Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
Eclassy said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Because we have nuclear weapons because we really really don't want to use them
Where as north korea wants nuclear weapons because they really really want to use them
How do you know this? Maybe cause the press said so. NK have had nuclear weapons for a while now but havent used them yet. The good thing (for them) is that it looks like having it works well as a deterent as no one has thought it wise to try to invade them like other countries have been.Where as north korea wants nuclear weapons because they really really want to use them
It is just scaremongering that countries like Iran will use it when there is absolutely no evidence to show that they would. Iran hasnt invaded any countries in the last 15 years. We on the other hand have overtly and by proxy invaded and some may say destroyed countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. If you asked someone who woke up from a 30 year coma who is is more likely to use nuclear weapons based on recent history, I am sure you know what there answer would be
There is a non-proliferation treaty to stop others getting these deadly weapons, made those who had them to give them up but we go on and budget £100b to upgrade ours. Pardon my lack of knowledge but it just makes no sense to me.
Its a case of do as I say not as I do.
Eclassy said:
How do you know this? Maybe cause the press said so. NK have had nuclear weapons for a while now but havent used them yet. The good thing (for them) is that it looks like having it works well as a deterent as no one has thought it wise to try to invade them like other countries have been.
It is just scaremongering that countries like Iran will use it when there is absolutely no evidence to show that they would. Iran hasnt invaded any countries in the last 15 years. We on the other hand have overtly and by proxy invaded and some may say destroyed countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. If you asked someone who woke up from a 30 year coma who is is more likely to use nuclear weapons based on recent history, I am sure you know what there answer would be
There is a non-proliferation treaty to stop others getting these deadly weapons, made those who had them to give them up but we go on and budget £100b to upgrade ours. Pardon my lack of knowledge but it just makes no sense to me.
Its a case of do as I say not as I do.
Please. Stop.It is just scaremongering that countries like Iran will use it when there is absolutely no evidence to show that they would. Iran hasnt invaded any countries in the last 15 years. We on the other hand have overtly and by proxy invaded and some may say destroyed countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. If you asked someone who woke up from a 30 year coma who is is more likely to use nuclear weapons based on recent history, I am sure you know what there answer would be
There is a non-proliferation treaty to stop others getting these deadly weapons, made those who had them to give them up but we go on and budget £100b to upgrade ours. Pardon my lack of knowledge but it just makes no sense to me.
Its a case of do as I say not as I do.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/nor...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/nor...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/north-korea-wa...
(there are literally thousands of others)
And some light reading regarding Iran
http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf
So this is most likely why the west is a bit concerned with Iran/NK's desire for nuclear weapons. Or hey, perhaps they're just "scaremongering", you know, like when Cameron threatens Francois Holland with nuclear annihilation, or when Obama threatens to turn Russia into a nuclear wasteland. Which they often do (right?).
I'm all for our nuclear deterrent but (just playing devil's advocate here) at what stage would you actually press the button? I seem to remember a 'Yes, Prime Minister' episode where Sir Humphrey was asking the PM when he would actually use a nuclear device?
What REALISTIC scenario would you foresee the UK deploying one? (stating 'not knowing the unknown' doesn't count!).
What REALISTIC scenario would you foresee the UK deploying one? (stating 'not knowing the unknown' doesn't count!).
Eclassy said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Because we have nuclear weapons because we really really don't want to use them
Where as north korea wants nuclear weapons because they really really want to use them
How do you know this? Maybe cause the press said so. NK have had nuclear weapons for a while now but havent used them yet. The good thing (for them) is that it looks like having it works well as a deterent as no one has thought it wise to try to invade them like other countries have been.Where as north korea wants nuclear weapons because they really really want to use them
It is just scaremongering that countries like Iran will use it when there is absolutely no evidence to show that they would. Iran hasnt invaded any countries in the last 15 years. We on the other hand have overtly and by proxy invaded and some may say destroyed countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. If you asked someone who woke up from a 30 year coma who is is more likely to use nuclear weapons based on recent history, I am sure you know what there answer would be
There is a non-proliferation treaty to stop others getting these deadly weapons, made those who had them to give them up but we go on and budget £100b to upgrade ours. Pardon my lack of knowledge but it just makes no sense to me.
Its a case of do as I say not as I do.
It's like having an insurance policy, you don't use it very often, but it gives a warm feeling(*) that you have it there.
I wish we lived in a world which didn't require such things, but unfortunately we do and probably always will.
(*) especially if you sit too close to the warhead
When would the big red button be pressed? Probably as soon as incoming missiles were detected..
Who is to say our nuclear deterrent is full of nuclear stuff. It could be stuffed full of unicorns and rainbows.... Nobody knows, as hopefully it won't be needed for use...
World war 3 will happen one day. Quite a few countries are getting tooled up with nuclear arms. To not have a fully functioning nuclear deterrent would be very foolhardy.
Who is to say our nuclear deterrent is full of nuclear stuff. It could be stuffed full of unicorns and rainbows.... Nobody knows, as hopefully it won't be needed for use...
World war 3 will happen one day. Quite a few countries are getting tooled up with nuclear arms. To not have a fully functioning nuclear deterrent would be very foolhardy.
The problem with a nuclear deterrent is that it relies entirely on it deterring the other side (MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction). This worked fine during the Cold War when neither the USSR or the USA had any wish to see the world end. The trouble is we are now dealing with countries with a belief system that the end of the world is not such a bad idea particularly if it wipes out the infidel and 'kufar'.
In which case Trident is not going to be of much use if Iran manages to acquire a nuclear capability and lets one off over Israel
We'll all be living in caves (well, the uncontaminated survivors will)
In which case Trident is not going to be of much use if Iran manages to acquire a nuclear capability and lets one off over Israel
We'll all be living in caves (well, the uncontaminated survivors will)
Fastchas said:
I'm all for our nuclear deterrent but (just playing devil's advocate here) at what stage would you actually press the button? I seem to remember a 'Yes, Prime Minister' episode where Sir Humphrey was asking the PM when he would actually use a nuclear device?
What REALISTIC scenario would you foresee the UK deploying one? (stating 'not knowing the unknown' doesn't count!).
A short time after the confirmation of incoming ballistic missiles, I would imagine. (But don't worry, launching computers all have noughts and crosses loaded).What REALISTIC scenario would you foresee the UK deploying one? (stating 'not knowing the unknown' doesn't count!).
Pakistan, cough, hotbed of Islamic nutters, and since they were humiliated by the Bin Laden raid, they have employed a break up and rapid movement strategy that increases the risk of an accident or a warhead falling into the wrong hands, and ensures the American plan to secure the stockpile in the event of instability, is now completely unworkable. Apparently their warheads are de-mated from missiles and kept apart though.
Eclassy said:
How do you know this? Maybe cause the press said so. NK have had nuclear weapons for a while now but havent used them yet. The good thing (for them) is that it looks like having it works well as a deterent as no one has thought it wise to try to invade them like other countries have been.
Its a case of do as I say not as I do.
NK were left alone thanks to their special relationship with China, who had nukes for a long time. But that wasn't good enough for NK, they wanted to be in the top club, as do a lot of other nations. Certain nations keeping nukes and insisting no one else can keep them acts as an accelerant for all nations who want them.Its a case of do as I say not as I do.
The number of nations who have nukes will only increase sadly.
Mermaid said:
Growth industry, and is there anyone who has the moral high ground on why they should have them and not others?
I'll bite.I can see 4 categories.
1/ Countries wish to join the elite club.
2/ Countries wish to have a deterrent of last resort
3/ Countries wish to wipe other countries off the map.
4/ Countries wishing for the end of the world to happen - So we can all be closer to God, Allah, (insert your deity of choice )
Regarding No 3 & 4. - I think most PH's can name some of those countries.
So... moral high ground - perhaps those countries wishing 3 and 4 - it wouldn't be entirely wise to let them have nukes.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Pakistan, cough, hotbed of Islamic nutters, and since they were humiliated by the Bin Laden raid, they have employed a break up and rapid movement strategy that increases the risk of an accident or a warhead falling into the wrong hands, and ensures the American plan to secure the stockpile in the event of instability, is now completely unworkable. Apparently their warheads are de-mated from missiles and kept apart though.
Have you read the novel 'Wildfire' by Nelson DeMille? Certainly makes you think...!ukwill said:
Wow. I actually thought you were on a wind up. How depressing to read that you were actually serious.
Why yes, I think it's despicable that the UK Govt isn't all that enamoured with Iran/NK wishing to have nuclear weapons. What with both states threatening to annihilate/wipe out other nations. I mean hey, what could go wrong?
I think I'll continue to think that you were trolling. It's probably for the best.
I really, really hope he was trolling. Nobody can be that uninformed, can they?Why yes, I think it's despicable that the UK Govt isn't all that enamoured with Iran/NK wishing to have nuclear weapons. What with both states threatening to annihilate/wipe out other nations. I mean hey, what could go wrong?
I think I'll continue to think that you were trolling. It's probably for the best.
I don't mind people that have no real understanding of geopolitics. I do mind people that have no real understanding of geopolitics but form entrenched, polarised positions. Because they're ultimately indefensible apart from 'well this is how I feel because this is how I feel because...'
Mermaid said:
Growth industry, and is there anyone who has the moral high ground on why they should have them and not others?
Since when has geopolitics been about morals? They play no part in it, it's about security and defending the Wests' interests. People like Sturgeon would have us at the mercy of any tin pot country that could acquire them, she would shamefully trade our security for a few seats round the cabinet table.
silverous said:
Hesaltine was just pure class in my view, never seemed awkward (other than when asked if he knew who Ant and Dec were) and seemed like a true statesman throughout.
When I saw Tarzan was on I actually cringed slightly as a few of his more recent appearances were not his finest moments; to the extent that on one occasion he was slightly embarrassing to the point that I thought his mind was going.On Thursday this week, he just came across as someone who was a little old rather than losing it and I loved his honesty about Ant and Dec.
'50 shades of Red' was a lovely set up and caught Flint (especially) out - hook line and sinker!
Sturgeon was an embarrassment and at times was almost ridiculed. I have not seen her that bad before; and that is really saying something when my opinion of her was pretty poor to begin with.
It was nice to see Tarzan back as a figure that I agreed with and admired over the years! He is what I would call a 'proper Politician' and not one of these modern 'career politicians'
When did it suddenly become so easy for people to have a career in Politics without ever having a proper job? It used to be rare - it now appears the 'norm'! And how much worse it is as a result?
Flint is bl00dy awful as well - and to think I thought she was reasonably attractive when she first came on the scene????
Slaav said:
When I saw Tarzan was on I actually cringed slightly as a few of his more recent appearances were not his finest moments; to the extent that on one occasion he was slightly embarrassing to the point that I thought his mind was going.
On Thursday this week, he just came across as someone who was a little old rather than losing it and I loved his honesty about Ant and Dec.
'50 shades of Red' was a lovely set up and caught Flint (especially) out - hook line and sinker!
Sturgeon was an embarrassment and at times was almost ridiculed. I have not seen her that bad before; and that is really saying something when my opinion of her was pretty poor to begin with.
It was nice to see Tarzan back as a figure that I agreed with and admired over the years! He is what I would call a 'proper Politician' and not one of these modern 'career politicians'
When did it suddenly become so easy for people to have a career in Politics without ever having a proper job? It used to be rare - it now appears the 'norm'! And how much worse it is as a result?
Flint is bl00dy awful as well - and to think I thought she was reasonably attractive when she first came on the scene????
I thought Hesaltine was head and shoulders above the others. He just made more sense and held his ground when Kranky interrupted him, politely telling her she had had her say. On Thursday this week, he just came across as someone who was a little old rather than losing it and I loved his honesty about Ant and Dec.
'50 shades of Red' was a lovely set up and caught Flint (especially) out - hook line and sinker!
Sturgeon was an embarrassment and at times was almost ridiculed. I have not seen her that bad before; and that is really saying something when my opinion of her was pretty poor to begin with.
It was nice to see Tarzan back as a figure that I agreed with and admired over the years! He is what I would call a 'proper Politician' and not one of these modern 'career politicians'
When did it suddenly become so easy for people to have a career in Politics without ever having a proper job? It used to be rare - it now appears the 'norm'! And how much worse it is as a result?
Flint is bl00dy awful as well - and to think I thought she was reasonably attractive when she first came on the scene????
Maybe Sturgeon was not in her comfort zone although she may have thought otherwise when she accepted the invitation. Considering she was in one of the most economically deprived parts of England, ie the north east, and could happily play the rich toffs of Westminster card that she pulls out every 2 minutes, she may have thought a lot of what she believes would have resonance here in this region. It was nice to see the north east audience didn't have much truck with her at all.
I noticed in general tax evasion and tax avoidance were allowed to be conflated again by all and sundry. A win by the left on that subject.
Why is it that the question of 'will Westminister be ruled by scotland ' ridiculed when for most of the time westminister is ruled by england? Why should the rUK be satisfied by that fact? Or is england just worried that other parts of the UK will have more of a say (perhaps) come the general election result...
arp1 said:
Why is it that the question of 'will Westminister be ruled by scotland ' ridiculed when for most of the time westminister is ruled by england? Why should the rUK be satisfied by that fact? Or is england just worried that other parts of the UK will have more of a say (perhaps) come the general election result...
How is Westminster ruled by England?As to the wider question maybe some people reflect on the West Lothian question and then think of developments with the tail wagging the dog.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff