Vote Labour For Nuclear Fear

I don't support political parties, I support individual politicians on particular issues.

This is not intended to be a divisive thread, just an observation of what I percieve to be absursdity.

Labour Manifesto

www.labour.org.uk...

We face the most complex . . . challenges of our time; . . . the threat of nuclear conflict . . . Labour supports the renewal of . . . Trident . . .

We avoid the threat of nuclear conflict by being prepared to carry out nuclear conflict? I'm feeling conflicted. Someone please explain.

a reply to: Kester

If we don't have nuclear weapons, we're f#cked.

a reply to: Kester

Vote labour get trident but re nationalisation of Railways etc which I think is a good thing
Vote Conservative get free school meals abolished NHS privatised and winter fuel payments abolished but a fall in corporation tax
Vote LibDem and get legalised cannabis and devolution for Wales Scotland & N Ireland (and possibly an assembly for Yorkshire yay! its there in the manifesto lol)

Decisions decisions

Given that progressive defence cuts since 1991, which intensified under the Tory government from 2010 onwards, have left this country all but defenceless (Which is especially interesting as David Cameron wanted to start yet another war in Syria in 2013, thank god for Parliament) I think it's pretty vital to have the nuclear weapons.

We should start making an overall switch from fossil fuels to nuclear power as well and ignore the fearmongering propaganda from the fossil fuels industry.

originally posted by: Kester
I don't support political parties, I support individual politicians on particular issues.

This is not intended to be a divisive thread, just an observation of what I percieve to be absursdity.

Labour Manifesto

www.labour.org.uk...

We face the most complex . . . challenges of our time; . . . the threat of nuclear conflict . . . Labour supports the renewal of . . . Trident . . .

We avoid the threat of nuclear conflict by being prepared to carry out nuclear conflict? I'm feeling conflicted. Someone please explain.

Labour would say literally anything to have a sniff at power at present. They stand for everything and nothing, they are all fluff.

Wasn't ending Trident a big deal to Corbyn not so long ago?

a reply to: Kester

Corbyn originally said that we can build subs but no nukes. The words of an interestingly optimistic fool. I don't know if he has changed his mind but we all know that politicians will say anything to get elected...

originally posted by: Kester

We avoid the threat of nuclear conflict by being prepared to carry out nuclear conflict? I'm feeling conflicted. Someone please explain.

It's called deterrence, or the "MAD" Theory, for "Mutually Assured Destruction." It's been working for 70 years now. It was first proposed by Hugh Everett, the physicist who proposed the "Many Worlds" theory.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Kester

If we don't have nuclear weapons, we're f#cked.

196 countries in this world, 9 of those countries have Nuclear weapons. So going by your logic 187 countries are #ed.?

Mental.

a reply to: Kester

Maybe this is a way to feed to people's fear.

We all know the threat to Europe is terrorism, not nuclear war.

But terrorism is a topic liberal societies are not supposed to talk openly about.

Now sit and really think on this. Why, just why do we need a nuclear deterrent? A deterrent against WHO?
The powers hold up the faded excuses of "oh, retaliation" or "mutually assured destruction".
Just look at your boogie bears that you think wants to "take us over". Just typing that made me feel a very deep sense of idiocy that anyone believes anyone wants to "take us over".
Who are you going to throw in the mix? Russia, China? Come on ,come on, they can only just look after their own countries without taking on our load of crap.
So let's stretch it. What would they want GB for? We have literally no resources, we are not strategically placed so why would they use nuclear weapons on us.
Listen very closely I will only say this only once, If Russia or China wanted the GB they would just buy us EXACTLY AS THEY'RE DOING NOW.
There is only one precious thing that wants and needs protection and that's the NHS (ok you don't need it yet because your healthy, but one day you will and you will be utterly thankful if it still exists) and the Conservatives sure as hell don't want it to survive except under private ownership.
So think long and hard who you want to run it.

originally posted by: Kester
I don't support political parties, I support individual politicians on particular issues.

This is not intended to be a divisive thread, just an observation of what I percieve to be absursdity.

Labour Manifesto

www.labour.org.uk...

We face the most complex . . . challenges of our time; . . . the threat of nuclear conflict . . . Labour supports the renewal of . . . Trident . . .

We avoid the threat of nuclear conflict by being prepared to carry out nuclear conflict? I'm feeling conflicted. Someone please explain.

Double-speak. They say one thing, but mean another. A basic translation guide:

conflict resolution and human rights at the heart of human policy = more immigration
back effective action to alleviate the refuge crisis = more immigrations
must exhaust diplomatic solutions alongside international, regional and local partners = more immigration
modern and inclusive strategy = more immigration
convict the perpetrators of war crimes = more lawyers prosecuting British soldiers
reclaim Britain's leading role in tackling climate change = sending more money overseas to our Marxist brothers and sisters
working hard to preserve the Paris Agreement = sending more money overseas to our Marxist brothers and sisters
mitigating the impacts of climate change on developing countries = sending more money overseas to our Marxist brothers and sisters
While strengthening our commitment to the UN = sending more money overseas to our Marxist brothers and sisters
Labour remains committed to an independent inquiry into Britain’s military role in the 1984 raid on the Golden Temple in Amritsar = more lawyers prosecuting British soldiers
Cyber security will form an integral part of our defence = more surveillence of the Internet on the British public
DEVELOPMENT = sending more money overseas to our Marxist brothers and sisters

a reply to: Kester

You're not the only one who's feeling conflicted, the Labour party is too. Because Corbyn doesn't want to renew Trident.

And I must say, I agree with him.

NATO has a nuclear deterrent.

No reason why the UK ought to have one of its own.

Plenty of other NATO members don't.

Vote Labour to sink the country into even more debt and destroy whatever future the children of the UK have left.
Vote Tory to be lied to and manipulated in order to enrich a few assholes who never worked a day in their lives.
Vote for anyone else to waste your vote completely.

hmmm.. decisions, decisions.

a reply to: UKTruth

Ah, you forgot the other option. Don't pay attention to any of it and participate in their manufactured "utopia" so that they can have ultimate power.

Sorry wonky connection I seem to have double posted.

a reply to: Kester

Kester I agree with you on most thing's and do agree with your sentiment but in reality we can not now go without our nuclear deterrent, it is in fact a necessity and growing more so with each passing day.

Even if we ditched our nuclear weapon's the growth and spread of nuclear weapons around the world is now unstoppable as the jack is well and truly out of the box.

But the reason that terror organization currently do not have one is that it take's the resources of a state (or a very large multinational conglomerate) to produce them but even that is only a matter of time.

So perversely ditching our nuclear weapon's would not make us suddenly cuddly and lovable to all those nutters that hate us but it would make us a softer target and therefore more likely to be so attacked.

The reason the Cold war did not become a nuclear war is because both side's had them, the reason that India and Pakistan are not nuking one another is because both side's have them etcetera, on and so forth.

So they are hugely expensive but being a nuclear armed nation also give's us international standing that we would have lost otherwise.

In an ideal world we could get rid of them but this is not an ideal world.

And opposite to your headline though I know you have a humane approach to thing's as well.

Voting tory is voting for more private enterprise, more sell off and shut down of NHS services and further drastic reduction in our public services, the removal of more free school meal's, more homelessness and the further segregation of society into the have's and the have not's.

At least labour are not as bad as the Tory's even if Corbyn is a weak numpty of a wet lettuce, I actually like May but even if not deliberately she will harm the poor and cause yet more suffering so let's get our Post office back, Our train's and Our water board as well as some state owned power company's again shall we and ONLY labour is planning to do that.

So in spite of this I am voting Labour, Corbyn does not have the say either it would require an act of parliament and most labour MP's are pro nuclear so remember that, his getting into power as unlikely as that is now would not spell the end of our nuclear deterrent at all though it may mean some of those financial asset's being spent on more current problem's at home.

a reply to: UKTruth

Sad but true i am going to vote and I'm leaning towards Tory as it stands (god that hurts to admit) i don't want to get into a debate about why I'm leaning to Tory in this thread but i haven't set my vote in stone just yet I'm still trying to weigh up all the pro/cons.

a reply to: Kester

This should answer all your questions about human behavior:

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I will never agree with your logic. I'm guessing you're not in the UK?

a reply to: UKTruth

Is it time to protest yet?

Oh wait! The army are already lining the streets!