrent argument generally and think it worked well in the cold war era.

The worry for me and where it has less/no real impact is against the likes of ISIS. God help us if they get anywhere near a nuclear threat in the next 20/30/40 years.

It really could be global carnage then.