General Election, June 8th

[Bryn]

Just now, MattP said:

Made my point for me, US wouldn't have done it to a country that could respond. It's the piece of history the anti-nuclear crowd are so desperate too but can't erase.

 

But that's not the issue Corbyn is being hammered for.

 

He believes, as a point of principle, that a multilateral nuclear disarmament is the only way to make the world safe from nuclear war and that's completely axiomatic. His party have committed to renewing our nuclear deterrent, presumably because they know that that goal is a long, long way off.

[Harry - LCFC]

I support the UK having nuclear weapons. It struck me, however, that the questioners in the audience didn't really understand how the nuclear deterrent works.

 

It is not necessary to fire nuclear missiles in order for them to serve their purpose.

 

That may seem weird, everything else we buy we have an intention of using, but not here. For the nuclear deterrent to be effective an enemy needs to be sufficiently concerned about the possibility of being hit so that he doesn't start a conflict in the first place. Again, achieving this doesn't require us to fire any missiles. They just have to be there and visible.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Use MOABs instead. Who doesn't love being vaporised by an acronym!

[Strokes]

Just now, Dr The Singh said:

Coventry?

Coalville

[Dr The Singh]

Just now, Strokes said:

Coalville

Belgrave Road

[Captain...]

Japan was already on its knees trying to negotiate a surrender. The nukes didn't win the war, the war was already won. They just killed thousands of innocent people so that America could flex its muscles.

 

Who won the Cold War? 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Fcuk it let's nuke someone, Argentina or something.

 

Can it go that far? Belgium if not.

Lets do America.  We wanna show we can stand up to Trump.

[bovril]

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

 

Who won the Cold War? 

Still waiting for that one to come up on the vidiprinter. Longer injury time than anticipated.

[Strokes]

Just now, Captain... said:

Japan was already on its knees trying to negotiate a surrender. The nukes didn't win the war, the war was already won. They just killed thousands of innocent people so that America could flex its muscles.

 

Who won the Cold War? 

You could argue that the deterrent on nuclear weapons won that war  

[Captain...]

On the subject of minimum wage, it may hit some small businesses, but the idea is to get more disposable income in the hands of consumers who can then spend that money in the tea shops and coffee shops.

 

I do think he had a point that it was too much of an increase and should be phased in more slowly.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Harry - LCFC said:

I support the UK having nuclear weapons. It struck me, however, that the questioners in the audience didn't really understand how the nuclear deterrent works.

 

It is not necessary to fire nuclear missiles in order for them to serve their purpose.

 

That may seem weird, everything else we buy we have an intention of using, but not here. For the nuclear deterrent to be effective an enemy needs to be sufficiently concerned about the possibility of being hit so that he doesn't start a conflict in the first place. Again, achieving this doesn't require us to fire any missiles. They just have to be there and visible.

 

We don't even need to have them.

 

All it needs is two nations with consistently opposing ideologies that between them possess enough firepower to cause a global catastrophe. That is enough to maintain the balance.

 

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Japan was already on its knees trying to negotiate a surrender. The nukes didn't win the war, the war was already won. They just killed thousands of innocent people so that America could flex its muscles.

 

Who won the Cold War? 

 

TBF the human cost of invading Japan was likely going to be huge - Operation Downfall had a huge projected casualty rate as most of the Japanese leadership were wanting to at least force enough of a human cost to negotiate something other than unconditional surrender.

 

I'm not saying that dropping them was worth it, but there were other factors in play.

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

18 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

At least he gave an answer, even if it was one some people wouldn't want to hear.

Like defending our population......or not as in his case.

 

The simple reality is the chances of a nuke coming our way is nearly 0%.  However, by NOT being openly comfortable with firing one their way (whoever it might need to be), you are openly showing weakness. In the case of nukes being prepared to attack is the best form of defense. 

 

All he had to do, you know, to be like a "Prime Minister" for all our people is say is if we were under "attack"...yes he would fire.  End of.

 

He's a wet with his own morals on nuclear and has a strong appreciation for Hamas, IRA et al and that's fine....... but those view belong on the back benches.

[Strokes]

Just now, Captain... said:

On the subject of minimum wage, it may hit some small businesses, but the idea is to get more disposable income in the hands of consumers who can then spend that money in the tea shops and coffee shops.

 

I do think he had a point that it was too much of an increase and should be phased in more slowly.

So all these people in poverty are just going to stop going primark and Lidl and start going local more expensive independent shops (with increasing overheads) instead? I doubt it. They'll get a new mobile phone contract, a new sky subscription and then be fùcked when inflation and redundancy kicks in.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

On the subject of minimum wage, it may hit some small businesses, but the idea is to get more disposable income in the hands of consumers who can then spend that money in the tea shops and coffee shops.

 

I do think he had a point that it was too much of an increase and should be phased in more slowly.

The people who lose their job through this will have less money to spend.

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

The people who lose their job through this will have less money to spend.

The absolute classic balance of our economy.  How much do you take from ones pocket before they spend?  What is left drives the economy, aside from public expenditure. Very simple, very difficult to balance with many subjective views.

 

Mine own is the less we have in our pocket due to excessive taxation (Labour), the less the coffee shops will get in the long run...

[Webbo]

How much of this extra income will be spent on the internet on foreign made tat?The effect on the economy won't be that great.

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So all these people in poverty are just going to stop going primark and Lidl and start going local more expensive independent shops (with increasing overheads) instead? I doubt it. They'll get a new mobile phone contract, a new sky subscription and then be fùcked when inflation and redundancy kicks in.

To an extent, if people are brought out of poverty they can afford to spend a bit more, have a few luxuries and in theory bring more money into small businesses.  That is the theory, what would happen in practice, I don't know. 

 

At least if they are making no profits because of the minimum wage increase they won't have to pay the increased corporation tax.

[Strokes]

I think Labours education policy holds a lot of merit, i do think further education and higher education should be free. I know people will abuse the system and it has flaws but it would benefit the nation more than it would cost in my opinion.

[lgfualol]

People have such a hard on for nuclear weapons. Very weird.

 

Let's ditch nuclear weapons and just threaten to shoot Piers Morgan, Katie Hopkins and Miranda at someone.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Like defending our population......or not as in his case.

 

The simple reality is the chances of a nuke coming our way is nearly 0%.  However, by NOT being openly comfortable with firing one their way (whoever it might need to be), you are openly showing weakness. In the case of nukes being prepared to attack is the best form of defense. 

 

All he had to do, you know, to be like a "Prime Minister" for all our people is say is if we were under "attack"...yes he would fire.  End of.

 

He's a wet with his own morals on nuclear and has a strong appreciation for Hamas, IRA et al and that's fine....... but those view belong on the back benches.

 

If a nuke is headed our way and there is at least one nation who will respond (and there will be), then our population is pretty much screwed whether our leader chooses to "defend" them or they don't.

 

There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war when two or more nations with opposing aims have them. The deterrent argument makes very little difference. 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

To an extent, if people are brought out of poverty they can afford to spend a bit more, have a few luxuries and in theory bring more money into small businesses.  That is the theory, what would happen in practice, I don't know. 

 

At least if they are making no profits because of the minimum wage increase they won't have to pay the increased corporation tax.

 the silver lining.

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

Just now, leicsmac said:

If a nuke is headed our way and there is at least one nation who will respond (and there will be), then our population is pretty much screwed whether our leader chooses to "defend" them or they don't.

 

There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war when two or more nations with opposing aims have them. The deterrent argument makes very little difference. 

My point is simple.  By saying you will fire is the best form of defense. Would you prefer us not to have that defense?  I would hazard a guess you would be in a small minority feeling so.

[Dr The Singh]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If a nuke is headed our way and there is at least one nation who will respond (and there will be), then our population is pretty much screwed whether our leader chooses to "defend" them or they don't.

 

There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war when two or more nations with opposing aims have them. The deterrent argument makes very little difference. 

It's working between India and Pakistan, 3 wars before nuclear arms, zero after

[Foxxed]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The people who lose their job through this will have less money to spend.

 

Labour want to increase it by 2.50. That's about 20 quid a day per employee.

 

Is it more profitable to save 20 quid or have an employee serving customers, making goods?

 

Any hit a company does have would be reintroduced into the economy by increased spending - something that's currently declining.

 

The economy needs a boost to stop the expected long-term decline in consumer spending. A rise in National Minimum wage could be just that.

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think Labours education policy holds a lot of merit, i do think further education and higher education should be free. I know people will abuse the system and it has flaws but it would benefit the nation more than it would cost in my opinion.

And all those who choose a different path in life should pay for it..yes?