• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding

Status
Not open for further replies.

PowderedToast

Junior Member
what a depressing night

"if a nuke was fired at us would you press the button to kill millions of innocents in the attacking country who had absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear war?"

absolutely idiotic
 
Have faith Crab. With luck, there's more people like that woman who slammed the audience for wanting to kill millions, than the others who wanted to kill millions.

Given that it's women who are swapping sides in large numbers, more than likely that will continue unlike those hot headed nuke loving morons tonight. Never seen an audience with a smattering of nuclear war fans before on tv.
 

curls

Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience 💤
How the fuck did we as a country turn so quickly to say "you need to kill millions of people, mostly innocent and say it right now or your a terrible leader"?

I've come to the sad conclusion that most people are actually mentally ill. :/
 

StayDead

Member
That isn't how nuclear defence policy works.

If you are unwilling to nuke your opponent as a first strike, then they can continuously threaten your position with nuclear strikes.

You end up in a permanent state of brinkmanship.

You have to be willing to deploy a nuclear attack. You have to be clear on when you would do it.

Or, we go as a modern world for the complete disarmament of weapons of mass destruction that serve no purpose in the modern world. Honestly, I hope history looks back at the past 100 years in absolute disgust. I can't believe that we even as a society thought making a weapon so powerful if used it would kill millions of other human beings was the right thing to do.

It's utterly disgusting and it makes me ashamed to think our species are happy to think about killing millions of other people as a good and right thing to do.
 
That isn't how nuclear defence policy works.

If you are unwilling to nuke your opponent as a first strike, then they can continuously threaten your position with nuclear strikes.

You end up in a permanent state of brinkmanship.

You have to be willing to deploy a nuclear attack. You have to be clear on when you would do it.

That is all bollocks in reality.

Nukes will only ever be used on other countries who also have nukes.

Nukes don't stop nukes.

Firing because someone threatened to fire can turn what could be an empty threat into a GUARANTEE.

Firing because someone else fired first will do what exactly?

Its all bullshit.

The truth is, whether you fire first, or someone else fires first, there is no fucking winning in nuclear warfare.
 

Ushojax

Should probably not trust the 7-11 security cameras quite so much
He should have promised to murder millions of people because it's politically expedient? Should he have promised to kick the foreigners out too if that was a vote winner?

Is it worth losing an election because of a hypothetical nuclear apocalypse? It should be a non-issue for any potential PM. His manifesto commits to Trident renewal FFS.
 
china and india both have no first strike policies. do you think they are wasting their money on nukes as no-one thinks they will attack?

The Atlantic sphere of international nuclear policy is different to the Pacific sphere.

There is, and there will be for many decades to come, the need for the guaranteed defence of Europe from internal and external threats. For that you need guaranteed nuclear defence.
 
"Why do you want to take the right to have a zero hours contract away from me?"
"Why do you want one?"
"So I can organise my hours."

That's called a timetable, you negotiate that separately as part of a contract, which coincidentally, a zero hours contract doesn't tend to factor in.

That delirious motherfucker has never worked a day in his life.

And would you look at that, May is basically served mostly softballs and Corbyn has a metric ton of stupid shit from idiotic cunts..

The country deserves to suffer, people need to feel the consequences of their actions. Now more than ever.
 

StayDead

Member
That delirious motherfucker has never worked a day in his life.

And would you look at that, May is basically served mostly softballs and Corbyn has a metric ton of stupid shit from idiotic cunts..

The country deserves to suffer, people need to feel the consequences of their actions. Now more than ever.

The sad thing is, is why do we have to suffer because of it.

That racist idiot old white man in the audience isn't going to suffer, none of those assholes are. The young people are going to suffer and it's all because of them and there's nothing we can do.
 

Faddy

Banned
The Atlantic sphere of international nuclear policy is different to the Pacific sphere.

There is, and there will be for many decades to come, the need for the guaranteed defence of Europe from internal and external threats. For that you need guaranteed nuclear defence.

Explain how that relates to first strike policies.

Trident was specifically designed to be a retaliatory system with the Continuous At Sea Deterrent
 

Audioboxer

Member
Corbyn should have had the balls to end trident if he didn't want this scrutiny.

Just say we will be the 2nd developed economy to unilaterally disarm for a better world. That's a more defensible position than paying for it and then ruling out using it.

And before anyone says rah right wing Labour MPs wouldn't back it, that's a fundamental problem with his leadership skills and is why I wouldn't vote for him.

He's trying to pander to... the same audience members who grilled him. On the one hand I understand the political chess playing, on the other, morals, if it's what you believe in stand behind it. If you can't get your party on board, join another party.

Hence why even although I'm happy to see soo many criticise those question askers and condemn nuclear war, I'd rather see far more wanting the UK to dismantle to save the money and lead the way. I can only hope this Question Time will lead more people to realise how mad it sounds when you truly think the way those in the audience do.
 
I can't even

Old white men getting their first hard-ons in ages at the thought of pre-emptively using nuclear weapons and ganging up on Corbyn as if the threat of rogue states about to hurl their missiles at our direction is suddenly a vitally imminent issue at this moment. Massive thumbs up for that young woman immediately after one of those bloodthirsty old white guys looking completely bewildered as to why they were all suddenly talking about nuclear armageddon.
 

Kwame120

Banned
That isn't how nuclear defence policy works.

If you are unwilling to nuke your opponent as a first strike, then they can continuously threaten your position with nuclear strikes.

You end up in a permanent state of brinkmanship.

You have to be willing to deploy a nuclear attack. You have to be clear on when you would do it.
Surely as long as retaliation isn't a non-option, the nuclear weapon works as a deterrent? I doubt that any country would risk being struck by a nuclear attack by "guessing" how much of a pacifist their opponent's leader is.

Honestly, it seems like a complicated issue to simply tackle with a "yes" or "no" because so much of it is dependent on hypothetical destruction. Corbyn couldn't really say "no" as that's leaving the country open to nuclear attack, but to say "yes" is admitting that he'd spitefully destroy another country, with such an assault not saving the UK from the incoming strike.
 

Empty

Member
The Atlantic sphere of international nuclear policy is different to the Pacific sphere.

There is, and there will be for many decades to come, the need for the guaranteed defence of Europe from internal and external threats. For that you need guaranteed nuclear defence.

i mean the spheres are different only in the sense that there's /more/ chance of a nuclear attack there (north korea and india/pakistan over kashmir) than in europe in current political circumstances yet they persist as whether you have first use or not isn't relevant to national security in the event of a nuclear apocalypse.
 
Honestly, he should jusr fucking LIE. Do what it takes to get some power. Fuck this principled, purity shit - the other side don't care and will always win.

For fucks sake.
 
The sad thing is, is why do we have to suffer because of it.

That racist idiot old white man in the audience isn't going to suffer, none of those assholes are. The young people are going to suffer and it's all because of them and there's nothing we can do.

Suffering will hopefully shake people out of this stupor they are in.

It's not nice and people will very likely die, but what else is left? Just look at the audience tonight, that's what middle England is right now...
 

Audioboxer

Member
Good ole Crisp Man is always a decent bloke

pc8tV2m.png


As always Piers Morgan is a thundercunt.
 

Syder

Member
Good ole Crisp Man is always a decent bloke

pc8tV2m.png


As always Piers Morgan is a thundercunt.
I seriously think deep inside all these people think in a Fallout situation they'd be the ones wandering the wasteland killing Yao Guai when in reality they'd be burnt to a crisp without even realising what's happened.
 

curls

Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience 💤
Or just very, very angry. Why? Because they read the news and have been manipulated to feel a certain way about things.

Oh yes. People seem addicted to their media drama. You look at the types of media manipulation to realise how carefully curated it all is.
 

xandaca

Member
Neither particularly stood out there. May was more composed, but still robotic and had little of substance to offer. Corbyn was more genuine and did well when given chances to restate his views on rebalancing towards a more fair society, but stammered through questions of defence, budgeting and his past associations. The heavy emphasis on the nuclear question was strange, but then again, it's the same principle as why you can't say you're not going to leave EU negotiations without a deal. Nobody sensible wants to press the button/leave without a deal and recognises the major damage it could do, but if you refuse even the possibility, you're leaving yourself completely vulnerable to getting the shit kicked out of you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom