If we ever use Trident, I hope it's against ourselves.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
And I thought Harold from Neighbours would be a natural Corbyn ally.
Maybe they dont have the skillset but they certainly have the experience in that field/industry. Footy managers is a poor example as they come from the industry and are involved in the industry. The MP for department of energy will have never worked in the energy sector.One thing that annoys me is football managers who have no top level playing experience
The crossover in skillset between frontline health professional and minister for health is essentially zero.
You are asking people to make a choice at 18 on their specialism for life. To make a prediction on the nature of the job market in 15-20 years time, something that even those who study it cannot do given the imminent development of more capable AI.
And of course the response at the moment is STEM STEM STEM STEM, but we honestly have no idea if those skills will be particularly useful (as in job marketable, I think they are valuable and useful in and of themselves) in 20 years either.
The quote you posted wasnt mine but it had my name against it.
Yes. I would have, because in the mid 2000s Russia had already been involved in conflicts in South Ossetia and Chechnya and elsewhere. Russia invading the Crimean peninsula wasn't really a big surprise.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Thats true for any thing though. Any decision you make now could be the wrong one in 15-20 years.
It's that last bit he would always struggle with.
If we're not going to use nukes against them and are indeed likely to be pursuing a much less interventionist foreign policy under Corbyn, why would they specifically nuke us under these scenarios?
So...it escalates from there and then what happens? We launch a first strike on Russia, a nuclear superpower? And they what? Reduce the whole of the UK to rubble?
So there we're basically talking about Pakistan I'm guessing? So again, what? We're launching a first nuclear strike.
Why would we get involved in a conflict with Israel?
The last one is a possibility I guess. In that case, what's the purpose of one of those countries nuking the UK?
Do you think any of these scenarios are even mildly realistic?
And, its a wonder that countries like Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Austria or the other 171 countries manage to get by without these dilemmas about which country they may have to nuke in the next 5 years.
Ps it was me that asked these questions, not Jep, which may explain the confusion.
Apologies, no idea how that happened. Have corrected the quote.
How about Trump ? Some people were taking your line, that he has experience in the "real world". Business and polítics are totally different. Dr David Owen was Minister of Health but not one forever cited as an example.
We are all dead then. My corpse won't care if we've retaliated
He's right in the sense that the point of a nuclear deterrent is to deter a scenario that'd give rise to their use. But that kind of falls down when you admit you won't use them. They then stop becoming a deterrent because on what basis would they deter anyone?
Agree with this. I don't see how trident acts a deterrent. Someone nuke us, we nuke them back boom that's planet earth over and I wouldn't want to be alive to see the outcome.
Not from an eastern european perspective, with people entering simply because they can, are concerned.
Well let's be honest, "no deal" is not acceptable for us or the EU. No EU bureaucrat has stated that "no deal" is a possibility. It would be catastrophic for us and the EU, hence the reason why it won't happen. But if we aren't willing to walk away, it means we have a price where we will fold.
If the EU is aware of massive opposition in parliament, they can use it to their advantage, and of course we know they would.
I'll refer anyone chatting here about launching a first strike/retaliation to the movie Threads for how utterly, utterly pointless this discussion is.
If it gets to that point, we've already lost, all of us.
If it gets to that point, we've already lost, all of us.
Corbyn even if he wanted to obfuscate and not take the easy route of yes should have said in a raised voice -
"I hope in that scenario i am the first one to die, as if a nuke is launched at us i would have failed in my policies and so i wouldn't deserve to make such a decision"
...
"I hope in that scenario i am the first one to die, as if a nuke is launched at us i would have failed in my policies and so i wouldn't deserve to make such a decision"
...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/24/net-migration-uk-250000-a-year
Promise all she wants, she's personally failed on this very point for donkey's years.
What I'm trying to convey is the possibility of a nuclear weapon being used is real. I am of the belief that if anyone fires a nuke, there's a high probability that the whole world goes up in flames in the chain reaction. But wait, I hear you ask, doesn't that just reinforce the point that we should swear to never fire a nuke? I would say no, the sensible tactic is to keep up the pretence that any nuclear attack will be met with an overwhelming response. For the MAD doctrine to work, you have to at least say you'd nuke them back.
With Trump wavering on the whole principle of collective defence (clause 5) within Nato, it's now more important than ever that the UK is clear that it is willing to provide our side of the nuclear equation to keep the MAD balance in tact.
By saying we would potentially nuke people, we actually lower the possibility of nukes being used. Counterintuitive, but I genuinely think that's the case.
I'd say the terrorist attack on US or Korean implosion are the most likely to happen in the next five years. Not massively likely, but at least 5% chance if I had to put a number on it.
They rely on Nato membership and the principle of collective defence. Our nukes are their nukes effectively.
'Never mind the foodbanks - here's the distractionary bollocks'.
I've not seen that film but one of my favourite films is War Games (I know strange choice). One of those classic futility of nuclear war films from the 80s.
Indeed. Never mind the inequality, poverty, homelessness and Brexit and other such minor points. Are you willing to kill millions of Koreans or Iranians? That is the important question here.
Last edited:
Because you have them & they can be launched.
Enough to keep me slightly concerned, anyway.
They'd be too busy getting angry at the benefit scrounger standing up out of his wheelchair at the end to remember the message of the film.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Call me crazy, but I like to see at least some discussion of the very real existential threats to humanity alongside all the other issues. Especially as we're considering giving this man the power to end the world.
Surely the one person you want to have that power is the person who won't actually use it.
I'm confused. Is 'no deal' acceptable for us or not?
I think these are the sorts of questions the 'always vote' brigade who might describe themselves as conservative (note the small 'c') will be asking themselves. It's fine where we have an echo chamber of a thread where largely people cite pro-Corbyn views or seek out pro-Corbyn tweets but I don't think the section about national security would go down well with the audience tonight.
I must have missed you clamouring for a question about climate change.
As I said above, the ideal person from my point of view is someone who is very clear they'll use it in defence/retaliation, but never launch a first strike. Whether they would ACTUALLY launch a retaliatory strike is pretty irrelevant to me - the world would be ending either way most likely.
Gotta nuke something
And yet, often footballers do actually make quite good football managers.One thing that annoys me is football managers who have no top level playing experience
The crossover in skillset between frontline health professional and secretary of state for health is essentially zero.
More than that though, sometimes people who work with the reserves or youth team of a great club, make great managers. Zidane. Pep. Tito. They know the club, understand it, know what needs to be changed. Both Pep and Zidane were great players and understand how to be a great player. Both Pep and Zidane worked with the youth team, getting to know the role. Sir Alex played as both a player and as a manager, first in the lower leagues of Scotland finally working his way up to Man Utd
Oh, and that person you are claiming had no top level experience?
He had a tonne of relevant top level experience, experience where he'd learnt from the very best. First at Sporting, with Sir Bobby Robson, then at Porto, with Sir Bobby Robson and finally at Barcelona, with Sir Bobby Robson.
No top level experience indeed.
I think what you've said about the "skillset between frontline health professional and secretary of state for health" being completely different is entirely correct. They are hugely different skills, which is why Parliament isn't filled with Doctors and Surgeons. But I think you are entirely incorrect in saying that there would be no benefit whatsoever. Even your average doctor and nurse would have a much clearer understanding of what problems are facing the NHS than Jeremy Hunt.
But being Health Secretary is very different from being Chancellor. This idea of shuffling MPs around the cabinet is nonsensical. It's like asking an Accountant to also be a Doctor
Would any of you change your vote if Corbyn said he'd be prepared to use Trident?