'We need, without looking defensive, to seal down the Trident thing': Labour's election campaign in crisis as bombshell leaked tape reveals Jeremy Corbyn thinks it would be 'bonkers' to ever use Britain's nuclear deterrent

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4569528/tape-reveals-Jeremy-Corbyn-bonkers-nuclear-deterrent.html#ixzz4iyzNXkQu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


imagine the security services with eyes on an imminent attacker asking corbyn for permission to open fire.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4569528/tape-reveals-Jeremy-Corbyn-bonkers-nuclear-deterrent.html#ixzz4iyzNXkQu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


imagine the security services with eyes on an imminent attacker asking corbyn for permission to open fire.

Indeed, he would surrender to ISIS

Good of you to instantly use a tragedy to score political points... of course it's not like this is the 3rd attack in May's Britain or anything..

Eilzel wrote:Good of you to instantly use a tragedy to score political points... of course it's not like this is the 3rd attack in May's Britain or anything..

Fuck you Eilzel, the fact is Corbyn would bow down to terrorism and has supported terrorists.

You think I want to make political points off this? No I do not

No, the man would make the problem ten times worse

So again fuck you

Do not start swearing at me didge. I was originally addressing the devil anyway. Touch a nerve did I?

Eilzel wrote:Do not start swearing at me didge. I was originally addressing the devil anyway. Touch a nerve did I?

I will swear when you also made a political point over this contradicting yourself

Yes i am angry to fuck over this attack, so dont push it

Apologies Eilzel, I do not mean to be angry at you.

Just am sick of these scum

But you were also hypocritical

The initial points made angered me, didge. I just responded with like for like. Not always the best strategy, but it does seem Corbyn is attacked over everything, regardless.

We are all sick of terrorism, and something needs to actually be done proactively to prevent it, more so than is already happening.

Eilzel wrote:The initial points made angered me, didge. I just responded with like for like. Not always the best strategy, but it does seem Corbyn is attacked over everything, regardless.

We are all sick of terrorism, and something needs to actually be done proactively to prevent it, more so than is already happening.

Fair enough mate, and sorry again for my outburst.

As to prevention what do you think needs to be done.

At present as i said there is 3,000 active suspects being looked at. To watch them alone would take 180,000 people, 60 people per one suspect round the clock. Do you know how much money that is in wages alone let alone other costs?

So many attacks have been already prevented, we cannot stop them all. What we have to do is target those who are extreme and get them off the streets and those foreign out of this country. That requires new laws

Obviously I'm no security expert, but yes, the most extreme should be watched and those considered a risk should be detained. We have a huge surveillance apparatus, let's use it to seriously crack down on extremism.

Eilzel wrote:Obviously I'm no security expert, but yes, the most extreme should be watched and those considered a risk should be detained. We have a huge surveillance apparatus, let's use it to seriously crack down on extremism.

it takes around 30 people to monitor one person 24/7
23000 would require almost 3/4million spooks to just watch them.
even with the lower figure of 3000 hard line terrorists it is 90000 officers.

We cannot watch even a fraction of them .

Eilzel wrote:Good of you to instantly use a tragedy to score political points... of course it's not like this is the 3rd attack in May's Britain or anything..

this is exactly a scenario that corbyn might have to respond to and one he refused to answer numerous times during the debate the other day.
Many terrorists have been killed by drone strikes which the PM will have authorised.

In a week corbyn could be PM, I doubt he will, but he could and he would have to respond to these situations decisively and he isn't a decisive person.

Eilzel wrote:Obviously I'm no security expert, but yes, the most extreme should be watched and those considered a risk should be detained. We have a huge surveillance apparatus, let's use it to seriously crack down on extremism.

But the point is Eilzel, is that to just monitor the current 3,000, would take 180,000 people. If we took that in wages of 20k, that is 3.6 billion. I think we need to do more. That we get rid of religious schools and shut down any Mosque that has extremism taught. We need to get tough on this. I dont want to see the many Muslims who have integrated effected, but they have to get on board also with taking on extremism. I mean the big poll done last year showed that two thirds of Muslims would not shop extremists to the Police.
That is disconcerting to say the least

Eilzel wrote:Do not start swearing at me didge. I was originally addressing the devil anyway. Touch a nerve did I?

when the pictures of the dead surface over the next few hours perhaps you might get angry as well.
I want a PM who will react with determination not prevarication.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Do not start swearing at me didge. I was originally addressing the devil anyway. Touch a nerve did I?

when the pictures of the dead surface over the next few hours perhaps you might get angry as well.
I want a PM who will react with determination not prevarication.

Leave it out Flap, we are all angry, no need to get at Eilzel.

i was wrong to do so

Eilzel wrote:The initial points made angered me, didge. I just responded with like for like. Not always the best strategy, but it does seem Corbyn is attacked over everything, regardless.

We are all sick of terrorism, and something needs to actually be done proactively to prevent it, more so than is already happening.

did you read the article. He says he would never use trident. the whole point of a nuclear deterrent is that the deterrent factor come from the fact you will use it. If the enemy knows you will never use it even after a first strike then what is stopping them attacking you.

The man is not fit for office and has never held office in his entire career for obvious reasons.

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
when the pictures of the dead surface over the next few hours perhaps you might get angry as well.
I want a PM who will react with determination not prevarication.

Leave it out Flap, we are all angry, no need to get at Eilzel.

i was wrong to do so

say the man who had a meltdown at him.
I will do my utmost to destroy any argument that suggests corbyn should be PM.
the man was unfit for office before he became leader and he hasn't changed his spots since then.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Leave it out Flap, we are all angry, no need to get at Eilzel.

i was wrong to do so

say the man who had a meltdown at him.
I will do my utmost to destroy any argument that suggests corbyn should be PM.
the man was unfit for office before he became leader and he hasn't changed his spots since then.

Yes and I had the decency to admit i was wrong

I think you should stop being a twat, that would be most helpful

i really could give two shits about your political views at the moment.

People have been injured and murdered.

Show some sensitivity you wally

This has nothing to do with terrorist attacks anyway.

Corbyn may well be right in that there's not much point in using nuclear weapons after the UK has been attacked by them, but now the Mail has just announced  his views to the world, which is pretty stupid. The point is that nuclear weapons are supposed to be a deterrent so that the UK doesn't get attacked in the first place.

The real issue here is why anyone would think that a phone conversation on a train would be private.

Raggamuffin wrote:This has nothing to do with terrorist attacks anyway.

Corbyn may well be right in that there's not much point in using nuclear weapons after the UK has been attacked by them, but now the Mail has just announced  his views to the world, which is pretty stupid. The point is that nuclear weapons are supposed to be a deterrent so that the UK doesn't get attacked in the first place.

If weapons were fired at us, I and many others would expect the Uk to fire back at those who had attacked us.

To not do so would leave the Uk then vulnerable to be invaded and taken over by that nation who would then if we did not attack, be free to do so unscathed.

So Corbyn would leave the Uk defenseless as people will survive such an attack. Yes millions would die, but then the survivors would then be vulnerable to the attackers invading and taking over the country. Nobody is going to wait until the misled hits before they retaliate Rags

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This has nothing to do with terrorist attacks anyway.

Corbyn may well be right in that there's not much point in using nuclear weapons after the UK has been attacked by them, but now the Mail has just announced  his views to the world, which is pretty stupid. The point is that nuclear weapons are supposed to be a deterrent so that the UK doesn't get attacked in the first place.

If weapons were fired at us, I and many others would expect the Uk to fire back at those who had attacked us.

To not do so would leave the Uk then vulnerable to be invaded and taken over by that nation who would then if we did not attack, be free to do so unscathed.

So Corbyn would leave the Uk defenseless as people will survive such an attack. Yes millions would die, but then the survivors would then be vulnerable to the attackers invading and taking over the country. Nobody is going to wait until the misled hits before they retaliate Rags

I would expect the leader of the country to say they would fire back - that's the point of a deterrent, but what would be the actual point? I guess it depends on the severity of an attack, and whether retaliation would prevent further attacks. I think the common view is that a nuclear attack would be an all-out thing, not confined to small areas.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


If weapons were fired at us, I and many others would expect the Uk to fire back at those who had attacked us.

To not do so would leave the Uk then vulnerable to be invaded and taken over by that nation who would then if we did not attack, be free to do so unscathed.

So Corbyn would leave the Uk defenseless as people will survive such an attack. Yes millions would die, but then the survivors would then be vulnerable to the attackers invading and taking over the country. Nobody is going to wait until the misled hits before they retaliate Rags

I would expect the leader of the country to say they would fire back - that's the point of a deterrent, but what would be the actual point? I guess it depends on the severity of an attack, and whether retaliation would prevent further attacks. I think the common view is that a nuclear attack would be an all-out thing, not confined to small areas.

Its not just a deterrent Rags, it can also be a first strike, against a severe threat.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would expect the leader of the country to say they would fire back - that's the point of a deterrent, but what would be the actual point? I guess it depends on the severity of an attack, and whether retaliation would prevent further attacks. I think the common view is that a nuclear attack would be an all-out thing, not confined to small areas.

Its not just a deterrent Rags, it can also be a first strike, against a severe threat.

Yes, but that only works against countries which don't have nuclear weapons. If the Americans had thought that Japan would be able to nuke New York, I doubt they would have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its not just a deterrent Rags, it can also be a first strike, against a severe threat.

Yes, but that only works against countries which don't have nuclear weapons. If the Americans had thought that Japan would be able to nuke New York, I doubt they would have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It can work against countries that do have them. Even more so if you have a defense system to take out nuclear rockets. I think they would have even more so dropped the bombs if they thought the Japanese had such weapons Rags.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but that only works against countries which don't have nuclear weapons. If the Americans had thought that Japan would be able to nuke New York, I doubt they would have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It can work against countries that do have them. Even more so if you have a defense system to take out nuclear rockets. I think they would have even more so dropped the bombs if they thought the Japanese had such weapons Rags.

The Americans would have had to destroy the whole of Japan before they had a chance to retaliate. That doesn't really apply these days - any country with nuclear weapons is going to have a plan which prevents destruction of their weapons before they can retaliate.

Anyway, a nuclear attack on another country would be an aggressive act, so I see nothing wrong with Corbyn saying he wouldn't do that. The issue is whether or not he would use nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack on this country. The phone conversation is one-sided, so we don't know what he actually said about that, but I get the impression that he would think it was pointless.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


It can work against countries that do have them. Even more so if you have a defense system to take out nuclear rockets. I think they would have even more so dropped the bombs if they thought the Japanese had such weapons Rags.

The Americans would have had to destroy the whole of Japan before they had a chance to retaliate. That doesn't really apply these days - any country with nuclear weapons is going to have a plan which prevents destruction of their weapons before they can retaliate.

Anyway, a nuclear attack on another country would be an aggressive act, so I see nothing wrong with Corbyn saying he wouldn't do that. The issue is whether or not he would use nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack on this country. The phone conversation is one-sided, so we don't know what he actually said about that, but I get the impression that he would think it was pointless.  

Would they?

The Japanese could only bomb the US using air ballons. They had no capability of reaching the US with their bombers rags. They did not have the range to fly to the US

I see everything wrong with Corbyns views not to attack, so we will have to agree to differ on this based on my earlier vies

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Americans would have had to destroy the whole of Japan before they had a chance to retaliate. That doesn't really apply these days - any country with nuclear weapons is going to have a plan which prevents destruction of their weapons before they can retaliate.

Anyway, a nuclear attack on another country would be an aggressive act, so I see nothing wrong with Corbyn saying he wouldn't do that. The issue is whether or not he would use nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack on this country. The phone conversation is one-sided, so we don't know what he actually said about that, but I get the impression that he would think it was pointless.  

Would they?

The Japanese could only bomb the US using air ballons. They had no capability of reaching the US with their bombers rags. They did not have the range to fly to the US

I see everything wrong with Corbyns views not to attack, so we will have to agree to differ on this based on my earlier vies

Yes, I know the Japanese couldn't have done it, but I said that if Japan had been capable of dropping nuclear weapons on America, the Americans would never had nuked them. Of course they wouldn't - it would have been madness.

The point is that Corbyn knows that retaliation is fairly pointless, and an attack on another country with nukes is also pointless if they have nukes themselves. What's stupid is telling anyone that - what matters is whether or not another country thinks we would use nukes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Would they?

The Japanese could only bomb the US using air ballons. They had no capability of reaching the US with their bombers rags. They did not have the range to fly to the US

I see everything wrong with Corbyns views not to attack, so we will have to agree to differ on this based on my earlier vies

Yes, I know the Japanese couldn't have done it, but I said that if Japan had been capable of dropping nuclear weapons on America, the Americans would never had nuked them. Of course they wouldn't - it would have been madness.

The point is that Corbyn knows that retaliation is fairly pointless, and an attack on another country with nukes is also pointless if they have nukes themselves. What's stupid is telling anyone that - what matters is whether or not another country thinks we would use nukes.

Of course they would have nuked them before the Japanese could do so to them.

You fail to understand the Japanese mentality at the time with suicide attacks

Its not pointless as seen to retaliate, as i have shown, it would leave the Uk defenseless to that attacker.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, I know the Japanese couldn't have done it, but I said that if Japan had been capable of dropping nuclear weapons on America, the Americans would never had nuked them. Of course they wouldn't - it would have been madness.

The point is that Corbyn knows that retaliation is fairly pointless, and an attack on another country with nukes is also pointless if they have nukes themselves. What's stupid is telling anyone that - what matters is whether or not another country thinks we would use nukes.

Of course they would have nuked them before the Japanese could do so to them.

You fail to understand the Japanese mentality at the time with suicide attacks

Its not pointless as seen to retaliate, as i have shown, it would leave the Uk defenseless to that attacker.

I think you're completely missing the point here. If the Americans had thought that the Japanese could retaliate with nuclear weapons, they would never have nuked them in the first place. That's the whole point of having nuclear weapons. Nobody with any sense would use them these days because they know there's a high chance of retaliation. That wasn't the case back then. Corbyn understands the situation very well, but he shouldn't be saying what he thinks - that's just stupid.

What is really interesting here is the actual nature of the phone call. As far as I can see, the only paper which is reporting it is the Mail. I didn't see the debate which had just happened, so I don't know what was said. I also don't know who initiated this phone call. However, if you were Corbyn, wouldn't you ask Milne where he was and if anyone could overhear him? I mean, what else is discussed within earshot of the general public?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Of course they would have nuked them before the Japanese could do so to them.

You fail to understand the Japanese mentality at the time with suicide attacks

Its not pointless as seen to retaliate, as i have shown, it would leave the Uk defenseless to that attacker.

I think you're completely missing the point here. If the Americans had thought that the Japanese could retaliate with nuclear weapons, they would never have nuked them in the first place. That's the whole point of having nuclear weapons. Nobody with any sense would use them these days because they know there's a high chance of retaliation. That wasn't the case back then. Corbyn understands the situation very well, but he shouldn't be saying what he thinks - that's just stupid.

What is really interesting here is the actual nature of the phone call. As far as I can see, the only paper which is reporting it is the Mail. I didn't see the debate which had just happened, so I don't know what was said. I also don't know who initiated this phone call. However, if you were Corbyn, wouldn't you ask Milne where he was and if anyone could overhear him? I mean, what else is discussed within earshot of the general public?

I think you are missing the point that the Japanese would not have any qualms about using Nukes. They had even been sent radioactive material by the Germans, sent by Uboats. They never completed or were able to use these bombs, but they would have don. The fact is you are ignoring that the Japanese given the chance would have used such weapons against the US. So you ignore the fact that the Japanese at the time, viewed non-Japanses as sub humans. It was also a very racist regime. So if the US knew that the Japanese had bombs, they would not have hesitated for a second in nuking them..

He stumbled over this on the debate on TV

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you're completely missing the point here. If the Americans had thought that the Japanese could retaliate with nuclear weapons, they would never have nuked them in the first place. That's the whole point of having nuclear weapons. Nobody with any sense would use them these days because they know there's a high chance of retaliation. That wasn't the case back then. Corbyn understands the situation very well, but he shouldn't be saying what he thinks - that's just stupid.

What is really interesting here is the actual nature of the phone call. As far as I can see, the only paper which is reporting it is the Mail. I didn't see the debate which had just happened, so I don't know what was said. I also don't know who initiated this phone call. However, if you were Corbyn, wouldn't you ask Milne where he was and if anyone could overhear him? I mean, what else is discussed within earshot of the general public?

I think you are missing the point that the Japanese would not have any qualms about using Nukes. They had even been sent radioactive material by the Germans, sent by Uboats. They never completed or were able to use these bombs, but they would have don. The fact is you are ignoring that the Japanese given the chance would have used such weapons against the US. So you ignore the fact that the Japanese at the time, viewed non-Japanses as sub humans. It was also a very racist regime. So if the US knew that the Japanese had bombs, they would not have hesitated for a second in nuking them..

He stumbled over this on the debate on TV

Yes, I know! That's why the Americans would not have nuked them if the Japanese could have nuked them back, unless the Americans could be sure of destroying the whole country and rendered them incapable of retaliating. The Americans would not nuke anyone these days, unless they were completely mad of course.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I think you are missing the point that the Japanese would not have any qualms about using Nukes. They had even been sent radioactive material by the Germans, sent by Uboats. They never completed or were able to use these bombs, but they would have don. The fact is you are ignoring that the Japanese given the chance would have used such weapons against the US. So you ignore the fact that the Japanese at the time, viewed non-Japanses as sub humans. It was also a very racist regime. So if the US knew that the Japanese had bombs, they would not have hesitated for a second in nuking them..

He stumbled over this on the debate on TV

Yes, I know! That's why the Americans would not have nuked them if the Japanese could have nuked them back, unless the Americans could be sure of destroying the whole country and rendered them incapable of retaliating. The Americans would not nuke anyone these days, unless they were completely mad of course.

Off course they would have done, because they would have rightly believed that the Japanese would use them against them. So they would use them, before the Japanese could against them. That is the point you are missing here. You forget that the US was committed to defeating Japan and even more so when Russia joined the war, they would have been afraid of Russian invaded Japan itself. Sorry to burst your bubble here rags, but in any given situation at the time, the US would have nuked them, if they thought for one second the Japs had just developed some.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, I know! That's why the Americans would not have nuked them if the Japanese could have nuked them back, unless the Americans could be sure of destroying the whole country and rendered them incapable of retaliating. The Americans would not nuke anyone these days, unless they were completely mad of course.

Off course they would have done, because they would have rightly believed that the Japanese would use them against them. So they would use them, before the Japanese could against them. That is the point you are missing here. You forget that the US was committed to defeating Japan and even more so when Russia joined the war, they would have been afraid of Russian invaded Japan itself. Sorry to burst your bubble here rags, but in any given situation at the time, the US would have nuked them, if they thought for one second the Japs had just developed some.

No! They would not have nuked Japan because that would have guaranteed that the Japanese would nuke them back. They nuked the Japanese because they knew the Japanese could not nuke them back.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is that they are a deterrent. It's a kind of psychological warfare where nobody actually uses them unless they're mad. That is the point of Corbyn's views, and he's not wrong there. However, it's very important that the UK maintains its capability of using nukes, and that any PM does not tell anyone that he/she would not use them in any circumstances.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Off course they would have done, because they would have rightly believed that the Japanese would use them against them. So they would use them, before the Japanese could against them. That is the point you are missing here. You forget that the US was committed to defeating Japan and even more so when Russia joined the war, they would have been afraid of Russian invaded Japan itself. Sorry to burst your bubble here rags, but in any given situation at the time, the US would have nuked them, if they thought for one second the Japs had just developed some.

No! They would not have nuked Japan because that would have guaranteed that the Japanese would nuke them back. They nuked the Japanese because they knew the Japanese could not nuke them back.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is that they are a deterrent. It's a kind of psychological warfare where nobody actually uses them unless they're mad. That is the point of Corbyn's views, and he's not wrong there. However, it's very important that the UK maintains its capability of using nukes, and that any PM does not tell anyone that he/she would not use them in any circumstances.

 

Think what you like rags, but this is going nowhere and there is no way the yanks would have not used nukes, as you keep ignoring the history for the time.

If you think the atom bomb was developed as a deterrent, then that is where you are going wrong

It later became to be seen as a deterrent, but it was developed as a strike and war winning bomb.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No! They would not have nuked Japan because that would have guaranteed that the Japanese would nuke them back. They nuked the Japanese because they knew the Japanese could not nuke them back.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is that they are a deterrent. It's a kind of psychological warfare where nobody actually uses them unless they're mad. That is the point of Corbyn's views, and he's not wrong there. However, it's very important that the UK maintains its capability of using nukes, and that any PM does not tell anyone that he/she would not use them in any circumstances.

 

Think what you like rags, but this is going nowhere and there is no way the yanks would have not used nukes, as you keep ignoring the history for the time.

If you think the atom bomb was developed as a deterrent, then that is where you are going wrong

It later became to be seen as a deterrent, but it was developed as a strike and war winning bomb.

It's going nowhere because you're not concentrating on the correct issues. It doesn't matter why the atom bomb was developed, what matters is how nukes are seen now.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:
 

Think what you like rags, but this is going nowhere and there is no way the yanks would have not used nukes, as you keep ignoring the history for the time.

If you think the atom bomb was developed as a deterrent, then that is where you are going wrong

It later became to be seen as a deterrent, but it was developed as a strike and war winning bomb.

It's going nowhere because you're not concentrating on the correct issues. It doesn't matter why the atom bomb was developed, what matters is how nukes are seen now.

Of course it matters why they developed the bomb, that is essential to why they then ended up using them, the major flaw in your argument.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Obviously I'm no security expert, but yes, the most extreme should be watched and those considered a risk should be detained. We have a huge surveillance apparatus, let's use it to seriously crack down on extremism.

it takes around 30 people to monitor one person 24/7
23000 would require almost 3/4million spooks to just watch them.
even with the lower figure of 3000 hard line terrorists it is 90000 officers.

We cannot watch even a fraction of them .

"... 30 people to monitor one person 24/7."

Council workers have nothing over those national security/anti-terrorism goons..

IF those estimates are anywhere near the 'real world' reality...

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's going nowhere because you're not concentrating on the correct issues. It doesn't matter why the atom bomb was developed, what matters is how nukes are seen now.

Of course it matters why they developed the bomb, that is essential to why they then ended up using them, the major flaw in your argument.

It doesn't matter at all, and if you can't move past that, there's no hope for this discussion.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
it takes around 30 people to monitor one person 24/7
23000 would require almost 3/4million spooks to just watch them.
even with the lower figure of 3000 hard line terrorists it is 90000 officers.

We cannot watch even a fraction of them .

"... 30 people to monitor one person 24/7."

Council workers have nothing over those national security/anti-terrorism goons..

IF those estimates are anywhere near the 'real world' reality...

It would be more like 60 people needed. That is the numbers given by MI5