Keir Starmer

[Bjornebye]

25 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Getting rid of nukes is a ridiculous idea, unless everybody does it at once. Doing it unilaterally is a thick-as-mince approach. 

I’ve always thought that we should just blag it. “Yeah we’ve got nukes, loads” and invest in obviously far less important things like heating, food and education. 

[A Red]

A Corbyn government out of NATO with no nuclear weapons or current Tory government in NATO with them, I wonder what would be the most popular option here?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

42 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Getting rid of nukes is a ridiculous idea, unless everybody does it at once. Doing it unilaterally is a thick-as-mince approach. 

Nah.

Nobody has ever made a plausible argument for this country to hobble its economy with the ultimate WMDs. Getting rid is the only intelligent approach.

[Gnasher]

20 minutes ago, A Red said:

A Corbyn government out of NATO with no nuclear weapons or current Tory government in NATO with them, I wonder what would be the most popular option here?

Unfortunately it'd be the latter.

[Gnasher]

29 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I’ve always thought that we should just blag it. “Yeah we’ve got nukes, loads” and invest in obviously far less important things like heating, food and education. 

I agree, it's the sensible approach for Labour.

[Gnasher]

17 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

 

Its OK for the libs they've got little chance of getting elected, when they do the pledges fly out the window.

[A Red]

3 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Unfortunately it'd be the latter.

For you or is that a comment on the site?

[Gnasher]

4 minutes ago, A Red said:

For you or is that a comment on the site?

Not sure what you mean tbh. I'm saying amongst the general public they'd vote for the party that promises to keep the nukes.

 

Edit; sorry re read your post and I'm changing to the former not the latter for posters on here, although itd be close. In other words I don't know.

[Numero Veinticinco]

18 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Nah.

Nobody has ever made a plausible argument for this country to hobble its economy with the ultimate WMDs. Getting rid is the only intelligent approach.

There are plenty of plausible arguments for us having WMD.  

[Bjornebye]

33 minutes ago, A Red said:

A Corbyn government out of NATO with no nuclear weapons or current Tory government in NATO with them, I wonder what would be the most popular option here?

The one with less food banks. 

[Gnasher]

8 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

There are plenty of plausible arguments for us having WMD.  

Also two very good reasons not to have them in their name alone, Mass, Destruction.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Gnasher said:

Also two very good reasons not to have them in their name alone, Mass, Destruction.

I wouldn’t say good luck f you consider others that have them. Anyway, there’s really nothing to gain from debating it. We are keeping them. 

[Captain Willard]

I think its is a reasonable assumption based on what we have seen in the Ukraine that a significant % of the Russian nuclear fleet is probably inoperable and won't work if they push the button. Its clear that they have not been maintaining their arsenal and highly complex electronics don't react well to being left to rust in abandoned silos for decades.

 

I am relying on this assumption to sleep at nights. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Captain Willard said:

I think its is a reasonable assumption based on what we have seen in the Ukraine that a significant % of the Russian nuclear fleet is probably inoperable and won't work if they push the button. Its clear that they have not been maintaining their arsenal and highly complex electronics don't react well to being left to rust in abandoned silos for decades.

 

I am relying on this assumption to sleep at nights. 

Well, if it helps then believe it. It doesn’t make it true, unfortunately. They have so many of the things, only a small amount need to work. 

[Strontium]

Ukraine got rid of their nukes. That's obviously been working out well for them.

[Creator Supreme]

Glad to be as thick as mince then!

[Arniepie]

Considering nuclear armegeddon has only been averted due to dumb luck on at least 2 occasions,the argument that keep is safe is faintly ridiculous. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

13 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

the argument that keep is safe is faintly ridiculous

 

[Captain Turdseye]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

For you or is that a comment on the site?

I’d have liked to see the first option given a go. 
 

NATO isn’t a ‘forever’ thing anyway. 

[A Red]

CND funded in part by USSR. I wonder why?

[Section_31]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Nah.

Nobody has ever made a plausible argument for this country to hobble its economy with the ultimate WMDs. Getting rid is the only intelligent approach.

 

The best example of why it's daft to get rid of nukes is Ukraine. No way Russia would have invaded if they'd still had them. It's the ultimate leveler.

[Arniepie]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

CND funded in part by USSR. I wonder why?

Is there hard evidence of this?

[A Red]

1 hour ago, Arniepie said:

Is there hard evidence of this?

Depends how hard you want it. Google.

[Bjornebye]

Humanity eh.