The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

Jalapeno

I thought Corbyn's whole Trident argument looked thin, 100% virtue signalling - he seemed base it on the idea that if he thought it was an abomination (which of course it is) then so would every other leader - which of course history shows us is complete nonsense, all sorts of nutters are in control of nuclear weapons as well as N.Korea (<cough> Trump <cough>)

ICBM

Yes, and it's worth remembering that our possession of Trident makes us an automatic target if Trump loses his mind and uses theirs, whether or not we're involved - Russia couldn't take the chance that we wouldn't use ours against them if it all kicks off.

I would agree that there's a possibility that nuclear weapons will be used. The likely users are the US or Israel, against North Korea or Iran. How does Trident keep us safe then?

I really cannot understand what anyone thinks using it would achieve, other than to kill millions of innocent civilians in whatever the target country is, and even if we survive, to deepen the environmental damage to the whole planet.

Emp_Fab

That's the trouble with democracy - everyone gets to vote - even the millions of fuckwits who couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

It's these shining examples of our meddling with Darwinian evolution that decide what happens to all of us.

There needs to be a test before anyone gets handed a ballot paper...

1. Is Scooby Doo a real dog?
2. Describe why the Sun sets.
3. Who lives at 11 Downing St and what is their job?
4. Name the leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.

Heartfeltdawn

1. Absolutely. Just like Velma is a real lesbian. 
2. It gets tired
3. Sherlock Holmes. Intellectualised Jeremy Kyle. 
4. Lord Ashcroft, Len McCluskey, God. 

Cirrus

Jalapeno said:

...he seemed base it on the idea that if he thought it was an abomination (which of course it is) then so would every other leader - which of course history shows us is complete nonsense, all sorts of nutters are in control of nuclear weapons as well as N.Korea (<cough> Trump <cough>)

Actually, history doesn't show that. Time and again when the superpowers have got close to the brink, they've done everything in their power to pull back because they all know how terrible it would be if they were actually used - look at the Cuban Missile crisis, look at the various near misses when incorrect signals came down the chain of command or failsafes failed to be safe. Look at India and Pakistan - Both of which are developing countries, one of which actively harboured Al Qaeda/ other Jihadis and isn't all that stable. They've had nukes since the early '90s if I recall, and never used them except in tests to signal that they do have them. Look at Israel - commonly thought to possess nuclear weapons, surrounded by enemies in an unstable part of the world and attacked + had to fight for its existence many times in its short life. It's never used them.

Look at the former Soviet republics that ended up with vast stockpiles of Nukes following the breakup of the Soviet Union. None of them used any, even during the unstable times, the times when they've fallen to strongman dictators. Look at the threat of terrorists buying those Nukes - they've never surfaced. I think history shows us that level heads DO prevail, and the nutters self-destruct long before they get to the point where they can destroy the world. Do you really think China will allow North Korea to become an imminent global threat? Do you really think Iran wants to Nuke the UK?

TL:DR; I think you're very, very wrong. And to dismiss horror at using these weapons as virtue signalling merely demonstrates your partisan political position.

paulads

I'm not sure to what degree people earn or deserve their intellectual capacity...I think it's a wonderful thing that everyone has an equal say in what affects their lives.

ThePrettyDamned

I don't know much about our nuclear programme, but I read an idea that rather made sense to me, as a layman. 

Surely a comprehensive but usable weapons strategy is a better bet? Ultimately, if we use large scale nuclear weapons we are killing a lot of innocent people and causing a lot of fallout problems that will affect the ability to survive in the area for decades. That is what deters us from using it. 

Whereas a new arsenal of smaller weapons (which surely could be created now) that are capable of more localised destruction is more able to be used, and thus a better deterrent than something like Trident, which seems to be more of a last-resort weapon. 

Obviously I don't know how much scrapping trident and replacing it with smaller but more usable weapons would be, but surely it would create jobs and make our country safer? Or am I a victim of the endless nonsense spouted by those who know as little as me on social media? 

ICBM

ThePrettyDamned said:

I don't know much about our nuclear programme, but I read an idea that rather made sense to me, as a layman. 

Surely a comprehensive but usable weapons strategy is a better bet? Ultimately, if we use large scale nuclear weapons we are killing a lot of innocent people and causing a lot of fallout problems that will affect the ability to survive in the area for decades. That is what deters us from using it. 

Whereas a new arsenal of smaller weapons (which surely could be created now) that are capable of more localised destruction is more able to be used, and thus a better deterrent than something like Trident, which seems to be more of a last-resort weapon. 

Obviously I don't know how much scrapping trident and replacing it with smaller but more usable weapons would be, but surely it would create jobs and make our country safer? Or am I a victim of the endless nonsense spouted by those who know as little as me on social media? 

No, I think you're absolutely correct - and although Corbyn hasn't said so, I suspect he would agree. He specifically said he's in favour of *multi-lateral* nuclear disarmament, not unilateral… that means we would have to retain a nuclear capability, even without Trident. We actually do anyway - we have a stockpile of older warheads from pre-Trident days. The only cost would be to put together a delivery system - we already have other nuclear-powered submarines which can carry cruise missiles, and we already have (assuming they haven't all been scrapped or sold off) aircraft capable of carrying them.

It's true that it wouldn't be as effective at destroying Russia in a Third World War as Trident - but since that would automatically result in the total destruction of the UK as well, what would be the point?

May and Fallon have specifically said that they would consider a *first strike* as well - that's the height of utter insanity, it would amount to national suicide. Do you really want people with this sort of attitude with their fingers anywhere near the button?

Skipped

Tweet on this QT audience member:
"When you get a semi on #bbcqt while thinking about the skin evaporating off the bodies of hundreds of thousands of innocent people"

Fretwired

Apparently she was a plant - come the end of the debate she walked off behind Corbyn and joined the campaign team in the green room and was seen on Newsnight when Emily Wightlesswas interviewing Labour politicians.

The consensus in the press, bar the Telegraph, was Corbyn won hands down. Bar the IRA and nukes (which I think are irrelevant) I thought he did well. May got a rougher ride on education cuts and the NHS. Only a three point gap which if it is right puts Corbyn in number 10.

exocet

Skipped said:

Tweet on this QT audience member:
"When you get a semi on #bbcqt while thinking about the skin evaporating off the bodies of hundreds of thousands of innocent people"

He did look rather unhinged.

JezWynd

Fretwired said:

May on points .. she had the tougher questions but seemed 'strong and stable'  .. her biggest problem is her manifesto is pants. Jeremy was caught on nuclear weapons - I have no problem with his stance as he's had it for 30+ years. Why replace Trident if you're never going to use it? Spend the money on something else. I'd back scrapping Trident.

It would release a shed load of money to used on more fruitful projects.  Nuclear weapons are the modern version of building cathedrals in the middle ages. Completely pointless, soak up resources that could be better used improving things in the here and now. At least cathedrals are beautiful to look at. I think Corbyn might be pleasantly surprised if he said outright - I'm going to unilaterally disarm and spend the money on education, health and improving our infrastructure.

Fretwired

JezWynd said:

Fretwired said:

May on points .. she had the tougher questions but seemed 'strong and stable'  .. her biggest problem is her manifesto is pants. Jeremy was caught on nuclear weapons - I have no problem with his stance as he's had it for 30+ years. Why replace Trident if you're never going to use it? Spend the money on something else. I'd back scrapping Trident.

It would release a shed load of money to used on more fruitful projects.  Nuclear weapons are the modern version of building cathedrals in the middle ages. Completely pointless, soak up resources that could be better used improving things in the here and now. At least cathedrals are beautiful to look at. I think Corbyn might be pleasantly surprised if he said outright - I'm going to unilaterally disarm and spend the money on education, health and improving our infrastructure.

I agree ... wis awarded. I wish Jeremy would just come out and say it. I think its a vote winner.

ICBM

I think the swivel-eyed nuke 'em faction in the audience may well have done his job for him.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

I think the swivel-eyed nuke 'em faction in the audience may well have done his job for him.

Yep ... let's help so. Scrapping Trident would save billions and fund social care without forcing people to sell their houses. Leak that the Tories plan to cut the army down to 65,000 men. Scrapping the Royal Marines is back on the table - big mistake. Scrap Trident and keep the marines.

paulads

Yes. And only use the marines for actions we can justify 

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Leak that the Tories plan to cut the army down to 65,000 men. Scrapping the Royal Marines is back on the table - big mistake. Scrap Trident and keep the marines.

I'm pretty sure Corbyn has said that he want to use the money from not renewing Trident to boost the conventional forces. So which is the party that can be trusted to defend this country, against the real threats it's likely to face - rather than the hypothetical one it probably doesn't?

Building up the conventional forces would also be good for the defence industry and jobs. Perhaps we wouldn't need to sell so many arms to nasty regimes like Saudi Arabia if we did - which Amber Rudd explicitly used to justify that the other night.

It's also worth remembering that General Galtieri decided to invade the Falklands after a Tory defence review which resulted in cuts to the military there and the withdrawal of HMS Endurance. And the fact that we had Polaris nuclear weapons at the time didn't seem to deter him...

Tavernor

here goes a long old quote... Initially responding @cirrus about weapons always being used in the end.

Tavernor

Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the machine gun, declared, "Only a general who was a barbarian would send his men to certain death against the concentrated power of my new gun." But send them they did. In World War One, the machine gun often mowed down tens of thousands of men in a single day.

Orville Wright saw a similar vision: "When my brother and I built and flew the first man-carrying flying machine, we thought we were introducing into the world an invention that would make further wars practically impossible." Far from ending war, however, the airplane increased the ability to maim and kill. In firebombing raids on London, Hamburg and Tokyo the airplane wrought previously unimaginable levels of destruction. In a single night, March 9, 1945, 25 percent of Tokyo was destroyed, 80,000 people were killed, and over 1 million left homeless.

History shows the folly in hoping that each new, more destructive weapon will not be used. And yet we dare to hope that this time it will be different. We and the Soviets have amassed a combined arsenal of 50,000 nuclear weapons, equivalent in destructive force to some 6,000 World War II’s, capable of reaching their targets in a matter of minutes, and able to destroy every major city in the world. All in the belief that they will never be used.

But unless we make a radical shift in our thinking about war, this time will be no different. On our current path, nuclear war is inevitable.

The inevitability concept can best be understood by analogy to finance. It does not make sense to talk of an interest rate as being high or low, for example 50 percent or 1 percent, without comparing it to specific period of time. An interest rate of 50 percent per year is high. An interest rate of 50 percent per century is low. And the low interest rate of 1 percent per year builds up to a much larger interest rate, say 100 percent, when compounded over a sufficiently long time.

In the same way, it does not make sense to talk about the probability of nuclear war being high or low -- for example 10 percent versus 1 percent -- without comparing it to a specific period of time -- for example, 10 percent per decade or 1 percent per year.
Having gotten the units right, we might argue whether the probability of nuclear war per year was high or low. But it would make no real difference. If the probability is 10 percent per year, then we expect the holocaust to come in about 10 years. If it is 1 percent per year, then we expect it in about 100 years.The lower probability per year changes the time frame until we expect civilization to be destroyed, but it does not change the inevitability of the ruin. In either scenario, nuclear war is 100 percent certain to occur

Tavernor

Slightly flawed reasoning but does agree with my view nukes will be used by someone in our lifetime. Again, very much countering my own argument.