Bigger tosser than ever.
The last CDS was a close friend, and for Nick Houghton the present one to actually have to come out and point out that Corbyn saying he would never press the button, is going against the first priority of the Government, the defence of the Country.
What is the point of having a nuclear deterrent when a possible PM states that there is nothing to fear from the UK if it is attacked, as he does not believe in Trident, so would never use it. To my mind that comes very close to traitorous, and if the Labour Party had any guts he would already be on the way out. The only good thing is that he will never be in a position too have to see it through. Would like to see Cameron state that he would never endorse that if he has not already done so.
Scruffy little twat.
tut
Corbyn.....
Re: Corbyn.....
U.K. Labour Party supports Trident but their Leader doesn't, Scottish Labour doesn't support Trident but their Leader does, you couldn't make it up.
2015 Lotus Evora
2023 Skoda Kodiaq Sportline
2023 Skoda Kodiaq Sportline
Re: Corbyn.....
Tut,
With all due respect, he's just being honest about his intentions and your friendship or otherwise with various members of the military are not really relevant to that, are they?
He's saying he wouldn't push the button and kill millions of innocent people. If the rest of the population share your view they won't elect him. If they share his view they will and they will get what they want. Of course you think Trident is a good deterrent - but others disagree. I actually think it didn't come online in time to be a deterrent and by the time we had it, the people you need to worry about are the terrorists(*); they don't appear to have any concept of collateral damage, nor any qualms about killing people you might think they aim to represent; should they get hold of the launch codes, let's hope we're long dead. Whilst Trident might not be a great deterrent, our foreign policy is certainly provocative!
As to there being differences of opinion (between various elements of the various labour parties), that's the basis on which he was elected - once again I think he's just telling the truth. Do you really think that every single person in each party supports every policy? Why should they claim to support something that they do not?
I strongly suspect the difference in the Scottish party is to do with garnering votes (they need 'em
) - the Scottish labourites see opposition to trident as a populist cause; the leader has to toe the (central) party line. Typical socialist in fighting and manoeuvring - the good news is that it keeps them busy .
Let's face it, Mr Corbyn is really playing into the hands of the right wing with his naive honesty and scruffy appearance. There's no chance he'll ever be prime minister, so actually anyone wanting a conservative UK government should be quietly pleased with his moment of fame and hope it lasts until the next general election!
Cheers,
Robin
(*) A convenient way of describing them ...
With all due respect, he's just being honest about his intentions and your friendship or otherwise with various members of the military are not really relevant to that, are they?
He's saying he wouldn't push the button and kill millions of innocent people. If the rest of the population share your view they won't elect him. If they share his view they will and they will get what they want. Of course you think Trident is a good deterrent - but others disagree. I actually think it didn't come online in time to be a deterrent and by the time we had it, the people you need to worry about are the terrorists(*); they don't appear to have any concept of collateral damage, nor any qualms about killing people you might think they aim to represent; should they get hold of the launch codes, let's hope we're long dead. Whilst Trident might not be a great deterrent, our foreign policy is certainly provocative!
As to there being differences of opinion (between various elements of the various labour parties), that's the basis on which he was elected - once again I think he's just telling the truth. Do you really think that every single person in each party supports every policy? Why should they claim to support something that they do not?
I strongly suspect the difference in the Scottish party is to do with garnering votes (they need 'em
) - the Scottish labourites see opposition to trident as a populist cause; the leader has to toe the (central) party line. Typical socialist in fighting and manoeuvring - the good news is that it keeps them busy .Let's face it, Mr Corbyn is really playing into the hands of the right wing with his naive honesty and scruffy appearance. There's no chance he'll ever be prime minister, so actually anyone wanting a conservative UK government should be quietly pleased with his moment of fame and hope it lasts until the next general election!
Cheers,
Robin
(*) A convenient way of describing them ...
I is in your loomz nibblin ur wirez
#bemoretut
#bemoretut
Re: Corbyn.....
It affects the way I feel about him Robin, he may be a very decent person, but from what I have seen so far he appears too weak to make decisions that could affect the safety of this Country. Virtually every service man probably feels the same.
Like everybody else the thought of a Nuclear War is unthinkable, but I well remember the Cuban Crises and how close we got to it then. Almost nobody on the Forum had been born at that time but it was touch and go whether there would be a World left at the end of the week.
I want to be sure that if missiles are on their way to the UK from a major power then ours are on their way in return. There are no winners, we will all be dead either immediately or in the near future, but at least the perpetrators will suffer the same fate. For a potential PM to state that he would not press the button in retaliation is criminal and negates the whole purpose of a nuclear deterrent. I don't give a damn what his personal feelings are, they do not come into it, his priority is the defence of our Country, and as I said before, if the LP were not so gutless he would have been removed from his position as soon as he uttered those words.
tut
ps:- of course appearance should not come into it and that was a throw away line, but from what I have seen so far he appears weak and indecisive and I would not trust him to have to make a tough decision even in conventional warfare. As for friends in high places, I know how careful they have to be in speaking their minds when dealing with Politicians, Jock Stirrup was almost removed from his position prematurely for giving his opinion on the Forces having their hands tied, and for the present CDS to make that statement in public on Corbyn shows the opinion that the rest of us feel, serving or retired, and could well cost him his job. Anything could happen in the next five years, and if the present Government make themselves unpopular enough, then there is a very good chance that Labour could be back in even though it seems unlikely at present.
Like everybody else the thought of a Nuclear War is unthinkable, but I well remember the Cuban Crises and how close we got to it then. Almost nobody on the Forum had been born at that time but it was touch and go whether there would be a World left at the end of the week.
I want to be sure that if missiles are on their way to the UK from a major power then ours are on their way in return. There are no winners, we will all be dead either immediately or in the near future, but at least the perpetrators will suffer the same fate. For a potential PM to state that he would not press the button in retaliation is criminal and negates the whole purpose of a nuclear deterrent. I don't give a damn what his personal feelings are, they do not come into it, his priority is the defence of our Country, and as I said before, if the LP were not so gutless he would have been removed from his position as soon as he uttered those words.
tut
ps:- of course appearance should not come into it and that was a throw away line, but from what I have seen so far he appears weak and indecisive and I would not trust him to have to make a tough decision even in conventional warfare. As for friends in high places, I know how careful they have to be in speaking their minds when dealing with Politicians, Jock Stirrup was almost removed from his position prematurely for giving his opinion on the Forces having their hands tied, and for the present CDS to make that statement in public on Corbyn shows the opinion that the rest of us feel, serving or retired, and could well cost him his job. Anything could happen in the next five years, and if the present Government make themselves unpopular enough, then there is a very good chance that Labour could be back in even though it seems unlikely at present.
Re: Corbyn.....
There are two sides to this debate - MAD and CND - only one is completely rational - the other is only true so long as reason prevails on all sides.
The people we find ourselves at war with these days could not be described as rational.
Anyway, we live in a world where MAD is the only game in town ... I am not convinced it works and personally I am not that bothered by individuals and whole countries opting out of believing in it. But I respect that others will feel strongly and differently.
Cheers,
Robin
The people we find ourselves at war with these days could not be described as rational.
Anyway, we live in a world where MAD is the only game in town ... I am not convinced it works and personally I am not that bothered by individuals and whole countries opting out of believing in it. But I respect that others will feel strongly and differently.
Cheers,
Robin
I is in your loomz nibblin ur wirez
#bemoretut
#bemoretut
Re: Corbyn.....
Dealing with reality I only see three scenarios and what we individually believe in will not come into it.
In the near future the likeliest one is a release in the Middle East, India v Pakistan, Israel v Iran or Palestine, which hopefully would have the major powers not wanting to commit MAD having managed for so long, and it would be contained locally. If a country has its back against the wall then kilo battlefield weapons would be used initially, but that would soon escalate into full usage of the mega devices.
Next I think will be the suitcase device. I do not see any chance of this not being developed and the first thing that we will know about it is when it detonates in a major city. It is unlikely that would go any further other than a few hundred thousand deaths until the next one was used.
Lastly is the East-West confrontation, this would not start as it could have fifty years ago with Russia or the USA thinking it could get a march on the other and survive a first strike, scientific advances have ruled that out. More likely a minor situation that gets out of hand as we have been close to at present in Syria and Iraq, Eastern and Western forces committing air then ground forces but not sure who is supporting whom, neither side could win apart from stepping back, otherwise it would just escalate into a full scale War, and that is never going to be contained on just the battlefield.
A weapon can not be uninvented. I think the reason that only two nuclears have ever been used is because only one side had them, there was no fear of any retaliation. If the USSR had beaten the USA to it I think it would be a completely different world now, with their hatred of the Americans they would have used them on Germany first, probably Japan second, then the USA. We would have been left out of it.
tut
In the near future the likeliest one is a release in the Middle East, India v Pakistan, Israel v Iran or Palestine, which hopefully would have the major powers not wanting to commit MAD having managed for so long, and it would be contained locally. If a country has its back against the wall then kilo battlefield weapons would be used initially, but that would soon escalate into full usage of the mega devices.
Next I think will be the suitcase device. I do not see any chance of this not being developed and the first thing that we will know about it is when it detonates in a major city. It is unlikely that would go any further other than a few hundred thousand deaths until the next one was used.
Lastly is the East-West confrontation, this would not start as it could have fifty years ago with Russia or the USA thinking it could get a march on the other and survive a first strike, scientific advances have ruled that out. More likely a minor situation that gets out of hand as we have been close to at present in Syria and Iraq, Eastern and Western forces committing air then ground forces but not sure who is supporting whom, neither side could win apart from stepping back, otherwise it would just escalate into a full scale War, and that is never going to be contained on just the battlefield.
A weapon can not be uninvented. I think the reason that only two nuclears have ever been used is because only one side had them, there was no fear of any retaliation. If the USSR had beaten the USA to it I think it would be a completely different world now, with their hatred of the Americans they would have used them on Germany first, probably Japan second, then the USA. We would have been left out of it.
tut
Re: Corbyn.....
Which one of those require us to have our own nuclear weapons though?tut wrote:Dealing with reality I only see three scenarios and what we individually believe in will not come into it.
In the near future the likeliest one is a release in the Middle East, India v Pakistan, Israel v Iran or Palestine, which hopefully would have the major powers not wanting to commit MAD having managed for so long, and it would be contained locally. If a country has its back against the wall then kilo battlefield weapons would be used initially, but that would soon escalate into full usage of the mega devices.
Next I think will be the suitcase device. I do not see any chance of this not being developed and the first thing that we will know about it is when it detonates in a major city. It is unlikely that would go any further other than a few hundred thousand deaths until the next one was used.
Lastly is the East-West confrontation, this would not start as it could have fifty years ago with Russia or the USA thinking it could get a march on the other and survive a first strike, scientific advances have ruled that out. More likely a minor situation that gets out of hand as we have been close to at present in Syria and Iraq, Eastern and Western forces committing air then ground forces but not sure who is supporting whom, neither side could win apart from stepping back, otherwise it would just escalate into a full scale War, and that is never going to be contained on just the battlefield.
A weapon can not be uninvented. I think the reason that only two nuclears have ever been used is because only one side had them, there was no fear of any retaliation. If the USSR had beaten the USA to it I think it would be a completely different world now, with their hatred of the Americans they would have used them on Germany first, probably Japan second, then the USA. We would have been left out of it.
tut
They are HUGELY expensive and massively dangerous, even leaving out the moral side of the argument.
'99 - '03 Titanium S1 111S.
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
Re: Corbyn.....
I actually think there is a good case for scrapping our nuclear weapons now, the cost is exorbitant and the funding would be better used for our conventional forces, NHS, schooling, social services etc.
We are under the nuclear umbrella of the USA, I can not see a scenario where we would use ours independently, the major powers have enough weapons to wipe out the World several times over, so I think that we are now redundant. I can not see the case for a moral argument at all other than from people who fail to grasp the reality of the situation and live in cloud cuckoo land. Ideally nuclear weapons would not exist, but they do and the only reason that they have not been used is because more than one Country possesses them which gives a balance of power, and so far self preservation has prevailed and hopefully will continue to do so.
tut
We are under the nuclear umbrella of the USA, I can not see a scenario where we would use ours independently, the major powers have enough weapons to wipe out the World several times over, so I think that we are now redundant. I can not see the case for a moral argument at all other than from people who fail to grasp the reality of the situation and live in cloud cuckoo land. Ideally nuclear weapons would not exist, but they do and the only reason that they have not been used is because more than one Country possesses them which gives a balance of power, and so far self preservation has prevailed and hopefully will continue to do so.
tut
Re: Corbyn.....
tut wrote:I actually think there is a good case for scrapping our nuclear weapons now, the cost is exorbitant and the funding would be better used for our conventional forces, NHS, schooling, social services etc.
We are under the nuclear umbrella of the USA, I can not see a scenario where we would use ours independently, the major powers have enough weapons to wipe out the World several times over, so I think that we are now redundant. I can not see the case for a moral argument at all other than from people who fail to grasp the reality of the situation and live in cloud cuckoo land. Ideally nuclear weapons would not exist, but they do and the only reason that they have not been used is because more than one Country possesses them which gives a balance of power, and so far self preservation has prevailed and hopefully will continue to do so.
tut
I think you're right.
'99 - '03 Titanium S1 111S.
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
Re: Corbyn.....
There is one danger though Pete, France would have them and we would not, and they have never forgiven us for Agincourt, Trafalgar and Waterloo.
tut
tut
Re: Corbyn.....
S'alright if they want revenge we are paying them to build all those nuclear reactors for us.
They wouldn't even need a delivery method.
They wouldn't even need a delivery method.
'99 - '03 Titanium S1 111S.
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
Re: Corbyn.....
I really dislike the notion of having Trident but in all truth its because A Im scared and B I dont trust half the Morons in control. BUT having spent time in the Falklands being escorted in and out by Typhoons and watching as the situation has escalated in recent years Im quite pleased we have Trident, would I have the guts to use such a force, I doubt it. Ive also witnessed first hand the Argentinians in their country, its really not good. Id rather not have it but you know the saying, for peace etc etc.
One argument I do not like though is the cost. I know one of the main guys involved in the procurement for the military, the argument put forward was that for 25 years running costs of a Nuclear sub (And I mean all costs) you could have 3 months of state benefits, I know which option I prefer.
Sadly we still live in a dangerous world and are somewhat cut off here in the UK. The rest of the world does not share the same rose tinted view of fellowship. I was recently in the Baltic states and had death threats from a group there, there are extreme nutters out there and sadly their beliefs spread. Never before have I seen so many (okay only 5-6) completly disregard reason, baffling.
One argument I do not like though is the cost. I know one of the main guys involved in the procurement for the military, the argument put forward was that for 25 years running costs of a Nuclear sub (And I mean all costs) you could have 3 months of state benefits, I know which option I prefer.
Sadly we still live in a dangerous world and are somewhat cut off here in the UK. The rest of the world does not share the same rose tinted view of fellowship. I was recently in the Baltic states and had death threats from a group there, there are extreme nutters out there and sadly their beliefs spread. Never before have I seen so many (okay only 5-6) completly disregard reason, baffling.
Hairdresser at heart.
Re: Corbyn.....
Oh I do like a good bogus sounding statistic, especially if it sounds like it came from a conversation in a hotel bar so I checked.r10crw wrote:
One argument I do not like though is the cost. I know one of the main guys involved in the procurement for the military, the argument put forward was that for 25 years running costs of a Nuclear sub (And I mean all costs) you could have 3 months of state benefits, I know which option I prefer.
And fullfact.org have the numbers and it looks like your mate is right!!
(Although more than half of the welfare bill is pensions, which a lot of pensioners have actually paid into so I'm not sure I quite agree with your assertion that they shouldn't get it back
)'99 - '03 Titanium S1 111S.
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
Re: Corbyn.....
Oh and because all this agreeing with you right wingers is starting to upset me...tut wrote:Bigger tosser than ever.
The last CDS was a close friend, and for Nick Houghton the present one to actually have to come out and point out that Corbyn saying he would never press the button, is going against the first priority of the Government, the defence of the Country.
What is the point of having a nuclear deterrent when a possible PM states that there is nothing to fear from the UK if it is attacked, as he does not believe in Trident, so would never use it. To my mind that comes very close to traitorous, and if the Labour Party had any guts he would already be on the way out. The only good thing is that he will never be in a position too have to see it through. Would like to see Cameron state that he would never endorse that if he has not already done so.
Scruffy little twat.
tut
I'm not sure that the first duty of the Governement is the defence of the realm, but the welfare of it's people. I'm also pretty sure in a democracy that the politicians decide policy and the military should keep their opinions private...
(I had to restrain myself there, can you tell? There's a much pithier way of phrasing it too, along the lines of
"Oy Houghton! Back in your box soldier boy and when we want someone killed we'll call you."
but I felt it was likely to cause offence and perhaps missed some of the nuances of the situation.)
'99 - '03 Titanium S1 111S.
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
Re: Corbyn.....
Bloody Hell, who knew!!pete wrote:Oh I do like a good bogus sounding statistic, especially if it sounds like it came from a conversation in a hotel bar so I checked.r10crw wrote:
One argument I do not like though is the cost. I know one of the main guys involved in the procurement for the military, the argument put forward was that for 25 years running costs of a Nuclear sub (And I mean all costs) you could have 3 months of state benefits, I know which option I prefer.
And fullfact.org have the numbers and it looks like your mate is right!!
(Although more than half of the welfare bill is pensions, which a lot of pensioners have actually paid into so I'm not sure I quite agree with your assertion that they shouldn't get it back
You are quite correct though, its not so clear cut. When I think of welfare state I just think of Sharon,
Hairdresser at heart.