Jeremy Corbyn

[The Gasbuster]

A man is being criticised for being reticent about starting a nuclear war...

We're not talking about STARTING a nuclear war, we are talking about RETALIATION.

If Al Qaeda or Islamofascist State set off a dirty bomb in London, or other U.K. city, then yes, there should be retaliation.

Saying what he did is akin to saying to these scumbags "whatever atrocity you commit, we won't give it to you back".

Gives them a green light, completely the wrong message to send out. 

[The Gasbuster]

A man who would love to completely disband the UK's armed forces a man who says under a labour government people will be allowed to opt out of the taxation that goes to the armed forces FFS there is a lot parts of taxation I would love to opt out of, will I be given the chance?.

I shall be at the front of the queue to opt out of funding the arts council. 

[Kid in the Riot]

A man who would love to completely disband the UK's armed forces a man who says under a labour government people will be allowed to opt out of the taxation that goes to the armed forces FFS there is a lot parts of taxation I would love to opt out of, will I be given the chance?.

I thought he said he would love a world where no country had an army?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I thought he said he would love a world where no country had an army?

I know that people are creaming themselves that he is going to save the world but honestly if he achieves that I will even vote for him.

Edit:- it's actually the cheesy kind of thing that a vacuous blonde would say at a beauty pageant whilst wearing a bikini.

[chipdawg]

A man who would love to completely disband the UK's armed forces a man who says under a labour government people will be allowed to opt out of the taxation that goes to the armed forces FFS there is a lot parts of taxation I would love to opt out of, will I be given the chance?.

Indeed. But the posts I was referring to we're criticising for admitting he wouldn't be able to press the nuclear button, so not really relevant

For the record, I don't agree you should be able to opt out of paying tax for particular areas of the state you don't agree with

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Indeed. But the posts I was referring to we're criticising for admitting he wouldn't be able to press the nuclear button, so not really relevant

For the record, I don't agree you should be able to opt out of paying tax for particular areas of the state you don't agree with

The whole question is irrelevant because he believes that he has a clear mandate for his trident and nuclear weapon stance even though he wasn't allowed to debate it at the labour party conference, so if he was to get his way within the labour party and then became prime minister there would be no button to press.

But as I also said it's actually the cheesy kind of thing that a vacuous blonde would say at a beauty pageant whilst wearing a bikini.

Let's be honest here, people are saying that he has struck a chord with the electorate, well certainly not over our armed forces or nuclear deterrent or even on his republican agenda (80% at the last count still support the monarchy) and I suspect his 'unlimited benefits' for people will go down like a shit sandwich to most working people.

 

[chipdawg]

We're not talking about STARTING a nuclear war, we are talking about RETALIATION.

If Al Qaeda or Islamofascist State set off a dirty bomb in London, or other U.K. city, then yes, there should be retaliation.

Saying what he did is akin to saying to these scumbags "whatever atrocity you commit, we won't give it to you back".

Gives them a green light, completely the wrong message to send out. 

Nobody- least of all Jeremy Corbyn- made that distinction. And still, I find it troubling that any one would be derided for being deeply reticent to fire a nuclear weapon

But just as an exercise, if Al Qaeda or IS set off a dirty bomb in London, where exactly would you aim our nuclear missiles? 

[Barrs Court Red]

As it stands, there are only two conceivable scenario conflicts I can think of that would see us being at risk of needing to make the decision:

1) A conventional war against another power, be Russia, China or whoever. In this case the world is glassed anyway, so if we fire ours it'd make little difference.

2) Extremists take control of a country through an internal coup - for instance Pakistan or Israel and fire a nuke at one of our interests, or forces battling their forces. 

Given that resource is going to be a big issue in coming years, I like the insurance policy.

 

[The Gasbuster]

Nobody- least of all Jeremy Corbyn- made that distinction. And still, I find it troubling that any one would be derided for being deeply reticent to fire a nuclear weapon

But just as an exercise, if Al Qaeda or IS set off a dirty bomb in London, where exactly would you aim our nuclear missiles? 

Raqqa, Mosul.

[chipdawg]

Raqqa, Mosul.

So you'd respond by launching nukes at two civilian targets close to potentially nuclear capable Iran and close to allies Turkey and Israel?

[The Gasbuster]

So you'd respond by launching nukes at two civilian targets close to potentially nuclear capable Iran and close to allies Turkey and Israel?

After a nuclear attack on British citizens it would need to be considered as a last resort. Failure to respond would show weakness. With the terrorists emboldened by this, further attacks would be likely.

I will ask the question; what would you do in the event of a dirty bomb being set off in London, which kills thousands of civilians ?

 

[IAmNick]

After a nuclear attack on British citizens it would need to be considered as a last resort. Failure to respond would show weakness. With the terrorists emboldened by this, further attacks would be likely.

I will ask the question; what would you do in the event of a dirty bomb being set off in London, which kills thousands of civilians ?

 

What would launching two nukes at civilian targets show? Don't attack us or we'll nuke some random place near where you might be from? I don't think the kind of people who would potentially bomb London have much value on the life of the people in the countries they "reside" in at the moment.

[Portland Bill]

We're not talking about STARTING a nuclear war, we are talking about RETALIATION.

If Al Qaeda or Islamofascist State set off a dirty bomb in London, or other U.K. city, then yes, there should be retaliation.

Saying what he did is akin to saying to these scumbags "whatever atrocity you commit, we won't give it to you back".

Gives them a green light, completely the wrong message to send out. 

Remind me which countries the USA nuked after 9/11 ?

Germany hasn't got nuclear weapons and they seems happy about it!, they and us are in nato, the Yanks cover us both.

Re Corbyn pushing the button, the Yanks wouldn't allow 'any' British PM to do it anyway!

[chipdawg]

After a nuclear attack on British citizens it would need to be considered as a last resort. Failure to respond would show weakness. With the terrorists emboldened by this, further attacks would be likely.

I will ask the question; what would you do in the event of a dirty bomb being set off in London, which kills thousands of civilians ?

 

But what would it achieve? Do you think al-Bagdadhi of ISIS just strolls about downtown Raqqa with his family waiting for a drone strike? 

I have no ******* idea what I'd do in the event of a dirty bomb going off in London, but I certainly would reach straight for the big red button

[Welcome To The Jungle]

Why is it that of the 98% of countries without Nuclear Weapons, only a few are trying to get them? Do the people of Finland wake up every morning fearing for their national safety as they have no Nuclear weapons? Are the sheep in New Zealand producing poor quality wool due to the stress that comes with living in a Nuclear Weapon fee country?

The simple truth is that these countries know they don't need them and are perfectly safe. We will also be perfectly safe without them. 

[chipdawg]

 

I have no ******* idea what I'd do in the event of a dirty bomb going off in London, but I certainly would reach straight for the big red button

just realised, that should say "wouldn't reach straight for the big red button", not "would"!!! 

[BS2 Red]

Why is it that of the 98% of countries without Nuclear Weapons, only a few are trying to get them? Do the people of Finland wake up every morning fearing for their national safety as they have no Nuclear weapons? Are the sheep in New Zealand producing poor quality wool due to the stress that comes with living in a Nuclear Weapon fee country?

The simple truth is that these countries know they don't need them and are perfectly safe. We will also be perfectly safe without them. 

When we think of countries that are trying to obtain nukes, we are thinking of Iran and North Korea.  I can totally see why those two countries would want to obtain nukes as a deterrent to a possible American invasion (note I am not saying America would invade, just that I can see why they fear it).  So I can see that they will look at what happened in Iraq and think to themselves "I bet the US would leave us alone if we had nuclear weapons!".  

If that was the only reason they wanted them, then I would probably think it was fair enough.  The trouble is that North Korea is run by a complete madman/madmen, there is no way we should ever risk crazy people like that getting their hands on nukes.  Iran is similar, they are probably a little more sane (only a little bit!) but if they obtained nukes they would soon be using them to threaten their neighbours and our allies like Israel.  North Korea and Iran should absolutely not be trusted with weapons of such power. 

New Zealand, Finland and most other nations do not have any real fear of a bigger country invading them and so they don't need to try and obtain them.  NZ is a great place for a holiday or a Tolkien movie, not such a great place to launch your plans for global annihilation.  

I would support the UK keeping our nuclear deterrent as it is a good way to keep ourselves safe from threats from places like Putin's Russia.  It's very unlikely at the moment that Putin is going to threaten to nuke us, but who knows who will be in charge of Russia in 10 years time or what the world situation will be in 20 years?  We probably would be safe without them, but I would rather not take the risk.  

[marshy]

just realised, that should say "wouldn't reach straight for the big red button", not "would"!!! 

Thank God your finger is not on the button. By now it would be too late to make a correction. Whoops, sorry Iran, didn't mean it, honest.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

When we think of countries that are trying to obtain nukes, we are thinking of Iran and North Korea.  I can totally see why those two countries would want to obtain nukes as a deterrent to a possible American invasion (note I am not saying America would invade, just that I can see why they fear it).  So I can see that they will look at what happened in Iraq and think to themselves "I bet the US would leave us alone if we had nuclear weapons!".  

If that was the only reason they wanted them, then I would probably think it was fair enough.  The trouble is that North Korea is run by a complete madman/madmen, there is no way we should ever risk crazy people like that getting their hands on nukes.  Iran is similar, they are probably a little more sane (only a little bit!) but if they obtained nukes they would soon be using them to threaten their neighbours and our allies like Israel.  North Korea and Iran should absolutely not be trusted with weapons of such power. 

New Zealand, Finland and most other nations do not have any real fear of a bigger country invading them and so they don't need to try and obtain them.  NZ is a great place for a holiday or a Tolkien movie, not such a great place to launch your plans for global annihilation.  

I would support the UK keeping our nuclear deterrent as it is a good way to keep ourselves safe from threats from places like Putin's Russia.  It's very unlikely at the moment that Putin is going to threaten to nuke us, but who knows who will be in charge of Russia in 10 years time or what the world situation will be in 20 years?  We probably would be safe without them, but I would rather not take the risk.  

To an extent I kind of agree. But spending hundreds of billions on something that might happen but almost certainly won't seems a waste when that money could be spent saving lives guaranteed through better healthcare both here and abroad, research into renewable energy, helping with the refugee crisis etc.  

[chipdawg]

Thank God your finger is not on the button. By now it would be too late to make a correction. Whoops, sorry Iran, didn't mean it, honest.

I would like to think that if it was my job to launch nukes, the launch procedure would be a bit more complex than hurriedly typing a message on my iPhone. But I agree it's probably best if I shy away from a career in nuclear deterrent launching

[chipdawg]

To an extent I kind of agree. But spending hundreds of billions on something that might happen but almost certainly won't seems a waste when that money could be spent saving lives guaranteed through better healthcare both here and abroad, research into renewable energy, helping with the refugee crisis etc.  

I kind of feel that if everyone starts chucking nuclear warheads about, we're all a bit ****** regardless of whether we could retaliate, so we might as well use the money to help ourselves now. I was actually pro-Trident renewal until a year or two ago

[BS2 Red]

To an extent I kind of agree. But spending hundreds of billions on something that might happen but almost certainly won't seems a waste when that money could be spent saving lives guaranteed through better healthcare both here and abroad, research into renewable energy, helping with the refugee crisis etc.  

Not even CND think it will cost hundreds of billions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32236184

I agree with you that it's a lot of money though (whatever the total cost is we will never know  ). Whether it's worth it or not all comes down to personal opinion and let's face it, nobody is going to listen to us anyway!

Back on topic, it's weird that the papers are painting Corbyn as a monster for not wanting to press the button. I support a nuclear deterrent but it's hard to hate somebody based on them not wanting to destroy other countries. Corbyn is naïve (imo) but there's nothing wrong with somebody not wanting to blow the world up.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Good to see last nights labour PLP meeting went well and they are a united party once more.

[BCFC Jimmer]

Good to see last nights labour PLP meeting went well and they are a united party once more.

The party needs reforming anyway and there are going to be teething problems.  All the Blairites should probably defer to the Tories because that's pretty much where their beliefs lie.

Of course, much of the press will brand any slight unrest as a 'shambles', 'crisis' blah blah blah.

[Sixtyseconds]

All the Blairites should probably defer to the Tories because that's pretty much where their beliefs lie. ... Yerp. They will fit right in alongside the Tories Big Society with Teresa May guffing forth about austerity, and in it together in a £1350 dress.

[Red-Robbo]

I 

The party needs reforming anyway and there are going to be teething problems.  All the Blairites should probably defer to the Tories because that's pretty much where their beliefs lie.

Of course, much of the press will brand any slight unrest as a 'shambles', 'crisis' blah blah blah.

Unlike the deep divisions in the Tories over Europe. 

The majority of Tory backbenchers are now pro-Brexit whereas of course the front bench are anti-.

Boris of course is waiting to see which position will make him most popular before announcing his "principled stand".

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Unlike the deep divisions in the Tories over Europe. 

The majority of Tory backbenchers are now pro-Brexit whereas of course the front bench are anti-.

Boris of course is waiting to see which position will make him most popular before announcing his "principled stand".

Unlike labour whose policy on Europe is?.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

The party needs reforming anyway and there are going to be teething problems.  All the Blairites should probably defer to the Tories because that's pretty much where their beliefs lie.

Of course, much of the press will brand any slight unrest as a 'shambles', 'crisis' blah blah blah.

Teething troubles, you are funny, it's a total policy shift from 2 weeks ago, that's not teething troubles, that's like Corbyn and his team having wisdom teeth put in to their jaws.

[Sixtyseconds]

Unlike labour whose policy on Europe is?.

In balls deep if it is the interest of the;populace and terrible anti Tory things like workers rights ....

OUT with terrible anti Tory things like democratic votes.

A cat could understand that.

[BCFC Jimmer]

Teething troubles, you are funny, it's a total policy shift from 2 weeks ago, that's not teething troubles, that's like Corbyn and his team having wisdom teeth put in to their jaws.

Same old knee jerk hysteria - sometimes you need to slow down and get some perspective man because its getting so dull.

Look - The party is going through a transition from pretty much being Tory lites to a more socialist party .  That is an incredibly dramatic contrast and one that we have not seen before.

Given the enormity of this change Corbyn has actually done remarkably well to keep a steady ship and for the most part keeping Labour MPs on board. I am afraid it is  incredibly narrow minded to nit pick at this early stage.