Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)

[Halb]

SpeckledJim said:

As the world gets steadily safer and safer, our capability to learn about the remaining violence gets greater and greater.
What you're perceiving isn't escalating war, it's escalating tweets.
Colossal cock-up aside, which remains remotely possible, there won't be a head-to-head war between the big swinging dicks, of whom we are one. Each is too lethal to the other.
War between non-big swinging dicks is still possible of course, but things like NATO, which is underpinned by big swinging dicks with nukes, is making it steadily less likely.
I suspect you're maybe not inclined towards optimism, but we're really, really bloody lucky to be alive now and not 100 years ago.

Nukes might have an impact here, but there could be other factors, like more countries getting in on the free market, and making cash. Looking at 1900, it was another sweet spot, the tally goes up thanks to WW1. Which was a hangover from old imperialism. Not saying Nukes had no impact, from the chart, it's clear there are ups and downs at different points. More of the world is getting into, 'let's sell these suckers, than let's kill these suckers.'

[biggbn]

SpeckledJim said:

As the world gets steadily safer and safer, our capability to learn about the remaining violence gets greater and greater.

What you're perceiving isn't escalating war, it's escalating tweets.

Colossal cock-up aside, which remains remotely possible, there won't be a head-to-head war between the big swinging dicks, of whom we are one. Each is too lethal to the other.

War between non-big swinging dicks is still possible of course, but things like NATO, which is underpinned by big swinging dicks with nukes, is making it steadily less likely.

I suspect you're maybe not inclined towards optimism, but we're really, really bloody lucky to be alive now and not 100 years ago.

Thanks man, great post, and one which I agree with. I believe the world is a dangerous place, it always has been, I don't think it anymore dangerous than when I was younger, but I believe this is as a result of human evolution not fear of retribution. I may come across as curmudgeonly but I have huge optimism in our survival as a species as I believe we are now evolving both culturally and cerebrally at a huge pace. Ironically mankind will be both it's own undoing and saviour, but has that not always been the way? Thanks again for taking the time to write a cogent, thought provoking reply man, appreciated

[biggbn]

Halb said:

Nukes might have an impact here, but there could be other factors, like more countries getting in on the free market, and making cash. Looking at 1900, it was another sweet spot, the tally goes up thanks to WW1. Which was a hangover from old imperialism. Not saying Nukes had no impact, from the chart, it's clear there are ups and downs at different points. More of the world is getting into, 'let's sell these suckers, than let's kill these suckers.'

Another excellent point, have a thanks

[stevesingo]

biggbn said:

SpeckledJim said:

Pick a measure of peace (deaths, countries at war, years of conflict, whatever you want) and you'll find a graph here that shows you're wrong.

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

People have been killing each other forever. It's what we do. The nuclear deterrent deters who exactly? One can 'prove'anything with statistics, but you tell the family of one of our young soldiers killed in Afghanistan, or the families of those slaughtered in Syria or the carpet bombing of Baghdad, or those of anyone killed in a terror attack that the nuclear deterrent works and you might find some real life opinions to the contrary.

Is it a necessary evil? There has been no WORLD war since Hiroshima, but us that down to the damoclean deterrent hanging over our collective heads, or is it due to other drivers, globalisation, etc... It is an interesting debate for sure and one I do not profess to have an answer for, but my feeling is that the nuclear deterrent will not and does not deter violence and conflict anymore than the fear of traditional military intervention.

What MAD does is mitigate the threat to national survival posed by other nation states having far superior conventional military power. It has worked, India v Pakistan and Israel v their neighbours are obvious examples where other drivers are less significant.

The conflicts to which you refer are small fry in relation to scope and the lives lost. 3,458 coalition deaths in 10 years of campaigning in Afghanistan pale next to 50,000 plus deaths during the battle of Normandy.

That is the difference between campaign and a fight for survival. Nuclear weapons prevent a nation with an overwhelmingly strong conventional force from attacking a conventionally weak adversary. If they both have nuclear weapons, the deterrent remains and the conventionally strong realise that the risks of embarking on a conventional campaign against a conventionally weaker adversary who has nuclear capability. That is, when backed in to a corner and fighting for survival with little left to lose, the weaker nation may use nuclear weapons laving the conventionally stronger state, nuclear armed or not in a position where they may not win or at best be left with little of the nation the started with.

[SpeckledJim]

biggbn said:

SpeckledJim said:

As the world gets steadily safer and safer, our capability to learn about the remaining violence gets greater and greater.

What you're perceiving isn't escalating war, it's escalating tweets.

Colossal cock-up aside, which remains remotely possible, there won't be a head-to-head war between the big swinging dicks, of whom we are one. Each is too lethal to the other.

War between non-big swinging dicks is still possible of course, but things like NATO, which is underpinned by big swinging dicks with nukes, is making it steadily less likely.

I suspect you're maybe not inclined towards optimism, but we're really, really bloody lucky to be alive now and not 100 years ago.

Thanks man, great post, and one which I agree with. I believe the world is a dangerous place, it always has been, I don't think it anymore dangerous than when I was younger, but I believe this is as a result of human evolution not fear of retribution. I may come across as curmudgeonly but I have huge optimism in our survival as a species as I believe we are now evolving both culturally and cerebrally at a huge pace. Ironically mankind will be both it's own undoing and saviour, but has that not always been the way? Thanks again for taking the time to write a cogent, thought provoking reply man, appreciated

Appreciate your graciousness.

Evolution has a negligible-to-zero effect over a few generations. Technological pace of change and improving education and health is of course very relevant.

I think there's little doubt that the nuclear weapons held by the USA and USSR prevented a WWIII. In 1945 the situation in Europe was basically perfectly primed for the next gigantic set-to, and MAD was the only thing that stopped it. (in my humble opinion).

We are generally gloomy and inclined to worry. Apparently only 4% of people think the world is getting better, despite virtually every measure showing it very clearly is.

I put this down to the rapidly improving ease with which we can read about the dwindling remaining bad stuff.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/good-news-t...

[Digga]

biggbn said:

fblm said:

Feeble minded drivel.

Expand?

You could, but clearly you have chosen to follow dogma instead.

[Mort7]

biggbn said:

The nuclear deterrent deters who exactly?

Err...... other regimes who have nuclear weapons from using them against us. That's the whole point. Unless Corbyn is in charge of course, in which case his announcement that he would never use them renders them as useless as he is.

Nobody wants nuclear weapons to be used, and in an ideal world humans would be sensible enough to agree to multinational disarmament. But we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a world where some countries are run by nutters who have nuclear capability, and the only thing that is stopping them from unleashing that capability on the rest of the world is the fear that other countries with better capabilities will return the favour.

[s2art]

Mort7 said:

Nobody wants nuclear weapons to be used, and in an ideal world humans would be sensible enough to agree to multinational disarmament.

Really? It would cost a fortune. Everyone would have to set up a hair trigger capability of remanufacturing a nuclear deterrent in case someone else cheats.

[biggbn]

Digga said:

You could, but clearly you have chosen to follow dogma instead.

Ah, you choose to make assumptions rather than take part in debate. No problem brother man, enjoy your day

[Henners]

biggbn said:

Henners said:

‘Stats can show anything’

‘I do not have the capability’


Are you Diane Abbott?...

Are you one if those who will blindly accept anything spoon fed you in life or on the internet as a fact without checking the verisimilitude of the information presented? The Nietzschean dichotomy between facts and interpreted information always leaves a gap for questions

And yet you present no such facts...

Funny that.

[biggbn]

Henners said:

And yet you present no such facts...

Funny that.

Ah, it is apparent you did not understand my post...or, ironically, misinterpreted it, which kinda validates my point. Am happy to agree to disagree brother man, long ago learnt and accepted individuals have different opinions, thoughts...and I love a world in which such diverse views can be civilly debated. Have a great day, Gbn

[Mort7]

s2art said:

Mort7 said:

Nobody wants nuclear weapons to be used, and in an ideal world humans would be sensible enough to agree to multinational disarmament.

Really? It would cost a fortune. Everyone would have to set up a hair trigger capability of remanufacturing a nuclear deterrent in case someone else cheats.

I did say in an ideal world, which presupposes that the entire human race could agree that turning nuclear weapons on ourselves is a pretty bad idea. We need to become rather more enlightened as a species before that will happen.

[Henners]

biggbn said:

Henners said:

And yet you present no such facts...

Funny that.

Ah, it is apparent you did not understand my post...or, ironically, misinterpreted it, which kinda validates my point. Am happy to agree to disagree brother man, long ago learnt and accepted individuals have different opinions, thoughts...and I love a world in which such diverse views can be civilly debated. Have a great day, Gbn

Your initial post was full of civil debate wasn’t it

It was typical Corbyn frothing.

Again, with no basis...

[Henners]

The recent news of the c600 accusations of antisemitic behaviour is interesting.

Would be good to see how they stack up against the stats for other parties, including the proportion dismissed etc.

Also how many are purely about Steptoe!

[biggbn]

Henners said:

Your initial post was full of civil debate wasn’t it

It was typical Corbyn frothing.

Again, with no basis...

Thanks for this valuable contribution brother man, I would love to participate in debate on this level but I don't know how to, your wit and incisive comments are far beyond me.

[Henners]

I know, I try and make it more ‘frothy’ and light in depth for you but it’s a struggle.

All the best

[biggbn]

Henners said:

I know, I try and make it more ‘frothy’ and light in depth for you but it’s a struggle.

All the best

Cheers man, I appreciate your efforts, have a great day, off to gym, Gbn

[Gargamel]

Henners said:

The recent news of the c600 accusations of antisemitic behaviour is interesting.

Would be good to see how they stack up against the stats for other parties, including the proportion dismissed etc.

Also how many are purely about Steptoe!

Yes, it is strange position, I simply don't understand Margaret Hodge saying that there is no problem, but then she perhaps is wilfully blind on this topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hodge

The data published revealed:

673 complaints of anti-Semitism by Labour Party members were received - a Labour spokesman said this represented about 0.1% of the membership
96 members were immediately suspended after complaints were made and a further 211 were told they would be investigated
146 members received a first warning, and 220 cases did not have sufficient evidence of a breach of party rules for an investigation
Of the 307 who were suspended or notified of an investigation, 44 members left the party
Another 96 were referred to the party's anti-Semitism Disputes Panel
Of the 96, 16 members were issued with a formal warning from the National Executive Committee, six members' cases were referred for further investigation, 25 members were issued with reminder of conduct (a first written warning), and seven members' cases were closed as the full evidence suggested no further action should be taken
The panel decided to refer the other 42 members to Labour's National Constitutional Committee (NCC), with five members leaving before their cases were reviewed
Of the 37 cases referred to the NCC, 12 members were expelled and six received sanctions, while the rest await their outcome
The other members who were suspended or notified of an investigation are either still under investigation or are cases where the investigation revealed evidence that meant the case could not be pursued further


So is there a problem in the Labour Party ? Let none of us pretend that there aren't deep rooted elements of hard left ideology (communism) that holds a deeply entrenched hatred of the Jews as a proxy for capitalism.

[Rovinghawk]

biggbn said:

Are you one if those who will blindly accept anything spoon fed you in life or on the internet as a fact without checking the verisimilitude of the information presented? The Nietzschean dichotomy between facts and interpreted information always leaves a gap for questions

I believe that the word 'veracity' was the one you wanted. Other than that, kudos for the use of big words.

[anonymous-user]

biggbn said:

fblm said:

Feeble minded drivel.

Expand?

Straw man. Appeal to emotion. Text book Corbyn.