Labour Leadership Contest

[Carvalho Diablo]

Somebody said it earlier, it's sabre rattling and dick swinging. Pointless even if you have the money to squander, a bit mental when you haven't.

 

When there are people starving and homeless, it's immoral to shell out multi billions on our very own WMD's.

 

If that button is ever pressed, we all die.

[Ginny]

I read the other day that if we want to fire the trident weapon, we have to pay for the launch code as a separate charge to the Americans. What happens if we email for the code and the recipient is on their two week break - and their out of office directs us to someone who's not close to the detail? Haha ffs

[Strontium]

I read the other day that if we want to fire the trident weapon, we have to pay for the launch code as a separate charge to the Americans.

 

So either someone is releasing state secrets on the Internet, or you've been fed (and swallowed) a load of bullshit. Which is more likely do you think?

[Hooch]

So either someone is releasing state secrets on the Internet, or you've been fed (and swallowed) a load of bullshit. Which is more likely do you think?

State secrets.

[VladimirIlyich]

I read the other day that if we want to fire the trident weapon, we have to pay for the launch code as a separate charge to the Americans. What happens if we email for the code and the recipient is on their two week break - and their out of office directs us to someone who's not close to the detail? Haha ffs

Money up front I assume? Not sure how they will spend it in a nuclear wasteland either.

[Section_31]

Somebody said it earlier, it's sabre rattling and dick swinging. Pointless even if you have the money to squander, a bit mental when you haven't.

 

When there are people starving and homeless, it's immoral to shell out multi billions on our very own WMD's.

 

If that button is ever pressed, we all die.

That's assuming that money will be spent on poor people though which we won't.

 

We'll build two submarines and everyone in barrow will celebrate. Then the minute they're launched they'll all be laid off and the head of BAE systems will get a 600 grand bonus.

[Spy Bee]

While there is some debate about whether we could choose to actually use the weapons without US approval, we are the only 'nuclear power' that doesn't independently manufacture and service our own nuclear weapons. We depend on the US to both manufacture and service our weapons.

 

That's just a side issue for me. I really struggle to comprehend intelligent people thinking that nuclear weapons are a good idea. I can only presume that it's down to fear, but even that doesn't seem particularly logical to me. It's all been debated in this thread and so this will be my last comment because I don't want to go all Rashid or Red Phoenix on a session.

 

Ban The Bomb!

[Section_31]

While there is some debate about whether we could choose to actually use the weapons without US approval, we are the only 'nuclear power' that doesn't independently manufacture and service our own nuclear weapons. We depend on the US to both manufacture and service our weapons.

 

That's just a side issue for me. I really struggle to comprehend intelligent people thinking that nuclear weapons are a good idea. I can only presume that it's down to fear, but even that doesn't seem particularly logical to me. It's all been debated in this thread and so this will be my last comment because I don't want to go all Rashid or Red Phoenix on a session.

 

Ban The Bomb!

I don't think anyone thinks nuclear weapons are a good idea, but having none when everyone else has is definitely a bad idea.

[Section_31]

I'm pretty amazed how predictable people seem to think the modern world is too. Did you ever think you'd see the day where the Royal Navy were being scrambled to reports of Spanish police boats firing on people in Gibraltar's waters? Shit economies do funny things to people. The way the refugee crisis is unfolding, I think it's easily conceivable there'll be a far right government in France or Holland before long. This is Europe we're talking about, fuck knows what the future holds for China and Russia.

[Jairzinho]

I don't think anyone thinks nuclear weapons are a good idea, but having none when everyone else has is definitely a bad idea.

 

But everyone else doesn't. Eight of the other 200 or so countries in the world have nuclear weapons.

[Section_31]

But everyone else doesn't. Eight of the other 200 or so countries in the world have nuclear weapons.

I was exaggerating of course, but we're talking about everyone at the top table of world affairs having them. There's also the issue of state sponsored terror. There's very little to stop a belligerent nation buyuing such a weapon and attacking us via back channels. They might think twice if they realise that if it was traced back to them we could reciprocate with something stronger than suspending Pot Noodle exports and dispatching HMS Testis to hurl a few shells at a fishing village.

 

The nuke argument is nice, corbyn is a bit of a hippy and I respect that, but the debate actually reminds me of a quote from Deep Space Nine by the head of - wait for it - section 31, played by the awesome William Sadler.

 

"The world needs men like you. Men of conscience, men of character, men who can sleep at night. But you're also the reason we exist, someone has to protect men like you from a world that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong."

[Jairzinho]

I was exaggerating of course, but we're talking about everyone at the top table of world affairs having them. There's also the issue of state sponsored terror. There's very little to stop a belligerent nation buyuing such a weapon and attacking us via back channels. They might think twice if they realise that if it was traced back to them we could reciprocate with something stronger than suspending Pot Noodle exports and dispatching HMS Testis to hurl a few shells at a fishing village.

 

The nuke argument is nice, corbyn is a bit of a hippy and I respect that, but the debate actually reminds me of a quote from Deep Space Nine by the head of - wait for it - section 31, played by the awesome William Sadler.

 

"The world needs men like you. Men of conscience, men of character, men who can sleep at night. But you're also the reason we exist, someone has to protect men like you from a world that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong."

 

This is pretty patronising to be honest, Sec. I don't think it's fair to try and frame the argument as head v heart.

[Section_31]

This is pretty patronising to be honest, Sec. I don't think it's fair to try and frame the argument as head v heart.

I didn't intend it to be patronising mate, but he says things like wouldn't it be nice if every country disbanded its army. Which it would, indisputably, but it ain't gonna happen this side of the 31st century. What he believes and what is possible doesn't always jive IMO.

[Jairzinho]

I didn't intend it to be patronising mate, but he says things like wouldn't it be nice if every country disbanded its army. Which it would, indisputably, but it ain't gonna happen this side of the 31st century. What he believes and what is possible doesn't always jive IMO.

 

But he isn't intending to push any policies of disbanding armies though, is he? He's fully aware that much of what he believes isn't possible.

[Hand Shandy]

Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons. They seem to be doing OK.

[BolshieBastard]

Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons. They seem to be doing OK.

 

They were banned from developing them after the 2nd World War. just saying.

[Hand Shandy]

Well yes, I was aware of that thank you.

 

My point was they seem to be doing quite well on the world stage without relying on nuclear weapons to prop their ego up.

[Ginny]

I think his way of talking and idealistic things he says like all countries living peace without armies etc is being received well. And although it will take a very long time to get to that point - I think these are the first steps as people are finally starting to see the pointlessness of it all.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Germany are part of NATOs nuclear weapons sharing program. They train to launch them and store US nuclear weapons in Germany. Plus, they have a tuck load of other types of WMDs.

[Hooch]

Germany are part of NATOs nuclear weapons sharing program. They train to launch them and store US nuclear weapons in Germany. Plus, they have a tuck load of other types of WMDs.

Don't we already do stuff like that too and already have some nuclear weapons?

So, still, no need for a £50 billion submarine.

[Section_31]

Nuclear submarines are counter strike weapons, they're there to get revenge basically if the country gets wiped out with no warning.

 

Interesting actually, in that cold war naval strategy of the united states was based on carrier battle groups, designed mainly to export foreign policy.

 

Soviet strategy was based on nuclear subs. They used to just sit beneath the polar ice cap in case mother Russia ever got blitzed. Interesting really that the soviets of all people genuinely thought it'd be the yanks that launched at them first.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Don't we already do stuff like that too and already have some nuclear weapons?

So, still, no need for a £50 billion submarine.

I personally see both sides of the argument. It's one of the few things I don't come down on either side for or against in any strong way.

 

I've lots of opinions about it, but it's s toss up for me.

[Rotpeter]

Well yes, I was aware of that thank you.

 

My point was they seem to be doing quite well on the world stage without relying on nuclear weapons to prop their ego up.

Germany like many Nato countries has about 20 or so "shared" US nuclear weapons.  One of many nuclear countries that has nuclear weapons, that doesn't manufacture or service them.  They obviously feel it enhances their position on the world stage.

[redinblack62]

They were banned from developing them after the 2nd World War. just saying.

Germany could do what it wants now...but they still dont choose to build them. Just saying.

[Spy Bee]

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/803-nuclear-war-and-corbyn-the-fury-and-the-farce.html

Last month, 250,000 party members voted Jeremy Corbyn leader of the Labour party, 'the largest mandate ever won by a Party Leader'. The combined might of the political and media establishment had fought and lost its Stalingrad, having bombarded Corbyn with every conceivable smear in a desperate to wreck his reputation with the British public. The more extreme the attacks, the more people caught on. Social media surely played a part in this awakening; but the public simply needed to compare the cynicism with Corbyn's obvious decency and common sense.

Long lines of media futurologists, having all dismissed Corbyn's prospects, shuffled back to their keyboards in defeat and disarray. The tide truly had turned; something like real democracy had once again broken out in Britain.

So what to do when your bias has been so naked, so obvious, that it backfires? The political machine knows only one way – carry on regardless!

Thus, the focus has been on Corbyn not singing the national anthem, on whether he would wear a white poppy or a red poppy, or a tie, or do up his top button, or refuse to promise to kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand; all this has been granted national news headlines and incessant coverage.

'At the heart of his dilemma', opined a Times leader ('National Insecurity', October 1, 2015), 'is a reluctance to shift from protest to leadership'. Translating from Murdochspeak, Corbyn has shown a reluctance to shift from principles to obedience in the customary manner.

In his Labour party conference speech, Corbyn generously mocked, rather than damned, the near-fascistic media coverage, noting that:

With perfect timing, an Independent tweet made the point the following day:

'According to one headline "Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the prospect of an asteroid 'wiping out' humanity."'

The comment was a reference to Corbyn's declaration that he would not 'press the nuclear button' in any circumstance, giving the political and media establishment their first sniff at what they hoped was their great 'gotcha!'.

'Labour MP warns electing Jeremy Corbyn could lead to "nuclear holocaust".'

Rather than celebrating Corbyn as a rare, principled politician sticking to a lifelong commitment shared by many reasonable people, he was portrayed as a dangerous loon risking nuclear annihilation. All without even the hint of a credible threat in sight.

We could provide any number of examples of media propaganda, but a high-profile piece on the BBC's flagship News at Ten programme last Wednesday supplied a truly stand-out performance. Here, BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg featured in an almost comically biased, at times openly scornful, attack on Corbyn's stance on nuclear weapons.

Kuenssberg started by saying:

The broadcast then showed her interviewing Jeremy Corbyn:

'Jeremy Corbyn wants debate. Well he's got one. And has run straight into a clash, saying that no Labour leader has said in recent history: if he was Prime Minister, whatever the threat, he'd never use nuclear weapons.'

'Would you ever push the nuclear button if you were Prime Minister?'

Corbyn replied:

The content of the question, together with the obvious emphasis and passion, betrayed whereKuenssberg stood on the matter.

'I'm opposed to nuclear weapons. I'm opposed to the holding and usage of nuclear weapons. They're an ultimate weapon of mass destruction that can only kill millions of civilians if ever used. And I am totally and morally opposed to nuclear weapons. I do not see them as a defence. I do not see them as a credible way to do things...'

LK [interrupting]. 'So yes or no. You would never push the nuclear button?'

JC: 'I've answered you perfectly clearly. It's immoral to have or use nuclear weapons. I've made that clear all of my life.'

LK: 'But, Jeremy Corbyn, do you acknowledge there is a risk that it looks to voters like you would put your own principles ahead of the protection of this country?'

Corbyn responded calmly:

Kuenssberg sounded incredulous, appeared to be all but scolding Corbyn. Almost as an afterthought, she added:

'It looks to the voters, I hope, that I'm somebody who's absolutely and totally committed to spreading international law, spreading international human rights, bringing a nuclear-free world nearer...'

Kuenssberg [interrupting]: 'And that's more important than the protection of this country?'

This was her token gesture to the BBC's famed, mythical 'impartiality'.

'Some voters might think that.'

The idea that the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons might endanger the British public clearly falls outside Kuenssberg's idea of 'neutral' analysis.

Again, Corbyn gave a reasonable response:

'We are not under threat from any nuclear power. We're not under threat from that; we're under threat from instability.... Listen, the nuclear weapons that the United States holds - all the hundreds if not thousands of warheads they've got were no help to them on 9/11.'

What does it say about the BBC that the leader of the opposition, in declaring a commitment to international law and global peace, is portrayed as a danger to the country, if not the world, with no counter-view allowed?

In a longer version of the interview, posted on the BBC News website, Kuenssberg asked a question about Syria that also betrayed her allegiance to an elite ideological view:

No hint here from the BBC's political editor that Obama and Cameron might be flexing their 'muscles' and leading Syria, like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, into total disaster. Why does 'doing something' always mean bombing in contemporary media discourse? Why is no other course of action conceivable? Why is our media so reflexively violent?

'Isn't there a danger, Jeremy Corbyn, as Syria falls to pieces, as Putin flexes his muscles, that, on a whole range of issues, it looks as though you will preside over a party that is discussing everything, rather than leading them anywhere?'

Corbyn replied:

Again, Kuenssberg interrupted, displaying impatience – perhaps even exasperation:

'Isn't it better that you reach consensus and agreement within your party where you can. You recognise the intelligence, the values and the independent thinking of all MPs...'

Corbyn exposed Kuenssberg's thin veneer of impartiality:

'...even when [inaudible] changes around you, things happen...'

'You seem to be stuck in the old politics, if I may say, where leaders dictate and the rest follow or not at their peril.'

Returning to the piece broadcast on BBC News at Ten, Kuenssberg then showed archive footage of Corbyn, presumably from the 1980s, helping to put up an anti-nuclear weapons campaign poster. Her accompanying, shouty voiceover told viewers:

She continued:

'Getting rid of nuclear weapons has always been his ambition. But now he wants to be the Prime Minister. And the Labour Party this week decided to stick to its policy of keepingnuclear weapons – Trident submarines – despite him.'

The BBC then broadcast no less than five senior Blairite Labour figures all opposing Corbyn: Andy Burnham, Shadow Home Secretary; Maria Eagle, Shadow Defence Secretary; Hilary Benn, Shadow Foreign Secretary; Angela Eagle, Shadow Business Secretary; Lord Falconer, Shadow Justice Secretary; and Heidi Alexander, Shadow Health Secretary.

'This morning, though, many of his top team seemed aghast that he'd totally ruled out their use, even as a last resort.'

The BBC did not allow a single person to express support for Corbyn's very reasonable and popular stance.

Why, for example, did BBC News not interview John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why not include other prominent Labour figures such as Diane Abbott who notes:

Or Bruce Kent, Vice-President of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, who says of Trident:

'Jeremy Corbyn's critics seem to think that leadership consists of a willingness to kill millions.'

'It is manifestly useless as protection against accidents, suicidal or non-state groups, or simple human error. Their nuclear weapons did nothing to save the US in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.'

Or senior Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins who writes:

'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.'

Jenkins goes on to expose the ugly and rarely-reported truth of Trident:

'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.'

Or why not include a spokesperson from Scientists for Global Responsibility? The UK-based organisation says that:

'the UK needs to place a much greater focus on the use of scientific and technical resources for tackling the roots of conflict, such as climate change, resource depletion and economic inequality, rather than prioritising the development, deployment and sale of yet more weapons technologies.'

Kuenssberg claimed in her summing up from the Labour party conference in Brighton that voters were hearing 'noise rather than nuance'. A sublime example of what psychologists call 'projection'.

She concluded that Corbyn becoming Labour leader was:

'thrilling for many but it's dangerous too. Mr Corbyn may strain to stop disagreements turning into public destructive disputes.'

Danger! Threats! The nation is at risk! Ignorance is Strength.

If Corbyn achieves nothing else, we should be grateful that he and his 250,000 supporters have flushed the political and media establishment out of the pages of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and into the light.