the stinking enigma Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 We are like a kid with a hard dad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 As opposed to being in the club that doesn't have nuclear weapons, and would still die in a nuclear war if it broke out? Net result we all die, regardless of whether we have them or not. Not exactly selling them there Tarne... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Sooner or later we will get a pasting. And there won't be much sympathy around the place. The kid with the hard dad never learns how to play nicely with the other children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 It does in the context it was made. Had Aleppo been a city in a nuclear armed state, it would be extant. Anyone can understand that. It matters not about the rebels v Assad. It is sober and not a bit frothy. What about when Georgia broke away from Russia? It didn't. Georgia was a Soviet republic which became independent when the union collapsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Sooner or later we will get a pasting. And there won't be much sympathy around the place. The kid with the hard dad never learns how to play nicely with the other children But by then inshallah, we'll all be safely dead anyway. There is no way to cast off this cardi. We just have to keep knitting. Unilateralism is a bit like religion. You use it as a crutch of comfort because you can't bear reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I hardly think that the fsb's main source of intelligence is the andrew marr show Quite. But they probably enjoyed the UK's Prime Minister making herself look really really stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Cameron's spin doctors decided to keep it secret at the time. It doesn't matter either way now. Are we saying that the views of UK parliamentarians are so equivocal on such a fundamental matter that they could be swayed by one abortive test launch? I'm saying it would be the perfect reason to defy the Tory Whips. Labour were given a free vote, however 41 of them still abstained. The Tories were told to tow the party line. They could have used this incident to force a free vote or even if not it could still have been very embarrassing for the new Prime Minister. In the event she chose to stupidly embarrass herself on national tv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Its only a deterrent until someone else pulls the trigger first... After that they are as useful for "protection" as a wet paper tissue. By that point its about retaliation. But someone else isn't likely to pull the trigger first given we have the deterrent. Come on, you got half way to understanding the point. Isn't likely is not the same as won't. Also a deterrent is useless if it is destroy beyond use before you can use it. We ARE using it you ninny. It's literally being a deterrent right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Cameron's spin doctors decided to keep it secret at the time. It doesn't matter either way now. Are we saying that the views of UK parliamentarians are so equivocal on such a fundamental matter that they could be swayed by one abortive test launch? I'm saying it would be the perfect reason to defy the Tory Whips. Labour were given a free vote, however 41 of them still abstained. The Tories were told to tow the party line. They could have used this incident to force a free vote or even if not it could still have been very embarrassing for the new Prime Minister. In the event she chose to stupidly embarrass herself on national tv. You mean on the renewal vote? How many Tories are unilateralists? It went through with a government majority of 355. 140 Labour MPs voted with the government. This really is some straw clutching exercise if anyone is suggesting that the vote could have been different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Cameron's spin doctors decided to keep it secret at the time. It doesn't matter either way now. Are we saying that the views of UK parliamentarians are so equivocal on such a fundamental matter that they could be swayed by one abortive test launch? I'm saying it would be the perfect reason to defy the Tory Whips. Labour were given a free vote, however 41 of them still abstained. The Tories were told to tow the party line. They could have used this incident to force a free vote or even if not it could still have been very embarrassing for the new Prime Minister. In the event she chose to stupidly embarrass herself on national tv. You mean on the renewal vote? How many Tories are unilateralists? It went through with a government majority of 355. 140 Labour MPs voted with the government. This really is some straw clutching exercise if anyone is suggesting that the vote could have been different. And we will never know. Don't forget. Other opinions are just as valid as yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Of course. Because I debate forcefully it doesn't mean I don't hear contrary opinions. But this is a matter of conviction. You either believe in deterrence or you don't. It's a very long shot to think that a 355 majority could have been overturned on the basis that one missile on one day didn't work when we have lived safely beneath the nuclear shield for well over half a century including through some perilous times. It beats me that any sensible person could contemplate moving the country away from that stance, but I know there are learned people who hold this view. The reasoning seems flawed. No matter how much I try to empathise with them it always seems that they inhabit a fools' paradise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Now you are just taking the intellectually bankrupt unilateralist line whereas mutually assured destruction has prevented wholesale war in Europe since 1945. You could fund schools, hospitals and roads with that money but look at what happened to the ones in Aleppo. Is that the future you advocate? It's the liberal mindset again that views the world as we would all wish it to be and not as it actually is. Never let your guard down and you can live peacefully behind it. So all those countries without nukes...why do they constant appear in the top of lists like best education, healthcare, infrastructure etc? We don't need nukes. Our poultry 150 versus the 1500+ of the US and Russia makes ours look like a bb gun next to a howitzer. 150 is more than enough. I love trident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 The best bit is we'll have a nuclear programme forever and there is nothing anyone who wants to get rid of them can do about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 if our donald trumps was a parody account on here and said that i would be mighty impressed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 if our donald trumps was a parody account on here... Wait, what...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.