Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
the snap general election thread
Options
Comments
-
Just a reminder on security, Jezza said if he as PM was asked to authorise a drone strike on a known terrorist on thier scope there and then, he would want more information.
That this is a debate shows why the public is stupid and these topics should be left to the military. Nukes come in very different capabilities and destructive power
Megaton nukes = never under any circumstances
low kiloton tactical nukes = if necessary
If Jeremy understood this he would probably be accepting of using tactical nukes on aggressor nation armies
If May understood how powerful the larger nukes are she would also rule them out as any sane person would0 -
They can't !!
Haven't you worked it out yet?
To address the deficit fully would require a full term of a political party making themselves completely unelectable for maybe a decade.
This is because they have spent years telling us all we can have our cake; eat it; and also sell the very same cake at a craft fair.
Hey, I could have addressed the deficit in 5 years from 2010 :
- I'd have reneged on all the expensive PS pensions
- I'd have legalised drugs and prostitution to generate revenue
- I'd imprison anyone who helped corporations adopt aggressive tax avoidance policy
- I'd have scrapped foreign aid, saving £11bn+ per annum.
I'd never be elected again !
So, all we get from politicians are soft soaping, and excuses when they fail on any targets.
If Labour had won in 2010 and the deficit hadn't been cleared I don't believe you'd be saying the same thing. I also don't think the people who thanked your post would be quite so willing to excuse a Labour lie/ failure.0 -
Joe_Horner wrote: »Yes it was. In fact, it was so childishly simple it reduced a very complex moral and tactical problem to the absurd level of a soundbite.
Fortunately not every political leader - including, obviously, Corbyn - thinks and communicates in tweets.
That wasn't what he was asked, it's an inaccurate paraphrase of it.
He was given a woefully incomplete scenario - specifically of a drone strike - told that was all he was getting, and asked his decision. That question is genuinely unanswerable without more context unless you're a psychopath, and he was right to refuse to answer it.
Another important consideration to add to my list above would be "are we also in position to detain the suspect?". If we were then an extrajudicial killing not only goes against every principle of our justice system, under which we tell the locals we're acting, but is completely counter productive even if the guy's guilty as sin because there's another martyr on his way to the Virgin paradise.
But, please, don't let little practical matters like that get in the way of your apparent bloodlust.
Why did he not then set out some circumstances in which he would and would not authorize drone strikes. He chose to dodge the question by saying it was hypothetical. He could have gave examples of where he would have, and would not have authorized it based on international law. He could for example have clarified whether he thinks any strikes against ISIS are permitted under Article 51.
BTW - it would be nice if you wouldn't use condescending language. I've not directed any personal comments against you."Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" - Confucius0 -
If Labour had won in 2010 and the deficit hadn't been cleared I don't believe you'd be saying the same thing. I also don't think the people who thanked your post would be quite so willing to excuse a Labour lie/ failure.
Am I supposed to take consolation in a different type of failure?
My take on the 2 main parties is pretty simple :
- Tories : naked self interest / moderate financial competence
- Labour : better morals / fiscal incontinence
But you are right. Labour would promise more and therefore fail more.0 -
That this is a debate shows why the public is stupid and these topics should be left to the military. Nukes come in very different capabilities and destructive power
Megaton nukes = never under any circumstances
low kiloton tactical nukes = if necessary
If Jeremy understood this he would probably be accepting of using tactical nukes on aggressor nation armies
If May understood how powerful the larger nukes are she would also rule them out as any sane person would
To add to this, anti nuke folk should not rally to remove nukes but show rally to try and convince all nuclear countries to limit their nuclear capabilities to no more than 20 kilotons per warhead. The max setting on trident is 100kt the yanks and russians still retail megaton nukes which is crazy0 -
To add to this, anti nuke folk should not rally to remove nukes but show rally to try and convince all nuclear countries to limit their nuclear capabilities to no more than 20 kilotons per warhead. The max setting on trident is 100kt the yanks and russians still retail megaton nukes which is crazy
I know it depends partly on how they are detonated, but given Little Boy and Fat Man were 15 Kt and 20 Kt, tactical nukes are still massively destructive and would destroy entire cities."Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" - Confucius0 -
Why did he not then set out some circumstances in which he would and would not authorize drone strikes. He chose to dodge the question by saying it was hypothetical. He could have gave examples of where he would have, and would not have authorized it based on international law. He could for example have clarified whether he thinks any strikes against ISIS are permitted under Article 51.
BTW - it would be nice if you wouldn't use condescending language. I've not directly any comments personally against you.
Did you see the interview? No way was Paxman going to allow him to set up examples (not that that should have been the interviewee's job), he was intent on a simple yes / no answer.
I'm not claiming bias, btw, because Paxo behaved exactly the same with May - it's what he does. But to draw a conclusion that "He wouldn't let us kill the bad guys" from that interview is lunacy.
Incidentally, the end of my last post was intended as a lighthearted dig rather than condescension. I apologise if it didn't come across as such :beer:0 -
Excuse me? But, he does or rather doesn't communicate in his tweets!Joe_Horner wrote: »Fortunately not every political leader - including, obviously, Corbyn - thinks and communicates in tweets.
.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/800779565119336449/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.businessinsider.com%2Ftwitter-users-react-to-jeremy-corbyns-incomprehensible-tweet-2016-11I am just thinking out loud - nothing I say should be relied upon!
I do however reserve the right to be correct by accident.0 -
To add to this, anti nuke folk should not rally to remove nukes but show rally to try and convince all nuclear countries to limit their nuclear capabilities to no more than 20 kilotons per warhead. The max setting on trident is 100kt the yanks and russians still retail megaton nukes which is crazy
There was a Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty agreed in 1970, yet we have not progressed the nuclear disarmament as intended.
Indeed there is an argument that it has failed with North Korea expanding its nuclear capability.
Preperations are already underway for the review of this treaty in 2020 and it will be interesting to see what direction this goes in.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
I know it depends partly on how they are detonated, but given Little Boy and Fat Man were 15 Kt and 20 Kt, tactical nukes are still massively destructive and would destroy entire cities.
I would not want our military or PM to drop nukes onto populated cities, I would however think it just about acceptable to use them on military complexes or amassed forces in very low populated areas and then only if it gave us a huge advantage and there was little other options
The trident system is, if google is correct, a dial-a-ton system that enables each warhead to be 0.3 kilotons, 10 kilotons or 100 kilotons
This seems to give a good operational range, although the upper 100kt looks very dangerous. If I were corbyn I would probably say I would never use the 100 KT option but would be prepared to authorize the lower two settings if the military advisers assured me that was the best option given the situation.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards