Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

 

 

 

Is it fuck. There's a lot to criticise in urban Scotland but doing it from Northern Ireland displays an almost supernatural lack of self awareness :cuppa:

 

 

I was talking to a bloke who worked on some of the missile sites in Scotland, he was Scotch, and he was saying that if it goes off, Glasgow will melt. 
This is him, on the left.

 

( Fuck knows who the other geezer is ). 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

It’d be too late by then anyway. You just have to commit to being prepared to use them, otherwise the deterrent is pointless and you may as well scrap them 

 

We may as well indeed scrap them. It's a colossal waste of money. I mean who in their right mind is actually going to nuke the UK? Not even Russia is that antagonistic to us. Globalism, if we can manage to stabilise it again, will reduce such nonsense to nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

We may as well indeed scrap them. It's a colossal waste of money. I mean who in their right mind is actually going to nuke the UK? Not even Russia is that antagonistic to us. Globalism, if we can manage to stabilise it again, will reduce such nonsense to nothing.

 

Funny, it was the notion of unilateral disarmament more than any other issue which led to Foot's disastrous 1983 campaign. 

 

Personally I do believe in having a nuclear deterrent for a variety of reasons. I think Europe needs one and don't think that should be solely down to France. With Russia's militaristic posturing and at least 9 countries having nuclear capability, why should the 6th largest economy and pioneer of the technology not have it?

 

Anyway, regardless, whatever you think this is a huge issue for Labour and why many people won't vote for Corbyn. His attitude on this is ludicrous and is another example of the perception he is not fit to govern. I actually find it hard to disagree (whilst acknowledging Johnson is even less fit to govern). 

Edited by Renton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Funny, it was the notion of unilateral disarmament more than other issue which led to Foot's disastrous 1983 campaign. 

 

Personally I do believe in having a nuclear deterrent for a variety of reasons. I think Europe needs one and don't think that should be solely down to France. With Russia's militaristic posturing and at least 9 countries having nuclear capability, why should the 6th largest economy and pioneer of the technology not have it?

 

Anyway, regardless, whatever you think this is a huge issue for Labour and why many people won't vote for Corbyn. His attitude on this is ludicrous and is another example of the perception he is not fit to govern. I actually find it hard to disagree (whilst acknowledging Johnson is even less fit to govern). 

 

Yes, our ability to protect ourselves from "zee Germans" by having nukes is of paramount importance in an age where our enemies no longer need to actually attack us, and can succeed by influencing elections, flooding social media with utter shit, and pushing right wing nationalists who they know will stand up against the globalist world order and achieve their strategic objectives without even firing a pistol, let alone a warhead.

 

But yes, it's a huge issue for Labour. That's primarily because people are fucking cretins, but we're covering well trodden ground here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Yes, our ability to protect ourselves from "zee Germans" by having nukes is of paramount importance in an age where our enemies no longer need to actually attack us, and can succeed by influencing elections, flooding social media with utter shit, and pushing right wing nationalists who they know will stand up against the globalist world order and achieve their strategic objectives without even firing a pistol, let alone a warhead.

 

But yes, it's a huge issue for Labour. That's primarily because people are fucking cretins, but we're covering well trodden ground here.

 

There are arguments for and against having a nuclear deterrent, I can see both sides. For me their very existence has prevented us having WW3 already and this continues to be the case, they absolutely deter physical invasion. It has fuck all to do with cyber warfare or hijacking social media. 

 

To be labelled a cretin for having an honest, logical difference of opinion is pretty embarrassing on your behalf imo. Corbyn's position on this particular point is also untenable, again imo. Rather than call people cretins who disagree, perhaps you should focus on why Corbyn has been so hopelessly naive that he has ended up in this position. At best, it shows he is not a clever politician. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

 

We may as well indeed scrap them. It's a colossal waste of money. I mean who in their right mind is actually going to nuke the UK? Not even Russia is that antagonistic to us. Globalism, if we can manage to stabilise it again, will reduce such nonsense to nothing.

i'm inclined to agree. we probably should scrap it - we would have to ask the yanks first anyway - or at least scale back the investment in trident. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as for corbyn though - just say you'd hit the button and end the argument. we're building a new trident fleet. he allowed a free vote on it so just play the game and don't give them another stick to hit you with ffs

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

There are arguments for and against having a nuclear deterrent, I can see both sides. For me their very existence has prevented us having WW3 already and this continues to be the case, they absolutely deter physical invasion. It has fuck all to do with cyber warfare or hijacking social media. 

 

To be labelled a cretin for having an honest, logical difference of opinion is pretty embarrassing on your behalf imo. Corbyn's position on this particular point is also untenable, again imo. Rather than call people cretins who disagree, perhaps you should focus on why Corbyn has been so hopelessly naive that he has ended up in this position. At best, it shows he is not a clever politician. 

 

I wasn't calling you a cretin man, are you about to vote for someone other than Labour because you think the nuclear deterrant is of paramount importance to the country at present? If not, then you're not a cretin. I am embarrassed though - to be British, mostly. Shame, cos a few years ago I remember being fairly proud of this country.

 

Yes, nuclear deterrents did a great job in staving off WW3 during the cold war. It's over now though. Has been for 30 years. The great protection has since become globalisation and the interdependency of markets.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

as for corbyn though - just say you'd hit the button and end the argument. we're building a new trident fleet. he allowed a free vote on it so just play the game and don't give them another stick to hit you with ffs

 

I do agree with this. It's the same as the anti-semitism issue. Neither issue is really a big deal for Labour in its objectives, at all, and his stubbornness comes only from a determination to remain true to some purist ideological position. So yes, press the red button, rout the anti-semites, and then get on with everything else. It really would have been the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ewerk said:

And sent out this morning to dodge questions on Russia and the cost of the Tory plan. Poor fucker didn't stand a chance. The audience were actually laughing at him come the end.

 

I'm telling you this is not accidental. There was an article somewhere this morning about how the Tories produce fewer BAME candidates than other parties. This is why. Cos they use them as fucking cannon fodder. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I wasn't calling you a cretin man, are you about to vote for someone other than Labour because you think the nuclear deterrant is of paramount importance to the country at present? If not, then you're not a cretin. I am embarrassed though - to be British, mostly. Shame, cos a few years ago I remember being fairly proud of this country.

 

Yes, nuclear deterrents did a great job in staving off WW3 during the cold war. It's over now though. Has been for 30 years. The great protection has since become globalisation and the interdependency of markets.

 

 

 

Like most people who actually think about it, I consider the pros and cons of each prospective PM. On this for me, its definitely a con, but outweighed by virtually everything else. But what about people who take national security more seriously or who are more to the right than me? Could swing it away from him to Swinson or worse.

 

If the last few years have shown us anything, it's that the global order is nowhere near as stable as it looked 10 years ago. I'm glad we had the foresight to retain a deterrent, fuck knows where we are heading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Renton said:

 

Like most people who actually think about it, I consider the pros and cons of each prospective PM. On this for me, its definitely a con, but outweighed by virtually everything else. But what about people who take national security more seriously or who are more to the right than me? Could swing it away from him to Swinson or worse.

 

If the last few years have shown us anything, it's that the global order is nowhere near as stable as it looked 10 years ago. I'm glad we had the foresight to retain a deterrent, fuck knows where we are heading. 

 

Those people would be cretins.

 

And if the last few years have shown us anything, it's that even with an absolute madman in charge of the US, the global order is still pretty fucking solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Those people would be cretins.

 

And if the last few years have shown us anything, it's that even with an absolute madman in charge of the US, the global order is still pretty fucking solid.

 

They're not man, it's a canny important issue. And yeah, I certainly don't want to rely on the US for any of our defence going forward, fuck that. I think we need an independent deterrence more than ever in fact. 

Edited by Renton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polaris  was never independent. I'm sure documents in the future will similarly reveal trident isn't. 

 

It's cock waving for little englanders. 

 

3 countries in nato have nukes give or take. All of the others are perfectly happy not to bother so maybe they don't have collective penis issues. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Renton said:

 

They're not man, it's a canny important issue. And yeah, I certainly don't want to rely on the US for any of our defence going forward, fuck that. I think we need an independent more than ever in fact. 

 

Defence from what? Who are we poised to be at war with?

 

If Russia decides to take out the UK, it's done. We can launch what, 2 nukes at them? They can hit us with 100. If the Americans decide to take the UK there won't even be a war, they'll just ask Johnson for the keys.

 

So who are these nukes meant to be protecting us from? I mean Russia, the USA, China - none of these countries actually even need nukes to take over the UK if they really wanted to. They'd just have to show up.

 

Anyone who won't vote for Corbyn based on nuclear weapons is willfully ignoring the digital nuking Russia is giving us on a consistent basis, and voting in the radioactive fallout. All of which is currently doing an incredible amount of damage to our country. But let's ignore that because someone, somewhere, for some reason, might lob a nuke at us. FFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, the Russians could actually nuke London, and then threaten to nuke everywhere else in the country if we retaliate. What then? We can't match that threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I wasn't calling you a cretin man, are you about to vote for someone other than Labour because you think the nuclear deterrant is of paramount importance to the country at present? If not, then you're not a cretin. I am embarrassed though - to be British, mostly. Shame, cos a few years ago I remember being fairly proud of this country.

 

Yes, nuclear deterrents did a great job in staving off WW3 during the cold war. It's over now though. Has been for 30 years. The great protection has since become globalisation and the interdependency of markets.

 

 

 

Actually there is no evidence Nuclear weapons stopped WW3 afterWW2 everyone was fucked and developed Nuclear weapons to put off the other guys. But the might of the Soviet union at its greatest did worse than a depleted NATO in Afghanistan. They knew they could never invade and win a conventional war. Similarly Vietnam put the USA off getting involved in mass invasions and occupation. Each was just ideologically opposed to the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NJS said:

Polaris  was never independent. I'm sure documents in the future will similarly reveal trident isn't. 

 

It's cock waving for little englanders. 

 

3 countries in nato have nukes give or take. All of the others are perfectly happy not to bother so maybe they don't have collective penis issues. 

 

Tell me how many countries have unilaterally disarmed? Is the answer none?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

as for corbyn though - just say you'd hit the button and end the argument. we're building a new trident fleet. he allowed a free vote on it so just play the game and don't give them another stick to hit you with ffs

Aye, just give yourself a chance of winning ffs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

Actually there is no evidence Nuclear weapons stopped WW3 afterWW2 everyone was fucked and developed Nuclear weapons to put off the other guys. But the might of the Soviet union at its greatest did worse than a depleted NATO in Afghanistan. They knew they could never invade and win a conventional war. Similarly Vietnam put the USA off getting involved in mass invasions and occupation. Each was just ideologically opposed to the other. 

 

Fair points, I'm not well versed enough in the theory around nuclear weapons from that era to judge it one way or another. I just assumed Renton would be right on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×