Yesterday The Telegraph got a bit of a shock

The did a poll for their readers, and weren't expecting the results:

Where is the link?

Anyway what does matter is that he is helping Labour implode lol

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11900788/labour-conference-day-four-live.html

Good lord that was days ago, already had a thread and already shown that it's being discussed, there is no revolt, he's not a dictator, the discussion will be held.

Trident has never been about defence but about diplomacy.
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. Labour was regarded as soft on defence and mega-projects were seen as talismans of the party’s patriotism. Robertson, John Reid and John Gilbert were adamant that no chink should appear in the nuclear armour.

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.
This is precisely the kind of issue on which Corbyn’s straight talking might be thought to turn over a new leaf. He might break with New Labour’s craven appeasement of the industrial lobbies and log-rollers. It is sad that his party colleagues, not one of whom can seriously believe in Trident, feel obliged to oppose him on this issue, just so Labour can seem tough on defence. Perhaps Corbyn should talk to a soldier.

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

And that's exactly why there will be a discussion, because JC knows that the majority of the Labour Party who voted for him, are right behind him for all the reasons given in that article and more.

If you would press the button first, you're a lunatic
If you would press it second it would simply be to kill other for revenge against their government.

---

3 days ago is a very small time ago where again it shows Labour is falling apart at the seems, which is hilarious.

Again where is your link?

No Didge, what is hilarious is that you think it is, when people are still flocking to join every single day, while the Conservatives are losing members hand over fist and are at the smallest number ever.

Flocking ha ha ha

Is that why they are miles behind the tories in the polls?
Seriously you do make me laugh at your loyality to a bunch of fruitcakes.

So again where is your link to this claim to Telegraph poll?

sassy wrote:The did a poll for their readers, and weren't expecting the results:

It's now 78% after 13,000 votes.

Be nice to see the link lol

Cuchulain wrote:Be nice to see the link lol

Google it

Doesn't take that much intelligence to find it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11903024/Jeremy-Corbyn-faces-revolt-over-vow-to-never-use-nuclear-deterrents.html

Three days ago and it is up to 78% now lol

lol so where anyone can just visit the page and then press yes or no.

ha ha ha ha ha

The same person can do this many times with google, firefox and also word can be spread to vote on it.


Sorry to burst your bubble these online polls are worthelss sassy

No doubt you have been going crazy on twitter for people to vote on it sassy, now that is incredibly sad.  lol

Actually, I haven't spoken to anyone about it, I expect you'll keep very quiet lol

I really do not believe you sassy being as you even brought me up on Twitter in the vain attempt to bring support to debate me on here ha ha ha ha. If you can be as sad and pathetic as that there is no limit to how sad you can be in trying to drum up support.

Like I say something like this can be easily rigged, by an individual being able to vote multiple times themselves and by spreading word around for people to then vote multiple times themselves.

Cuchulain wrote:lol so where anyone can just visit the page and then press yes or no.

ha ha ha ha ha

The same person can do this many times with google, firefox and also word can be spread to vote on it.


Sorry to burst your bubble these online polls are worthelss sassy

Lol! Thanks for exposing your strategy. I think all that is a pathetic waste of time.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:lol so where anyone can just visit the page and then press yes or no.

ha ha ha ha ha

The same person can do this many times with google, firefox and also word can be spread to vote on it.


Sorry to burst your bubble these online polls are worthelss sassy

Lol! Thanks for exposing your strategy. I think all that is a pathetic waste of time.

Its not my strategy, its the pathetic left wing strategy.
I did not even vote as I said such things can be easily rigged.
Hence why I stated the whole thing is a sham.
So clam down Mowgli, you are likely to fall over with excitement

sassy wrote:Trident has never been about defence but about diplomacy.
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. Labour was regarded as soft on defence and mega-projects were seen as talismans of the party’s patriotism. Robertson, John Reid and John Gilbert were adamant that no chink should appear in the nuclear armour.

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.
This is precisely the kind of issue on which Corbyn’s straight talking might be thought to turn over a new leaf. He might break with New Labour’s craven appeasement of the industrial lobbies and log-rollers. It is sad that his party colleagues, not one of whom can seriously believe in Trident, feel obliged to oppose him on this issue, just so Labour can seem tough on defence. Perhaps Corbyn should talk to a soldier.

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

And that's exactly why there will be a discussion, because JC knows that the majority of the Labour Party who voted for him, are right behind him for all the reasons given in that article and more.

If you would press the button first, you're a lunatic
If you would press it second it would simply be to kill other for revenge against their government.

---

lefty surrender monkeys.....

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:lol so where anyone can just visit the page and then press yes or no.

ha ha ha ha ha

The same person can do this many times with google, firefox and also word can be spread to vote on it.


Sorry to burst your bubble these online polls are worthelss sassy

Lol! Thanks for exposing your strategy. I think all that is a pathetic waste of time.

The acid test for those who advocate the use of Trident - either as a retaliatory action or pre-emptive strike is WOULD YOU be prepared to press the fire button - with the 100% knowledge and certainty that you and those you love will be killed within 30 minutes by a rain of nuclear fire?

Handy Andy wrote:The acid test for those who advocate the use of Trident - either as a retaliatory action or pre-emptive strike is WOULD YOU be prepared to press the fire button - with the 100% knowledge and certainty that you and those you love will be killed within 30 minutes by a rain of nuclear fire?

that is a false argument...you lefties are disingenious


if it read

as a pre-emptive strike is WOULD YOU be prepared to press the fire button - with the 100% knowledge and certainty that you and those you love will be killed within 30 minutes by a rain of nuclear fire? to which the answer is probably not...except upon invading foces at sea within OUR territorial waters


as for retaliatory strike.....well in that case your family would have already incinerated so.......

Depends on where the the first nuclear strike hit.

If the first was in Birmingham ,Liverpool or Glasgow for example,you retaliated against the enemy, you can take it as read the rest of populated Britain would be flattened in short order.
Unfortunately the UK is somewhat smaller than Australia or USA so a hit in London will affect a huge % of the population

Handy Andy wrote:Depends on where the the first nuclear strike hit.

If the first was in Birmingham ,Liverpool or Glasgow for example,you retaliated against the enemy, you can take it as read the rest of populated Britain would be flattened in short order.
Unfortunately the UK is somewhat smaller than Australia or USA so a hit in London will affect a huge % of the population

There is no depend in this disregard.
Many argue off Japan would have surrendered without having to use the atom bomb, The arguments are good but they lack one major aspect. Understanding the resolve of those not willing to concede. In the dying days of the war Japan faced a coup on the Emperor. Can you imagine Japan trying to surrender without losing face with no atom bomb falling? Most historians sadly disregard this fact. Japan was only able to surrender based off two atom bombs being dropped. The estimation of lives saved from no invasion of Japan is staggering. I million allied lives and 4- 10 million plus for the Japanese saved.

Think about this Andy those who fired Nukes who have just sent many nations back to the stone age are left on top to then make all others suffer. Hence the retaliation readdress the balance

You then miss victors point.
Do we retaliate knowing the vast majority of towns and cities are destroyed.
The answer is yes we should, because to allow any nutter who has started the first nucleur war to happen is ensuring they will accomplish their goals of genocide. The only need to use a nuke weapon today is genocide. That means a person who uses that, will ensure they wipe out many people. Hence you deny them this chance, so you readdrress the balance of arms. Left with no retalition from starting a nuke strike, such a nation would sweep across the world causing ever lasting distruction

You are actually naive enough to think that a retaliatory strike would take out the government that sent the original over?   The people killed in the retaliation and the consquential radiation, with all that entails, would be the ordinary people, who probably didn't want the original nuke to go off because they knew exactly what would happen to them.

You see sassy did not understand a single point.

Any loon willing enough to use them top attack a nation would not give a fuck about lives. To not retaliate just further seals his position, to then butcher many more.

Has this sunk in to your pea brain yet sassy?

The choice is yours, have democracy where you back retaliation to stop a loon. Or submit and allow yourself to be denied freedoms and most likely suffer oppressuon and death, as you are now under a dictatorship?

No Didge, you didn't get the point.  Anyone who sent over a nuke would make damn sure he/she/it was safe from any retaliation.  Sending a nuke back would just collectively punish people just because they happened to be the same nationality as he/she/it.  It would neither stop he/she/it nor punish them.  The only way to stop a madman is to use your brain and take them out personally, and that would not happen in your scenerio.  Once again you resort to the personal because you have no case.  Happens every time.

sassy wrote:No Didge, you didn't get the point.  Anyone who sent over a nuke would make damn sure he/she/it was safe from any retaliation.  Sending a nuke back would just collectively punish people just because they happened to be the same nationality as he/she/it.  It would neither stop he/she/it nor punish them.  The only way to stop a madman is to use your brain and take them out personally, and that would not happen in your scenerio.  Once again you resort to the personal because you have no case.  Happens every time.

Sadly as seen you do not get the point. Any nutter willing to use has to be stopped by any means, or means mass genocide. \the point you miss everytime because you sadly think flowers stop bullets.
I already know it will collectivelly punish people with retaliation, but I see outside this. What is worse sassy dying or a life of pain and suffering by eternal enslavement?

Please take yout time if you need it.

No life should ever have to be lost, but a retaliation strike will as seen be always needed, because those survivors of such a strike will need to be able to fight back.

Has that sunk in yet?

I think most would agree that they hope it was never used...



I have some things at home that I could use against an intruder seeking to do me harm... I hope I never have to use them... but I wouldn't be without them... just in case...

Anyone that thinks Bitain could or would launch without a Americas say so is deluded. What about the Nuclear non- proliferation treaty? I cannot think of any reason for us keeping Trident. We are not a superpower and let's face it if someone launched, the world is toast.

Its called having a deterrent Nems, which so far has worked.
Like I said if some nutter did use one whilst in charge of a nation retaliation would be required, because you would have to weaken their infrastructure and capability to wage war.

Cuchulain wrote:Its called having a deterrent Nems, which so far has worked.
Like I said if some nutter did use one whilst in charge of a nation retaliation would be required, because you would have to weaken their infrastructure and capability to wage war.

Mmmm that's if you believe said nutter is going to launch his one nuclear weapon knowing hundreds would be heading back at him.

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Its called having a deterrent Nems, which so far has worked.
Like I said if some nutter did use one whilst in charge of a nation retaliation would be required, because you would have to weaken their infrastructure and capability to wage war.

Mmmm that's if you believe said nutter is going to launch his one nuclear weapon knowing hundreds would be heading back at him.

I never discount the possibility of such a nutter doing so.

ok heres a thought for you whicj I may have posted before

supposing, one day you had a flash of genius (I know thats probably beyond most of you but still ...just suppose) and........

you invented a practical, working force field....

would you ....

give it to your nations armend foces
sell it to the highest bidder
publish it worldwide so everyone could have one
or

keep it for yourself and become master of the world

I'll leave you to guess MY choice....

BTW...said force shield is impervoius to ANYthing, firearms bombs nukes lasers enegy weapons.....anything

Nems wrote:Anyone that thinks Bitain could or would launch without a Americas say so is deluded. What about the Nuclear non- proliferation treaty? I cannot think of any reason for us keeping Trident. We are not a superpower and let's face it if someone launched, the world is toast.

Spot on.

Proponents of trident are living in the past in a desperate attempt to keep an illusion of world power.

The reality is that the power landscape has changed and nuclear power is becoming increasingly redundant.

victorismyhero wrote:ok heres a thought for you whicj I may have posted before

supposing, one day you had a flash of genius (I know thats probably beyond most of you but still       ...just suppose)  and........

you invented a practical, working force field....

would you ....

give it to your nations armend foces
sell it to the highest bidder
publish it worldwide so everyone could have one
or

keep it for yourself and become master of the world        

I'll leave you to guess MY choice....

Well by publisihing you would then render all armed forces near redundent. Leaving only those for ceremonial duties. But then how long would it be until someone then renders your force field redundent by developing a weapon that the force field would be ineffective against?
Intersting question.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Nems wrote:Anyone that thinks Bitain could or would launch without a Americas say so is deluded. What about the Nuclear non- proliferation treaty? I cannot think of any reason for us keeping Trident. We are not a superpower and let's face it if someone launched, the world is toast.

Spot on.

Proponents of trident are living in the past in a desperate attempt to keep an illusion of world power.

The reality is that the power landscape has changed and nuclear power is becoming increasingly redundant.

Exactly, the threat we currently face cannot be defeated by nuclear weaponry.

Nems wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Nems wrote:Anyone that thinks Bitain could or would launch without a Americas say so is deluded. What about the Nuclear non- proliferation treaty? I cannot think of any reason for us keeping Trident. We are not a superpower and let's face it if someone launched, the world is toast.

Spot on.

Proponents of trident are living in the past in a desperate attempt to keep an illusion of world power.

The reality is that the power landscape has changed and nuclear power is becoming increasingly redundant.

Exactly, the threat we currently face cannot be defeated by nuclear weaponry.

Correct, if we are attacked with nuclear weapons then we will probably all be toast and there is no cetainty that we will fire anything back. I don't know where this threat is going to come from and it certainly isn't North Korea who exhaust pipe system probably couldn't plop one down anywhere with any degree of certainty.

The US have extended the life of their Trident subs by around 20 years and have suggested that Britain do the same to give it more time to consider a long term policy on how best to defend the country. Who knows what systems will be available to combat a nuclear attack by then.

I wonder if Cameron would authorise a retalitory launch of our nuclear weapons if we were attacked. Lets face it if we are attacked then we are probably incinerated and screwed so what's the point of firing back and killing millions upon millions of innocent men women and children because of the acts of their leaders.

End of the line isn't it?