Labour Leadership Contest

[Mook]

Didn't Obama say he wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons? He took shit for ripping off the Superman 4 speech almost word for word.

He knows his films then.

 

Barack 'The quest for peace' Obama.

[Rico1304]

For me not renewing trident is such a big call as we don't know what the world will be like in 25 yrs. Once the subs are gone they aren't ever coming back as we won't have the ability, money or time to build them again.

[Red Phoenix]

A couple of rare bits of common sense from The Guardian. The last part of this from Abbott might mirror what's already in the Question Time thread :

From Simon Jenkins :

Trident is useless, and Corbyn’s shadow cabinet should be ashamed. Their stance has more to do with global posturing than our national security


The sole reason for Trident surviving the Blair government’s first defence review (on whose lay committee I sat) was the ban on discussing it imposed by the then defence secretary, George Robertson, in 1997. Members were told to “think the unthinkable” about everything except Trident and new aircraft carriers. It was clear that Tony Blair and his team had been lobbied, not by the defence chiefs, but by the procurement industry.

I can recall no head of the army and no serious academic strategist with any time for the Trident missile. It was a great hunk of useless weaponry. It was merely a token of support for an American nuclear response, though one that made Britain vulnerable to a nuclear exchange. No modern danger, such as from terrorism, is deterred by Trident (any more than Galtieri had been in the Falklands or Saddam in Iraq). But the money was spent and the rest of the defence budget had to suffer constant cuts – and soldiers left ill-equipped – to pay for it.

For decades the Labour party has lacked the courage of its own convictions on nuclear weapons and the courage to confront the industry lobby behind Trident. Gordon Brown openly backed Trident simply as job-creation for Scotland. While the missiles come from America and their use without American permission is inconceivable, a decision on the related submarine replacement programme is due next year. It will have nothing to do with national defence. Talk about “ultimate deterrents” might as well apply to any Armageddon weapon, bacteriological or chemical. Trident is about diplomatic clout, global posturing, domestic grandstanding and huge sums of public expenditure.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/01/trident-corbyn-shadow-cabinet-labour


Diane Abbott :

Asked if he would ever use the nuclear button, he replied: “No. I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons.” Nobody should have been surprised. He has held this position all of his adult life. What would have been absurd would be for him to say anything else.

So Corbyn will have been as taken aback as anyone else by the kerfuffle this caused in some quarters of his shadow cabinet. His statement was described as unhelpful, although no one explained who it was unhelpful to. Arms dealers, perhaps?

The truth is that the complainers say more about political attitudes during the New Labour era than about defence policy. On the specific issue of Trident, three senior military officers, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham and General Sir Hugh Beach, summed up the case against it in a letter to the Times in 2009.

Among other things they pointed out: “The force cannot be seen as independent of the United States in any meaningful sense. It relies on the United States for the provision and regular servicing of the D5 missiles. While this country has, in theory, freedom of action over giving the order to fire, it is unthinkable that, because of the catastrophic consequences for guilty and innocent alike, these weapons would ever be launched, or seriously threatened, without the backing and support of the United States.” This shows how utterly pointless the “finger on the button” question is.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/01/trident-jeremy-corbyn-nuclear-weapons

[Red Phoenix]

Guardian again :

 

A whistleblower, Peter Francis, has revealed that police compiled secret files on the political activities of Corbyn and nine other MPs, even after they had been elected to the House of Commons. Francis disclosed that he had read the files on the 10 MPs while he worked for the Metropolitan Police’s special branch.

 

He added that he had personally collected information on Corbyn, and two other MPs, while he was working undercover infiltrating anti-racist groups in the 1990s. Read this and this for more details of his revelations that were made in March this year.

 

But with the transformation of Corbyn from an obscure backbencher to the leader of the opposition, police chiefs are potentially facing more embarrassment.

 

In March, Corbyn, who has been the MP for Islington North since 1983, told the Islington Tribune that he should be given the full file that the police had compiled on him “without any redactions.”

 

“I am a democratically elected person and it turns out I was put under surveil­lance for a long time because I campaigned on human rights issues and was involved in justice campaigns.

 

“At the Metropolitan Police somebody authorised this and I want to know who. I want to know who ordered the spying higher up, and whether there was any co-operation between the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and MI5”.

 

Francis worked for the SDS, the secret undercover unit that spied on hundreds of political groups between 1968 and 2008. Just before he was elected Labour leader on September 12, Corbyn was asked again about this issue by Jason Kirkpatrick, a film-maker who is making a documentary on undercover police officers (for more details, see this and this).

 

This is how Corbyn replied:

 

 

 

From here : http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/undercover-with-paul-lewis-and-rob-evans/2015/oct/02/police-facing-hard-questions-over-covert-monitoring-of-jeremy-corbyn-and-other-mps

[Ginny]

Corbyn is saying things that just makes sense and everyone at the bottom of their hearts knows is true but have been covered up over a lifetime of being bombarded by the media peddling fear.

 

People on benefits are lazy and are taking all your money!

There's not enough jobs!

Immigrants are taking your jobs!

The bogey man is going to get you (whoever the flavour of the month is. Usually Asian with a beard)

We need a big fuck off £1b nuclear submarine to keep the bogey man away.

There's not enoug resources so you have to look after number one and your family - fuck everyone else

Bankers didn't do anything wrong - it's was homeless people and people on job seekers

I'm alright Jack.

 

We've been divided and conquered for so long that to some people decent and genuine ideas like - I wouldn't use a nuclear weapon are met with critisism. It's like sociopathic behaviour and lack of empathy and compassion is rewarded whilst wisdom and a genuine desire to make things better and fairer for everyone is considered weak and idealistic. Its like a majority of the country and media respond to honesty with Critisism. We live in a fuckin mad house.

 

My opinion anyway.

[Section_31]

Corbyn once called Purps a big cuddly perv.

[VladimirIlyich]

The money saved on Trident and used for our conventional forces would be mind blowing. Apparently new Aircraft Carriers,yes plural,new jets for the RAF could be bought,yes plural. The three armed forces could all be kitted out in the best and most modern equipment and thousands of servicemen could be recruited,and still have plenty left over to spend on mundane stuff like saving lives through the NHS too. Utter madness.

 

Interesting point in the Guardian article when saying that having nuclear weapons didnt stop Galtieri or Saddam getting involved in Wars with the West at all.

I dont believe they are even a deterrent anymore and are only here to please those warmongering arms billionaires and Yanks who watch too many Hollywood disaster movies.

The Russians wont use them as half their population live over here and whoever ever did use them knows it is the end of themselves too.

[Section_31]

I don't really buy into the idea of diverting funds from a nuclear deterrent and spending it on conventional weapons. We'll never be able to stand toe to toe with a major power on the ground, but having a nuke changes everything.

[Rocky Sullivan]

I don't really buy into the idea of diverting funds from a nuclear deterrent and spending it on conventional weapons. We'll never be able to stand toe to toe with a major power on the ground, but having a nuke changes everything.

How so? We need permission from one of those major powers to use the nukes in the first place.

[jimmycase]

Ah, the resurrection of unilateral disarmament, an old 80's policy that the majority dont want.

 

Not impressed with corbyn to be honest but he's the leader for the time being.

[Jairzinho]

Ah, the resurrection of unilateral disarmament, an old 80's policy that the majority dont want.

 

Not impressed with corbyn to be honest but he's the leader for the time being.

 

Who would have been your choice?

[jimmycase]

Who would have been your choice?

 

None of the candidates inspired me to be fair.

[Neil G]

I don't really buy into the idea of diverting funds from a nuclear deterrent and spending it on conventional weapons. We'll never be able to stand toe to toe with a major power on the ground, but having a nuke changes everything.

Having stronger conventional forces could act as a deterrent to the likes of Russia or China getting involved in the kind of confrontation that could escalate further to the nuclear level.

 

Besides, there are plenty of scenarios where having bigger and better equipped conventional forces would be beneficial that don't involve confrontation with a major power.

[Section_31]

Having stronger conventional forces could act as a deterrent to the likes of Russia or China getting involved in the kind of confrontation that could escalate further to the nuclear level.

 

Besides, there are plenty of scenarios where having bigger and better equipped conventional forces would be beneficial that don't involve confrontation with a major power.

Agreed but the nuke is the great leveller against those superpowers. I'd never envisage us nuking someone like Argentina or Iran, but it should make you sleep better at night next time some Russian bombers get escorted off the premises.

 

I'd rather have a miniscule armed forces and not get involved in any major conflicts and just have that guarantee against aggression from an overwhelming force, just in case.

[Spy Bee]

Agreed but the nuke is the great leveller against those superpowers. I'd never envisage us nuking someone like Argentina or Iran, but it should make you sleep better at night next time some Russian bombers get escorted off the premises.

 

I'd rather have a miniscule armed forces and not get involved in any major conflicts and just have that guarantee against aggression from an overwhelming force, just in case.

It's not though is it. It's a useless cash sink? It doesn't prevent terrorism, it doesn't do anything.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

How so? We need permission from one of those major powers to use the nukes in the first place.

No we don't.

[Rocky Sullivan]

No we don't.

Oh no that's right. If Radio 4 has been off the air for three days it is assumed that Britain is no longer a functioning society, probably been blown to smithereens and as long as the letter from the PM says so we can launch our pointlessly late retaliation.

Under what other circumstances would we be able to launch nuclear weapons without the say so of the US?

[Section_31]

It's not though is it. It's a useless cash sink? It doesn't prevent terrorism, it doesn't do anything.

The yanks haven't invaded north Korea, wonder why?

[Spy Bee]

The yanks haven't invaded north Korea, wonder why?

They haven't got oil? They haven't invaded New Zealand or Burma either.

[Hooch]

Section, when you say just in case, and aggression from an overwhelming force, in what form would these things be?

 

I just don't see any scenario.

The Danes, Dutch Sweden etc do just fine, why don't the Russians get up in their shit since they don't have nuclear weapons?

 

If and it's big if the Russians took the piss, we have them a theoretical straightener and when they pull out the nuke the world is over anyway. The Yanks would get involved anyway, they can't help but play world police. Let them carry on spending dough on nukes and we can become Denmark and mind our own business more.

 

I compare it to juice heads who train 5 times a week to give them confidence and feel safer in themselves being a big muscley unit and shit.

Granted, when they're out on the piss I'm sure they're less likely to get kicked off on if they accidentally bump into a nutcase, but it's pretty easy to avoid or get out of those situations anyway, plus you'll have much more free time to better yourself in more worthwhile ways than grunt at the gym.

 

I'm still drunk from last night. Not sure if that makes any sense.

[Jairzinho]

The yanks haven't invaded north Korea, wonder why?

 

They've got all the resources of Middlesbrough?

[REDTALISKER]

The yanks haven't invaded north Korea, wonder why?

 

China, that's why.

[Ginny]

Do we really need more weapons? We must have enough by now surely.

[Spy Bee]

Do we really need more weapons? We must have enough by now surely.

Can you threaten to use nuclear bombs when they're past their sell by date?

[VladimirIlyich]

Agreed but the nuke is the great leveller against those superpowers. I'd never envisage us nuking someone like Argentina or Iran, but it should make you sleep better at night next time some Russian bombers get escorted off the premises.

 

I'd rather have a miniscule armed forces and not get involved in any major conflicts and just have that guarantee against aggression from an overwhelming force, just in case.

I find the view that we'll ever be potentially at war with Russia a very strange one indeed. Everything they need from us they have,ie large amounts of properties in our capital and an unregulated financial industry for them to launder their money through.

Just find it strange that anybody believes this will ever be likely to happen.

 

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk