UK Politics

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Of course I know how it works................................. and it works the same way for all the NATO members that DO NOT have nukes of their own! Is that too hard to understand or must the UK have them to be a big country like we thought we once were?

Ok, well I get the argument about saving money so could get rid...not sure how NATO allies would feel about that, or Russia, and also not sure it's the pacifist argument made by Greens and co...can someone else nuke those f**kers so we have more money to spend on ourselves.

Edited June 9 by steviewevie

[Nobody Interesting]

14 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Exactly. 

 

Why not and as they have no nukes of their own, or none at all, how does that prevent us from having none of our own as well?

Or shall we just trust nobody and blow them all to hell just in case?

[Nobody Interesting]

10 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Ok, well I get the argument about saving money so could get rid...not sure how NATO allies would feel about that, or Russia, and also not sure it's the pacifist argument made by Greens and co...can someone else nuke those f**kers so we have more money to spend on ourselves.

 

If we don't replace Trident we still have nukes so your argument rather falls down.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Why not and as they have no nukes of their own, or none at all, how does that prevent us from having none of our own as well?

Or shall we just trust nobody and blow them all to hell just in case?

Because they're not as big and clever as us.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

If we don't replace Trident we still have nukes so your argument rather falls down.

Ok ok. Whatever. It was all mainly about the Green woman's argument for nuclear deterrent, not whether we should get rid of Trident or not. 

[Nobody Interesting]

On 1st December 1948 Costa Rica scrapped it's armed forces.

Many countries said it was stupid as they would be attacked.

 

Today they still have no arm3d forces and to date have not been attacked by anyone.

 

Many countries are neutral during conflicts and in history they were warned they would be attacked anyway. History shows that did not happen and their neutrality was honoured.

There are lots of warning that if you change what you have bad things will happen - but history shows that bad things warned of rarely, if ever, happen. It takes a brave person to decide to ignore the warnings and take the first steps, perhaps the UK needs brave leaders? Who knows but as a CND member since I was 14 I am not changing my mind now and you lot here can say what you like, I stand by my opinion 100%, nukes are a bad thing and the UK is better without them as they make an attack on the UK more likely, not less.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

Ok ok. Whatever. It was all mainly about the Green woman's argument for nuclear deterrent, not whether we should get rid of Trident or not. 

 

LOL So political debate on a politics debate thread is not what you are here for.

Let's all just post Twitter links and be done with it.

[steviewevie]

Just now, Nobody Interesting said:

 

LOL So political debate on a politics debate thread is not what you are here for.

Let's all just post Twitter links and be done with it.

Lol. No I was talking about having the nuclear deterrent at all and it turned into whether we should get rid of Trident for financial reasons...and I'm not sure I have an argument against that because I think we should...but even Corbyn wouldn't go there because of the unions etc

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

On 1st December 1948 Costa Rica scrapped it's armed forces.

Many countries said it was stupid as they would be attacked.

 

Today they still have no arm3d forces and to date have not been attacked by anyone.

 

Many countries are neutral during conflicts and in history they were warned they would be attacked anyway. History shows that did not happen and their neutrality was honoured.

There are lots of warning that if you change what you have bad things will happen - but history shows that bad things warned of rarely, if ever, happen. It takes a brave person to decide to ignore the warnings and take the first steps, perhaps the UK needs brave leaders? Who knows but as a CND member since I was 14 I am not changing my mind now and you lot here can say what you like, I stand by my opinion 100%, nukes are a bad thing and the UK is better without them as they make an attack on the UK more likely, not less.

Before nukes we got attacked quite a lot, not so much since.

And comparing with Costa Rica is ridiculous.

I used to be a 14 year old CND member too but I grew up and got over that and now love nukes.

[steviewevie]

If Ukraine had been in NATO and protected by nukes would Russia have invaded.

If Israel didn't have nukes would it still be there?

[lazyred]

37 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Not kind of, exactly that - yes other countires have US owned ones but only the UK and France own their own.

The UK does not need to own it's own and the money is far better spent elsewhere.

That's because of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty, the nuclear sharing gets around it. Without nuclear we'd still spend the same on defence as part of NATO. Defence spending is rising across Europe because of Trump and Ukraine.

[Neil]

just read this article, which might be enlightening to the people who thibk surrey is just a certain type of tory

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/09/surreys-middle-classes-angry-tories-sunak

 

it also told me that spelling-mistake's consistency is changing to be "Godalming and Ash", which seems much more sensible for joined-up localities.

 

the poor people of Ash vale  (i used to live in ash vale), get to lose Gove as their mp, to get spelling mistake instead.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Neil said:

just read this article, which might be enlightening to the people who thibk surrey is just a certain type of tory

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/09/surreys-middle-classes-angry-tories-sunak

 

it also told me that spelling-mistake's consistency is changing to be "Godalming and Ash", which seems much more sensible for joined-up localities.

 

the poor people of Ash vale  (i used to live in ash vale), get to lose Gove as their mp, to get spelling mistake instead.

podcast version...

The ‘blue wall’ road trip: Tories jumping ship? Politics Weekly UK – podcast | Politics | The Guardian

[fraybentos1]

38 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

On 1st December 1948 Costa Rica scrapped it's armed forces.

Many countries said it was stupid as they would be attacked.

 

Today they still have no arm3d forces and to date have not been attacked by anyone.

 

Many countries are neutral during conflicts and in history they were warned they would be attacked anyway. History shows that did not happen and their neutrality was honoured.

There are lots of warning that if you change what you have bad things will happen - but history shows that bad things warned of rarely, if ever, happen. It takes a brave person to decide to ignore the warnings and take the first steps, perhaps the UK needs brave leaders? Who knows but as a CND member since I was 14 I am not changing my mind now and you lot here can say what you like, I stand by my opinion 100%, nukes are a bad thing and the UK is better without them as they make an attack on the UK more likely, not less.

Costa Rica and the UK have essentially nothing in common though do they

[Nobody Interesting]

25 minutes ago, lazyred said:

That's because of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty, the nuclear sharing gets around it. Without nuclear we'd still spend the same on defence as part of NATO. Defence spending is rising across Europe because of Trump and Ukraine.

 

Trident replacement is in addition to the UK defence spending.

[Nobody Interesting]

Just now, fraybentos1 said:

Costa Rica and the UK have essentially nothing in common though do they

 

Correct, and at no point did I say they did.

 

It was an example of how someone did something despite warnings and the warnings did not come true.

Am I able to use more local countires neutrality or did you just ignore that part of the post as it did not meet your criteria for replies?

[Nobody Interesting]

32 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

If Ukraine had been in NATO and protected by nukes would Russia have invaded.

If Israel didn't have nukes would it still be there?

If Ukraine had been in NATO and protected by nukes would Russia have invaded. - almost certainly not.

If Israel didn't have nukes would it still be there? - Yes because the USA supports it and would not let it be attacked.

[Nobody Interesting]

36 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Before nukes we got attacked quite a lot, not so much since.

And comparing with Costa Rica is ridiculous.

I used to be a 14 year old CND member too but I grew up and got over that and now love nukes.

 

and other countries that used to get attacked lots before nukes but have no nukes don't get attacked now either - so your point is?

 

and for someone who seemed to not want this debate you certainly seem to keep it going LOL

 

Also so people when they get older keep the same morals they had when they were younger, some don't so again not really sure what your point actually is.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

If Ukraine had been in NATO and protected by nukes would Russia have invaded. - almost certainly not.

If Israel didn't have nukes would it still be there? - Yes because the USA supports it and would not let it be attacked.

again this reliance on US...who haven't actually been there for them in the past. Why do you think Iran wants nukes? 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

and other countries that used to get attacked lots before nukes but have no nukes don't get attacked now either - so your point is?

 

we talking about countries in NATO umbrella? Or all countries in the world?

Anyway, bit tedious. The whole nuclear weapon thing evolved after WW2 and cold war started, whether it would have turned into all out war between NATO and soviet bloc without nukes we'll never know...but history will tell us that war would have been very likely otherwise. There was an opportunity to eliminate them globally started by Reagan and Gorbachev and all that but that hasn't happened to completion for many reasons and now more states have them, China, India, Pakistan etc. and more want them and we could end up with them everywhere.

In terms of us having nukes now, we are a key member of NATO, and one of the more advanced economies of europe, who developed nuclear weapons and still have our own, along with France. Germany and Italy didn't for historical reasons. Other european countries are more reliant on the richer NATO countries for security which includes nukes. Some have US nukes in their country. There is a big rehaul of NATO happening anyway, european nations needing to spend more, and be less reliant on US, because there is now the possibility they won't be there for them in the future. Putin knows this, as does Xi, as does Trump.

[fraybentos1]

31 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Am I able to use more local countires neutrality or did you just ignore that part of the post as it did not meet your criteria for replies?

I'm not under an obligation to reply to every point you make in a post if I only want to reply to one part of it

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Of course I know how it works................................. and it works the same way for all the NATO members that DO NOT have nukes of their own! Is that too hard to understand or must the UK have them to be a big country like we thought we once were?

 

Probably this.

[Guest]

I think with the World in it's current state, I would rather have nukes rather than not at the moment.

[steviewevie]