Yep. It's very easy to talk in vague terms about protecting our citizens. If you support nuclear weapons as a deterrent then you quite simply must be willing to say "I would launch a nuclear strike against Russia if they had launched an attack on us". You must be willing to kill 100,000s of people in retaliation for killing 100,000s of our citizens. I'm not necessarily opposed to Trident but I don't think I could do that.
Question Time & This Week
- Thread starter Liam147
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yep. It's very easy to talk in vague terms about protecting our citizens. If you support nuclear weapons as a deterrent then you quite simply must be willing to say "I would launch a nuclear strike against Russia if they had launched an attack on us". You must be willing to kill 100,000s of people in retaliation for killing 100,000s of our citizens. I'm not necessarily opposed to Trident but I don't think I could do that.
The token celebrity/actor/writer/singer slot winds me up. They could take a great steaming shite on the desk and still receive applause.
Clearly the Caf isn't aware that Charlotte Church has become a moderately active political campaigner.
Exactly. And I see very few politicians out there who'd probably be able to do it, which is fair enough: not wanting to murder thousands upon thousands of people is a decent character trait to have.
If you were to ask most pro-trident politicans in the eye whether they'd be willing to use it, thus murdering an incredibly substantial number of people, they'd probably dance around the issue, giving a vague answer that doesn't really address what you're asking them.
I hope they just keep on getting more and more ridiculous as time goes on. "I would like to introduce Elmo to the audience tonight." Cue Elmo turning out to be a hardcore socialist who actually just painted himself red.
Don't forget the random comedian no one has heard of.
She's still there to fill the slot I'm getting at, to be fair.
Charlotte doing very well.
She's not as polished or tutored as the professional politicians, but she comes across quite well to me.
She's more representative than the Eton class warriors at least.
I'd fill her slot.
Wouldn't we all.
I would like it to be a jury duty style system where one day you get a letter through the post and you are forced to appear on Question Time. We could then after everyone's had a turn extent this honour to other things such as common garden animals, electronic devices, wooden objects, Liverpool fans and so on.
I would like it to be a jury duty style system where one day you get a letter through the post and you are forced to appear on Question Time. We could then after everyone's had a turn extent this honour to other things such as common garden animals, electronic devices, wooden objects, Liverpool fans and so on.
Imagine the sexual tension when a farmers pig ends up on during the same episode as David Cameron.
That armchair general looks very angry.
Stephen Kinnock comes across as a completely pointless politician.
That's strange. What would you do if you were prime minister and Russia dropped a nuclear bomb on Southampton?
Democracy at it's finest.
On a serious note I can't remember the last time a Prime Minister has appear on Question Time(Although I guess the whole PMQ thing has it covered).
If it's the same guy I'm thinking of, he has every right to be. In the face of a genocide and the tearing up of the Middle East by jihadist nutters, all our political class is able to muster up is a either a cliche like 'more bombs won't solve the problem' or an assertion that the situation is very complicated and that we need to enter into further dialogue to find a solution. It's pathetic stuff from a member of the Security Council.
Bit Corbyn-ite in your lexicon there. We don't murder in military strikes.
Did @rednev just delete a post there? Who you ignoring?
Not me..
Is he actually advocating putting Britain on a long-term war footing, with all that entails in terms of almost-forgotten levels of austerity, conscription and loss of life, or does he think a dozen bombers and a few hundred troops can conquer and hold present-day middle-eastern nations?
Or is he just anti interventionism per se?
I'm pretty sure he was pro-intervention Jips, albeit in a 19th century sort of way.
Last edited:
Wonder whose side he'll be on given the right wing bile about him. I can understand not wanting to be global policeman, but what do you do in that case when you have a Yugoslavia on your doorstep and Russia is their ally? Hard to see a good outcome.
What's the point of Britain being a member of the Security Council if it is to outright refuse to join with its fellow members (minus China, obviously) in taking military action due to a newly found national pacifism? I'm not even sure it's as much about pacifism as it is about us losing our national bollocks. We can't let the failure of post-invasion Iraq put us off from living up to our responsibilities as a member of the Security Council and if military action is an option then it is something we should be willing to go for. We should be totally ashamed of the way we stood by while cities were bulldozed, countless numbers of religious minorities were executed and thousands of women and girls were raped and taken into sexual slavery. Even if we don't have an answer to the very complicated problem of the Syrian civil war, we should at least step forward in joining France and the US in their efforts to stamp out the very worst of the mess.
Erm.. what choices do i have? launch strikes against major Russian cities, which in turn would lead to them launching against every major city in the uk.
So everyone in the uk dies/loses everything and dies slowly due to a prolonged nuclear winter.
If a nuclear warhead is launched, we have one option... to hope its the only bloody one launched and we can survive the damage. It really pisses me off when politicians say they would be prepared to push the button...and effectively end the world, and my children's lives.
If we were hypothetically attacked by nukes, any retaliation strike would undoubtedly cost thousands, if not millions, of innocent lives, and would be rather pointless and petty considering we'd already all be toast. Just because it's a military strike wouldn't mean it's not mass murder.
I think we all have the same objective. It's nice to feel you have the moral high ground, but the questions for me are what will work, will the end result be better than it is now, and will it have been worth it in terms of lives lost on all sides? How have things worked out in Libya? Would bombing Assad, as the UK wanted to do, have helped, or would it have facilitated further gains by Isis? I honestly don't know, but the western hawks haven't convinced me they know either.
You say in advance that you would push the button to stop the other team pushing the button first. If you do a Corbyn and say you'd never use it, kind of gives them a free throw. John Smith was publicly in favour of nukes but said privately he'd not retaliate, for example.
It also means that if USA ever nukes Russia then Russia will take us out as well as the USA - it will probably succeed better at destroying us too.
Perhaps the whole nuclear thing is just a clever bit of politics by Corbyn? It seems likely that the PLP will vote yes to Trident given that it's not getting discussed at conference - Corbyn publically saying he wouldn't push the button distances him from a decision which will be unpopular with many of Labour's new members.
Can we have a separate thread for forecasting nuclear scenarios?
Can we have a separate thread for forecasting nuclear scenarios?
Could possibly just reheat the old Labour leadership one, similar levels of doom predicted.
since the development of the bomb, war/genocide/terrorism is just as popular.. and as for the 'superpowers' they just conduct war by proxy.
Britain being 'nuclear' and able to defend its 'people' is laughable, when we can not even muster proper boots for ground troops. We can destroy the world at the push of a button, but can not stop a rogue army of sadists roaming around the middle east.
If he just playing politics it isn't particularly clever in my opinion since he's going against public opinion (not that I have seen a poll on trident to be fair).
Like father, like son.
He's my local MP. He's basically Danish at this point anyway.
Not sure why I always find myself mildly surprised by the stance of Times columnists. Although being pro-conservative doesn't mean you HAVE to defend Theresa May's speech.
Melanie Phillips with the largest applause so far. I don't think that any of the politicians on the panel have excelled on this topic.
ETA: She's spot on about the Institu6e of Directors too.
ETA: She's spot on about the Institu6e of Directors too.