We all know innocent people would die. Did you expect her to say I would only push the button if I only got the baddies?
I posted for greater accuracy. And of course it will resonate when other violent incidents are condemned because people will say 'innocent' lives have been lost.
It would be a really shit deterrent if she said no
Corbyn probably would.
Just reminded me of when Greenwich council used to stick up those posters about the borough being nuclear free and all the time there was supposedly a nuclear reactor in the naval academy for training purposes.
Of course, worse case scenario and a scenario occurs where the button is pushed then the world would be relying upon the survivors to repopulate the earth and in the UK's corner that would presumably mean our new PM.
The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?
In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?
In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.
We would be utterly foolish to disarm at this time.
Allied to US and other NATO nuclear weapons though it can be argued it deters non-NATO nuclear states from launching an attack that wipes out NATO civilians and military positions.
Whether our force is material enough to make a difference is open to question. As is I guess the downside to our relationship in NATO should we choose to spend the money elsewhere and leave it up to someone else or just contribute to a NATO pool. I think the political ramifications of not doing it are probably at least as significant as the costs.
The other concern would be whether subs and trident missiles are the best way to go.
I recall historically there were rumours the UK got fobbed off by the US with trident and could have had a deterrent at least as agile or better with air bases missiles at a fraction of the cost.
If Russia is the opposition, they may be able to target the bases quicker than the planes can scramble but is that very realistic?
I dunno, seems like a lot of money to spend on trident without any clear analysis of why it's the best thing to do.
The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?
In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.
Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?
In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.
Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?
In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.
Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
Not sure you understood my point.
Understood it perfectly.
The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?
In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.
Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
Not sure you understood my point.
Understood it perfectly.
The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
What would we gain from claiming that we wouldn't do so ?
The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?
In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.
Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
Not sure you understood my point.
Understood it perfectly.
The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
What would we gain from claiming that we wouldn't do so ?
Would you press the button in those circumstances?
Is it a nuclear deterrent in the sense that it deters a nuclear attack or is it a nuclear deterrent that is in fact nuclear and can/will be used in retaliation to any major attack (Pearl Harbour-sequel)?
The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?
In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.
Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
Not sure you understood my point.
Understood it perfectly.
The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
What would we gain from claiming that we wouldn't do so ?
Would you press the button in those circumstances?
The question is, should she launch a revenge nuclear strike *after* the UK has been impacted by a foreign first strike?
In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
Whether we would or wouldn't is irrelevant. We should always say that we would to ensure the deterrent has maximum impact.
Even at the point at which it has failed to deter?
Not sure you understood my point.
Understood it perfectly.
The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
What would we gain from claiming that we wouldn't do so ?
Would you press the button in those circumstances?
That really isn't the point. I'd rather not have the damn things, but if we do have them, other people have got to believe we would use them. Yes, it would be utterly pointless to actually do it, but Johnny/Ivan/whatever Foreigner has to be deterred from launching a pre-emptive strike by thinking that even if that strike did effectively lay waste to the UK, up to forty of his own major centres of population are going to cop it as a result. That's why it's called a deterrent. Of course, it's not going to deter a terrorist, or group thereof, which begs the question of who we are supposed to be deterring. It's only useful as a deterrent against another nuclear state.
I actually think it's much more about two things. First, the French have nuclear weapons so we have to have them. Second, we need to be seen as Billy Big Bollocks to justify our elevated position at the UN where we are one of the five permanent members of the security council. That's my opinion, of course, others are free to make up their minds.
The problem is that there is Russia, but if they nuked us, it is inconceivable the Americans would let them get away with it - that is the deterrent. The biggest threat is some terrorist dirty bomb - but the people doing that are likely to be citizens of this country. Trident won't be much use in putting that sort of attack off. Maybe spend 10 billion of the31 billion on anti terrorisom and the rest on the NHS. Then tell everybody we still have a deterrent, even if we don't! Simples.
Comments
"Can we cut to the chase, would you press the red button and potentially kill 100,000 people?"
"Yes"
Would have been a bit surprised if SNP had said yes so quickly, less surprised about the PM
Of course she should press the red button if the situation arose, that's what she and it is there for!
What does Jock McFiddle MP for Belknocky South expect her to say, the silly socialist twerp...
And of course it will resonate when other violent incidents are condemned because people will say 'innocent' lives have been lost.
Just reminded me of when Greenwich council used to stick up those posters about the borough being nuclear free and all the time there was supposedly a nuclear reactor in the naval academy for training purposes.
In other words, in the circumstances that the UK is effectively laid to waste and the foreseeable future for the country is a dystopia nuclear holocaust, would she still seek to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Or, put another way, would she still kill innocent people after it'seems too late?
We would be utterly foolish to disarm at this time.
What does it deter?
On its own I would suggest it deters very little.
Allied to US and other NATO nuclear weapons though it can be argued it deters non-NATO nuclear states from launching an attack that wipes out NATO civilians and military positions.
Whether our force is material enough to make a difference is open to question. As is I guess the downside to our relationship in NATO should we choose to spend the money elsewhere and leave it up to someone else or just contribute to a NATO pool. I think the political ramifications of not doing it are probably at least as significant as the costs.
The other concern would be whether subs and trident missiles are the best way to go.
I recall historically there were rumours the UK got fobbed off by the US with trident and could have had a deterrent at least as agile or better with air bases missiles at a fraction of the cost.
If Russia is the opposition, they may be able to target the bases quicker than the planes can scramble but is that very realistic?
I dunno, seems like a lot of money to spend on trident without any clear analysis of why it's the best thing to do.
The question remains: should we press the button after the deterrent has failed? Should we even *claim* we would do so?
I actually think it's much more about two things. First, the French have nuclear weapons so we have to have them. Second, we need to be seen as Billy Big Bollocks to justify our elevated position at the UN where we are one of the five permanent members of the security council. That's my opinion, of course, others are free to make up their minds.