The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[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.

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.

Are you talking about people in this country or abroad?  What people think in this country is irrelevant.  What matters is what other potential aggressors think.  A leader in Iran (for example) would see fleeting coverage of Blair/Cameron.  And when they see him, he seems quite happy busying himself invading other countries backed by USA deploying his military strength.  Do you really think another leader would think they could fire a nuclear weapon at the UK and NOT suffer a retaliatory strike, whether from US or UK?  The UK and US are really going to say "nice one - you've called our bluff.  We'll do our best to tidy this up"?

It's a risk assessment for the aggressor.  But I can assure you the probability input for "will retaliate with all means possible" would not be zero.  That obviously makes us less likely to suffer an attack if other nations develop nukes.

Whether that deterrent is worth the expenditure is another debate, but denying a deterrent exists is perverse logic.

[RickBFA]

Oh, and Corbyn saying we have them but I aint going to press the button if PM is total madness. like playing poker with your hand face up on the table for all to see. Idiotic.

[TightEnd]

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.

i believe it too

reckon, unilateralists aside, a majority of the voting population does

Simply has to be a greater than zero chance that the button is pressed in retailiation

thats why it works

every nuclear sub has a letter in a safe with codes, if those match the codes the prime minister sends then....

simply can't imagine Corbyn being PM with his attitude to deterrence and reckon (his own party membership aside) its a significant vote loser.

i know his Falklands stance would be too

[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.

Are you talking about people in this country or abroad?  What people think in this country is irrelevant.  What matters is what other potential aggressors think.  A leader in Iran (for example) would see fleeting coverage of Blair/Cameron.  And when they see him, he seems quite happy busying himself invading other countries backed by USA deploying his military strength.  Do you really think another leader would think they could fire a nuclear weapon at the UK and NOT suffer a retaliatory strike, whether from US or UK?  The UK and US are really going to say "nice one - you've called our bluff.  We'll do our best to tidy this up"?

It's a risk assessment for the aggressor.  But I can assure you the probability input for "will retaliate with all means possible" would not be zero.  That obviously makes us less likely to suffer an attack if other nations develop nukes.

Whether that deterrent is worth the expenditure is another debate, but denying a deterrent exists is perverse logic.

I don't believe any country would fire a nuclear weapon. Which did you have in mind? The current nuclear powers are US, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and, possibly, Israel. You mentioned Iran - if they had it do you think they would use it? I don't think any of them would be that stupid.

[DaveShoelace]

I also believe that the governments of the other nuclear powers would be too responsible in the end to ever do it.

Russia? USA? North Korea? I worry those guys would press it for shits and giggles.

[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.

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.

Are you talking about people in this country or abroad?  What people think in this country is irrelevant.  What matters is what other potential aggressors think.  A leader in Iran (for example) would see fleeting coverage of Blair/Cameron.  And when they see him, he seems quite happy busying himself invading other countries backed by USA deploying his military strength.  Do you really think another leader would think they could fire a nuclear weapon at the UK and NOT suffer a retaliatory strike, whether from US or UK?  The UK and US are really going to say "nice one - you've called our bluff.  We'll do our best to tidy this up"?

It's a risk assessment for the aggressor.  But I can assure you the probability input for "will retaliate with all means possible" would not be zero.  That obviously makes us less likely to suffer an attack if other nations develop nukes.

Whether that deterrent is worth the expenditure is another debate, but denying a deterrent exists is perverse logic.

I don't believe any country would fire a nuclear weapon. Which did you have in mind? The current nuclear powers are US, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and, possibly, Israel. You mentioned Iran - if they had it do you think they would use it? I don't think any of them would be that stupid.

I'm not sure the current nuclear "population" is relevant (perhaps except North Korea).  All things being equal, if a rogue nation develops a single nuclear weapon I think the threat of being fired back with ten times the fire power would likely put them off.  Who knows who the UK will annoy in the future?  Who knows what future leaders will be in mindset?

You've changed your argument though.  Originally you stated that nobody thought the UK would use a nuke.  Now you have changed it to nobody thinks that anybody would use one?  Personally I think there are enough nutters out there that may secure power in future decades that it is possible that someone would use one.  If they did I think the UK having nukes would make them think twice.

For that reason I think deterrent works.

[TightEnd]

meant in the kindest possible way John

"Which did you have in mind? The current nuclear powers are US, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and, possibly, Israel. You mentioned Iran - if they had it do you think they would use it? I don't think any of them would be that stupid."

are you living in some sort of land of milk and honey, a stepfordian existence where everything is bliss and we can sail through each day in  mutual harmony?

i'd have over half the countries you mention on a danger list with respect to their nuclear capability.

the geopolitics of the world is unstable, and getting worse

Unilateralism is simply a crazy notion and one I am 100% convinced a British electorate would not entertain it, were it to be in a Labour maifesto (which is hasn't been since Foot, and he got decimated at the polls)

[DaveShoelace]

Pakistan and India are a massive danger of nuking each other.

[RickBFA]

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.

Are you talking about people in this country or abroad?  What people think in this country is irrelevant.  What matters is what other potential aggressors think.  A leader in Iran (for example) would see fleeting coverage of Blair/Cameron.  And when they see him, he seems quite happy busying himself invading other countries backed by USA deploying his military strength.  Do you really think another leader would think they could fire a nuclear weapon at the UK and NOT suffer a retaliatory strike, whether from US or UK?  The UK and US are really going to say "nice one - you've called our bluff.  We'll do our best to tidy this up"?

It's a risk assessment for the aggressor.  But I can assure you the probability input for "will retaliate with all means possible" would not be zero.  That obviously makes us less likely to suffer an attack if other nations develop nukes.

Whether that deterrent is worth the expenditure is another debate, but denying a deterrent exists is perverse logic.

I don't believe any country would fire a nuclear weapon. Which did you have in mind? The current nuclear powers are US, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and, possibly, Israel. You mentioned Iran - if they had it do you think they would use it? I don't think any of them would be that stupid.

Depends who the leader is doesn't it? Who would have thought Hitler's Germany would kill 6 million Jews?

You cant say any country will never do it. Less chance they will though if they know the consequences are nuclear retaliation.

[AndrewT]

In ye olden days of the Cold War, then everyone knew that one country launching one weapon, would mean everyone launching all of theirs, and then we're all living in Threads for the rest of our lives.

Things have changed now and there may well be a situation that develops where one nuke, against a specific target, could be launched without sparking Armageddon, because geopolitics is a bit more fluid now with less rigid alliances.

What if North Korea got nukes and started looking like they were going to invade the South and the US, Russia and China all had a conference call where they decided that this shit needed to be nipped in the bud now with one mushroom cloud in Pyongyang and that they were all cool with this.

[PokerBroker]

Hi,

I'm new to posting here but I have been a voyeur of the forum for quite some time.  I visit a number of web forums but tend not to sign up as:

a) I t wastes so much of my time
b) It's bad for the blood pressure

This thread though has really intrigued me though, and what comes through is the "little Britain/Englander" or supremacist view.  It's like some people have ingrained ideas and they refuse to take a wider view of the world.  

I mean no malice but no doubt my views will upset a few people.  Please be assured that is not my intention.  

I should also state that I am not a Labour supporter, I despise the conservatives, I see the Lib Dems as irrelevant.  There probably isn't a party that reflects my views.  Indeed, it is for that reason that I firmly support the implementation of PR.  It is far too difficult in 2016 to simply say Red Left/Blue Right.  

For what it's worth I can't help but think Corbyn get's bad press for no other reason that the media are fearful of him, because he actually does support real change and that is what is needed.  The current system doesn't work, indeed it probably never has but we just accept it.  

So a few questions:

Why should Britain have nuclear weapons but Iran shouldn't?  (Please try and answer this without saying we'd be a target for Iran)  
Who exactly is this mythical enemy we are fighting that we need this deterrent for?
Surely the foreign policy that has been courted by successive Governments is responsible for current security problems?
Pretty sure we all agree there are problems with the EU, but taking us out leaves us at the mercy of a loony fringe who continue this ongoing cycle?

The number of capable politicians we have is shockingly bad, and this applies cross party.  I look at some of them on a regular basis and I genuinely think who ties these peoples shoe laces on a day-to-day basis.  

[DungBeetle]

Well obviously using "little englander" and "supremacist" in your opening post is frictional at best, but to answer your question:

1) Why should Britain have nuclear weapons but Iran shouldn't?
No reason at all.  We shouldn't be able to dictate to other countries what to do.

2) Who exactly is this mythical enemy we are fighting that we need this deterrent for?
Of the current batch North Korea.  But in reality any oddball that may rise to power in any country in the next hundred years

3) Surely the foreign policy that has been courted by successive Governments is responsible for current security problems?
Agreed

4) Pretty sure we all agree there are problems with the EU, but taking us out leaves us at the mercy of a loony fringe who continue this ongoing cycle?
Do you think UKIP are more likely to fire a nuclear weapon than other politicians?  I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make here.

[PokerBroker]

horrifying to me given Britain is a big terror target.

So why aren't we questioning why that's the case?  There are countless countries in the new modern world that we live in who don't have these issues.  Mostly because they themselves are not perpetrators of terror.  Britain is a peddler of War.  I think if memory serves me correctly we have been at War in one way or another for the last 100 years.  

[DungBeetle]

"For what it's worth I can't help but think Corbyn get's bad press for no other reason that the media are fearful of him, because he actually does support real change and that is what is needed.  The current system doesn't work, indeed it probably never has but we just accept it. "

What policies does Corbyn bring to the table that create "real change".  If it's just old fashioned socialism then it has been tried before.  I think the media focus on Corbyn because he's box office in a car crash way.  Constantly making headlines of the wrong sort.

I agree the current system isn't working well, but that's to do with globalisation in my opinion.  Tax havens.  Outsourcing of jobs to low wage economies.   Tax avoidance.  Multinational companies having Government over a barrel leading to the ludicrous situation where tax credits subsidise corporates paying low wages.

These can be fixed under capitalism to a certain extent.  Politicians just need to do their jobs.  But that brings us to your point about poor weak politicians which I also agree with.

[AlunB]

Supremacist is a pretty charged word. I'll assume you didn't mean it to sounds as harsh as it comes across.

My answers

1. Nobody has a right to them. I think the current consensus is less not more though.

2. As said above it changes. The enemies now are in some ways less mythical than the cold war.

3. Yep

4. Not really a question, more a statement. But I don't think the latter bit is supported factually by the former bit. One doesn't lead to the other.