Theresa May calls snap election in June

I don't really see the problem with the position, available to Corbyn, of personally having disarmament sympathies, but abiding by the policy of the party when in office (which is arrived at by a vote in this case).  Policy changes should be arrived at by winning arguments, not by ramming your own opinion down others' throats.  That's one of the main criticisms of the motives for this GE, after all.

So Corbyn doesn't want to 'press the nuclear button'.  So what?  Turn it on its head - is it a requirement for political office that one must be willing, under circumstances which would never arise, to kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of people one has never met?

Dave***t posted:

I don't really see the problem with the position, available to Corbyn, of personally having disarmament sympathies, but abiding by the policy of the party when in office (which is arrived at by a vote in this case).  Policy changes should be arrived at by winning arguments, not by ramming your own opinion down others' throats.  That's one of the main criticisms of the motives for this GE, after all.

So Corbyn doesn't want to 'press the nuclear button'.  So what?  Turn it on its head -is it a requirement for political office that one must be willing, under circumstances which would never arise, to kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of people one has never met?

Yes.

Clarification: non-combatants. Still yes?

Dave***t posted:

I don't really see the problem with the position, available to Corbyn, of personally having disarmament sympathies, but abiding by the policy of the party when in office (which is arrived at by a vote in this case).  Policy changes should be arrived at by winning arguments, not by ramming your own opinion down others' throats.  That's one of the main criticisms of the motives for this GE, after all.

So Corbyn doesn't want to 'press the nuclear button'.  So what?  Turn it on its head - is it a requirement for political office that one must be willing, under circumstances which would never arise, to kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of people one has never met?

I don't agree with the argument against an independent UK deterrent, but I understand people's innate loathing of a WMD.

What I find scary is the naivety when it comes to potential foes and the notion that we will never be under threat. Russia is being run by an ex Cold War KGB agent who has already proven his expansionist mentality by annexing Crimea. The Russian psyche is and always has been that of a Great Power, and they will not rest until they can compete both economically and militarily with 'the West'. Can you not see that?

I'm out of this.

SKDriver posted:

Dave***t posted:

I don't really see the problem with the position, available to Corbyn, of personally having disarmament sympathies, but abiding by the policy of the party when in office (which is arrived at by a vote in this case).  Policy changes should be arrived at by winning arguments, not by ramming your own opinion down others' throats.  That's one of the main criticisms of the motives for this GE, after all.

So Corbyn doesn't want to 'press the nuclear button'.  So what?  Turn it on its head - is it a requirement for political office that one must be willing, under circumstances which would never arise, to kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of people one has never met?

I don't agree with the argument against an independent UK deterrent, but I understand people's innate loathing of a WMD.

What I find scary is the naivety when it comes to potential foes and the notion that we will never be under threat. Russia is being run by an ex Cold War KGB agent who has already proven his expansionist mentality by annexing Crimea. The Russian psyche is and always has been that of a Great Power, and they will not rest until they can compete both economically and militarily with 'the West'. Can you not see that?

I'm out of this.

Taken literally, yes, I can see that. I was in Ukraine not long after the annexation and talked to locals about it for quite some time. And as it happens, I'd been to the annexed area several years before, so the whole thing felt quite eerie when seeing it on the news.

But as it pertains to actual nuclear war, no, I can't. I can't see it ever transpiring that the UK fires first in a nuclear war. And unless we fire first, we're already dead and it doesn't matter.

No one is advocating unilateral conventional disarmament.

I'm not even a committed CND type. I don't know what we should do/what should be done. I'm just thinking it through.

But it seems to me that there are much more pressing issues to decide a GE on than whether, in a choice between two parties which both advocate retaining nuclear weapons, a specific individual wants to drop nuclear bombs.

Do Danish politicians lie awake at night shivering in fear because they don't have a nuclear arsenal? No, they worry about their conventional forces, unemployment, public health etc etc.

Dave***t posted:

Clarification: non-combatants. Still yes?

Yes.

SKDriver posted:

What I find scary is the naivety when it comes to potential foes and the notion that we will never be under threat. Russia is being run by an ex Cold War KGB agent who has already proven his expansionist mentality by annexing Crimea. The Russian psyche is and always has been that of a Great Power, and they will not rest until they can compete both economically and militarily with 'the West'. Can you not see that?

My thinking is though ... if a leader of a foreign power thinks so little of life (of their enemies non-combatants) that they will drop nuclear weapons; are they likely to care what retaliation happens on their own people?

War didn't happen over the Cuban missile crisis not because US and USSR faced mutual destruction but because both leaders came to their senses and compromise.

Does Kim Jong-un really work to better his people's lives and fate?

Maybe leaders like Kim Jong-un would be willing the risk the lives of their population.  But would they be willing the risk their own lives and that of the cronies that keep them in power? A retaliatory nuclear strike could very well target them with little prospect of survival.  

Eloise posted:

SKDriver posted:

What I find scary is the naivety when it comes to potential foes and the notion that we will never be under threat. Russia is being run by an ex Cold War KGB agent who has already proven his expansionist mentality by annexing Crimea. The Russian psyche is and always has been that of a Great Power, and they will not rest until they can compete both economically and militarily with 'the West'. Can you not see that?

My thinking is though ... if a leader of a foreign power thinks so little of life (of their enemies non-combatants) that they will drop nuclear weapons; are they likely to care what retaliation happens on their own people?

War didn't happen over the Cuban missile crisis not because US and USSR faced mutual destruction but because both leaders came to their senses and compromise.

Does Kim Jong-un really work to better his people's lives and fate?

Would this nice outcome (ie sensibility and compromise) have been the same if, for example, the USA had at some previous time unilaterally scrapped its nuclear weapons ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Eloise posted:

SKDriver posted:

What I find scary is the naivety when it comes to potential foes and the notion that we will never be under threat. Russia is being run by an ex Cold War KGB agent who has already proven his expansionist mentality by annexing Crimea. The Russian psyche is and always has been that of a Great Power, and they will not rest until they can compete both economically and militarily with 'the West'. Can you not see that?

My thinking is though ... if a leader of a foreign power thinks so little of life (of their enemies non-combatants) that they will drop nuclear weapons; are they likely to care what retaliation happens on their own people?

War didn't happen over the Cuban missile crisis not because US and USSR faced mutual destruction but because both leaders came to their senses and compromise.

Does Kim Jong-un really work to better his people's lives and fate?

Would this nice outcome (ie sensibility and compromise) have been the same if, for example, the USA had at some previous time unilaterally scrapped its nuclear weapons ?

Well yes ... as the USA wouldn't then have been placing their weapons in European countries to threaten the USSR!

MDS posted:

Maybe leaders like Kim Jong-un would be willing the risk the lives of their population.  But would they be willing the risk their own lives and that of the cronies that keep them in power? A retaliatory nuclear strike could very well target them with little prospect of survival.  

More importantly, even if he survived he wouldn't have millions of adoring followers praising him in lavish celebrations.

And they are adoring followers; genuinely so.  After all they wouldn't want to be living under the crushing heel of the American military like their unfortunate cousins in the south of the country would they?  Kim Il Sun saved them from that and Kim Jong-Un maintains their freedom.

And who can blame them, it's all they've ever known as the truth, so why should they doubt it?  All the rest is just American propaganda, and America is the enemy.

Plus one.

Quite few suggestions on who might attack the UK, but none of them plausible. Nobody is going to attack the UK, we don’t need Trident.

On the other hand, it could be argued North Korea do need a nuclear deterrent. From the early part of the 20^th century to the second world war, Korea was occupied by the Japanese. After the WW2 North Korea was invaded by the USA, (under the guise of UN), who where subsequently kicked out by the Chinese, who subsequently withdrew. The USA still have thousands of troupes, military hard wear and air bases in the south and in Japan.

Who’s in more danger of invasion, the UK or North Korea.

I do have a smidgeon of sympathy for N Korea in the sense that the West is pillorying them for developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, with implied grave threats of military action, while Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, is unstable politically, and has been a hot-bed of terrorist activity,  seems to receive very little attention, sanctions, threats etc.  This must seem very odd and unfair to the leaders in N Korea. 

fatcat posted:

Plus one.

Quite few suggestions on who might attack the UK, but none of them plausible. Nobody is going to attack the UK, we don’t need Trident.

On the other hand, it could be argued North Korea do need a nuclear deterrent. From the early part of the 20^th century to the second world war, Korea was occupied by the Japanese. After the WW2 North Korea was invaded by the USA, (under the guise of UN), who where subsequently kicked out by the Chinese, who subsequently withdrew. The USA still have thousands of troupes, military hard wear and air bases in the south and in Japan.

Who’s in more danger of invasion, the UK or North Korea.

Might I suggest you Google Korean War for an update on who started what. If not already a US citizen allow me to extend a welcome. You'd love our Department of Alternative Facts.

fatcat posted:

Plus one.

Quite few suggestions on who might attack the UK, but none of them plausible. Nobody is going to attack the UK, we don’t need Trident.

On the other hand, it could be argued North Korea do need a nuclear deterrent. From the early part of the 20^th century to the second world war, Korea was occupied by the Japanese. After the WW2 North Korea was invaded by the USA, (under the guise of UN), who where subsequently kicked out by the Chinese, who subsequently withdrew. The USA still have thousands of troupes, military hard wear and air bases in the south and in Japan.

Who’s in more danger of invasion, the UK or North Korea.

Troupes? as in "A Wandering Minstrel I" lol ...

Clay Bingham posted:

Might I suggest you Google Korean War for an update on who started what. If not already a US citizen allow me to extend a welcome. You'd love our Department of Alternative Facts.

On that theme, look who started the Second World War (and for those not in the know, it wasn't the Germans).

Anyway I've now got to go and deal with some vampires.

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Eloise posted:

SKDriver posted:

What I find scary is the naivety when it comes to potential foes and the notion that we will never be under threat. Russia is being run by an ex Cold War KGB agent who has already proven his expansionist mentality by annexing Crimea. The Russian psyche is and always has been that of a Great Power, and they will not rest until they can compete both economically and militarily with 'the West'. Can you not see that?

My thinking is though ... if a leader of a foreign power thinks so little of life (of their enemies non-combatants) that they will drop nuclear weapons; are they likely to care what retaliation happens on their own people?

War didn't happen over the Cuban missile crisis not because US and USSR faced mutual destruction but because both leaders came to their senses and compromise.

Does Kim Jong-un really work to better his people's lives and fate?

Would this nice outcome (ie sensibility and compromise) have been the same if, for example, the USA had at some previous time unilaterally scrapped its nuclear weapons ?

Well yes ... as the USA wouldn't then have been placing their weapons in European countries to threaten the USSR!

Threaten the USSR? You really are from another planet aren't you ... choose some different experts or read some different books ...

ynwa250505 posted:

Troupes? as in "A Wandering Minstrel I" lol ...

Are you going to be expected to plan to execute yourself (are you top of the list)?

ynwa250505 posted:

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Eloise posted:

SKDriver posted:

What I find scary is the naivety when it comes to potential foes and the notion that we will never be under threat. Russia is being run by an ex Cold War KGB agent who has already proven his expansionist mentality by annexing Crimea. The Russian psyche is and always has been that of a Great Power, and they will not rest until they can compete both economically and militarily with 'the West'. Can you not see that?

My thinking is though ... if a leader of a foreign power thinks so little of life (of their enemies non-combatants) that they will drop nuclear weapons; are they likely to care what retaliation happens on their own people?

War didn't happen over the Cuban missile crisis not because US and USSR faced mutual destruction but because both leaders came to their senses and compromise.

Does Kim Jong-un really work to better his people's lives and fate?

Would this nice outcome (ie sensibility and compromise) have been the same if, for example, the USA had at some previous time unilaterally scrapped its nuclear weapons ?

Well yes ... as the USA wouldn't then have been placing their weapons in European countries to threaten the USSR!

Threaten the USSR? You really are from another planet aren't you ... choose some different experts or read some different books ...

Our understanding/beliefs, at least of very recent history, are all a product of whatever is the propaganda in the country or area or society or political environment (mowt likely a combination) in which we were brought up, modified by whatever questioning, challenging and research (what sources?) we might have done, so it is inevitable that a variety of genuinely believed 'truths' will abound. And depending on the subject and its sensitivity to distortion in any way the more different those truths are. And we never really know what the real truth is, except that when a wide concensus from all these different influences says the same thing it might just be. 

But certainly the impression I had was that the USSR was the aggressor, in that they may very well have attacked/invaded more countries had the NATO alliance and its associated forces not rallied and presented an enduring show of radiness to defend.

Clay Bingham posted:

fatcat posted:

Plus one.

Quite few suggestions on who might attack the UK, but none of them plausible. Nobody is going to attack the UK, we don’t need Trident.

On the other hand, it could be argued North Korea do need a nuclear deterrent. From the early part of the 20^th century to the second world war, Korea was occupied by the Japanese. After the WW2 North Korea was invaded by the USA, (under the guise of UN), who where subsequently kicked out by the Chinese, who subsequently withdrew. The USA still have thousands of troupes, military hard wear and air bases in the south and in Japan.

Who’s in more danger of invasion, the UK or North Korea.

Might I suggest you Google Korean War for an update on who started what. If not already a US citizen allow me to extend a welcome. You'd love our Department of Alternative Facts.

Google " US occupation of South Korea"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Government_in_Korea

Feel free to post a link to something that happened before the above, which would be pre 1945.

Innocent Bystander posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Eloise posted:

SKDriver posted:

What I find scary is the naivety when it comes to potential foes and the notion that we will never be under threat. Russia is being run by an ex Cold War KGB agent who has already proven his expansionist mentality by annexing Crimea. The Russian psyche is and always has been that of a Great Power, and they will not rest until they can compete both economically and militarily with 'the West'. Can you not see that?

My thinking is though ... if a leader of a foreign power thinks so little of life (of their enemies non-combatants) that they will drop nuclear weapons; are they likely to care what retaliation happens on their own people?

War didn't happen over the Cuban missile crisis not because US and USSR faced mutual destruction but because both leaders came to their senses and compromise.

Does Kim Jong-un really work to better his people's lives and fate?

Would this nice outcome (ie sensibility and compromise) have been the same if, for example, the USA had at some previous time unilaterally scrapped its nuclear weapons ?

Well yes ... as the USA wouldn't then have been placing their weapons in European countries to threaten the USSR!

Threaten the USSR? You really are from another planet aren't you ... choose some different experts or read some different books ...

Our understanding/beliefs, at least of very recent history, are all a product of whatever is the propaganda in the country or area or society or political environment (mowt likely a combination) in which we were brought up, modified by whatever questioning, challenging and research (what sources?) we might have done, so it is inevitable that a variety of genuinely believed 'truths' will abound. And depending on the subject and its sensitivity to distortion in any way the more different those truths are. And we never really know what the real truth is, except that when a wide concensus from all these different influences says the same thing it might just be. 

But certainly the impression I had was that the USSR was the aggressor, in that they may very well have attacked/invaded more countries had the NATO alliance and its associated forces not rallied and presented an enduring show of radiness to defend.

Regardless of who "started it", my point was that BOTH SIDES came to their senses and a compromise was reached because BOTH SIDES had a nuclear deterrent.

Of course it would be nice if NONE of US had nuclear weapons or anything equivalent. And from time-to-time we have managed to reduce our mutual stockpiles. But we are still dependent on sensible leaders making compromises and reaching diplomatic agreements.

Don

My understanding of the Cuba crisis differs from yours, (although I haven’t consulted google, so I could be wrong).

I don’t think there was any compromise. The Americans blockaded Cuba and wouldn’t let soviet ships through, the soviets backed down, turned their ships around stopped building missile sites on Cuba.

You’re correct about needing sensible leaders, unfortunately, I don’t think Trump can be regarded as sensible.

Innocent Bystander posted:

But certainly the impression I had was that the USSR was the aggressor, in that they may very well have attacked/invaded more countries had the NATO alliance and its associated forces not rallied and presented an enduring show of radiness to defend.

My understanding was that the Cuban missile crisis came about after Cuba requested help from USSR following the Bay of Pigs invasion by the USA.  USSR were also upset about the USA placing missiles in Italy and Turkey.

The conclusion to the missile crisis resulted in USA having to promise not to try to invade / interfere in Cuba again as well as (secretly) them removing the missiles located in Italy and Turkey.  USSR on the other hand withdrew threats of placing missiles on Cuba.

It also lead to the creation of the Washington - Moscow "hotline" to try to improve communications and prevent a repeat.

So yes, USSR was the aggressor, but they were responding to previous aggressive acts committed by the USA.

Eloise posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

But certainly the impression I had was that the USSR was the aggressor, in that they may very well have attacked/invaded more countries had the NATO alliance and its associated forces not rallied and presented an enduring show of radiness to defend.

My understanding was that the Cuban missile crisis came about after Cuba requested help from USSR following the Bay of Pigs invasion by the USA.  USSR were also upset about the USA placing missiles in Italy and Turkey.

The conclusion to the missile crisis resulted in USA having to promise not to try to invade / interfere in Cuba again as well as (secretly) them removing the missiles located in Italy and Turkey.  USSR on the other hand withdrew threats of placing missiles on Cuba.

It also lead to the creation of the Washington - Moscow "hotline" to try to improve communications and prevent a repeat.

So yes, USSR was the aggressor, but they were responding to previous aggressive acts committed by the USA.

Great summary of the wiki entry Eloise ... excepting the last sentence - which is simply your opinion ... and entirely wrong ....

Huge posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

Troupes? as in "A Wandering Minstrel I" lol ...

Are you going to be expected to plan to execute yourself (are you top of the list)?

I'm bottom of the List - therefore I shall be missed .... lol