Jeremy Corbyn not trusted on national security by 71%

[Guest]

The section of the Labour party he is the figurehead of hate western style capitalist democracy (even though they live in it and benefit from it!) and so they think that weakening Britain/NATO militarily will go someway to lessening the west's dominance of the world, which is what they want.

[foxy lady 10]

You couldnt make it up. Theres one thing being a weak leader, but this is getting farcical. The man is a liability on defence.

 

Will the public really go for keeping the submarines, but without nuclear weapons? I cnat believe he's suggesting that.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35337432

 

It is a very clever option.

 

We would still spend the billions on the system, we would protect the jobs and it would allow Corbyn to push the launch button.

 

The missiles would fly to their destination but not go off or do any damage.

 

I suppose the downside is the expense of the project and Britain being left as a smoldering wastland unless the enemies missiles don't work either.

[Eric Arthur 10]

It's a government job creation scheme for no tangible outcome.

 

He can make himself even more popular by putting the unemployed to work too, no more benefits needed, work for all, imposition of the living wage all round and gulags for non compliance. Make union membership mandatory and he should get it through his bosses at Unite.

[apelike 10]

It is a very clever option.

 

We would still spend the billions on the system, we would protect the jobs and it would allow Corbyn to push the launch button.

 

The missiles would fly to their destination but not go off or do any damage.

 

I suppose the downside is the expense of the project and Britain being left as a smoldering wastland unless the enemies missiles don't work either.

 

How can Corbyn push the launch button when they wont be carrying Nukes? although they possible could be fitted to carry conventional missiles.

 

But.. will Corbyn ever get into a powerful enough position to be able to do that? If as the press and others think that's a no then its a pointless argument.

[999tigger 10]

It is a very clever option.

 

We would still spend the billions on the system, we would protect the jobs and it would allow Corbyn to push the launch button.

 

The missiles would fly to their destination but not go off or do any damage.

 

I suppose the downside is the expense of the project and Britain being left as a smoldering wastland unless the enemies missiles don't work either.

 

It isnt clever, even if you are being facetious. It's ill judged and I'd have more respect if he just proposed scrapping it and diverting the funds to conventional forces. It makes him look ludicrous imo.

[foxy lady 10]

How can Corbyn push the launch button when they wont be carrying Nukes? although they possible could be fitted to carry conventional missiles.

 

But.. will Corbyn ever get into a powerful enough position to be able to do that? If as the press and others think that's a no then its a pointless argument.

 

I think he just has to put his finger on it and press.

The problem with putting conventional warheads on the missiles is they don't do any damage. You need to fire hundreds of them and the submarines don't have the capacity to carry them or fire them. Plus you really wouldn't fire a £50 million missile to fly 3000 miles and cause £10,000 worth of damage.

Fortunatley it is just another example of the man's stupidity and his unsuitability for office. No he won't get into Downing Street, which makes these plociy statements of his pointless too.

 

---------- Post added 17-01-2016 at 14:33 ----------

 

It isnt clever, even if you are being facetious. It's ill judged and I'd have more respect if he just proposed scrapping it and diverting the funds to conventional forces. It makes him look ludicrous imo.

 

Yes I was being facetious. I thought that pretty obvios. The bloke is a menace and has now proved himself to be a total idiot as well.

Edited January 17, 2016 by foxy lady

[the_bloke 17]

You couldnt make it up. Theres one thing being a weak leader, but this is getting farcical. The man is a liability on defence.

 

Will the public really go for keeping the submarines, but without nuclear weapons? I cnat believe he's suggesting that.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35337432

 

It looks like he is suggesting it, in the face of union opposition to the job losses that would occur by scrapping Trident. He's got to keep the paymasters happy as well as Momentum.

[apelike 10]

The problem with putting conventional warheads on the missiles is they don't do any damage. You need to fire hundreds of them and the submarines don't have the capacity to carry them or fire them. Plus you really wouldn't fire a £50 million missile to fly 3000 miles and cause £10,000 worth of damage.

 

We have had several wars that have been won with conventional missiles and armaments so its quite obvious they do damage. Notice how the UK have used several expensive £100,000 Brimstone missiles in Syria so far and yet no Nukes have been used. Submarines can also be equipped to carry and fire conventional missile just the same.

[Harrystottle 10]

I was always for keeping or replacing Trident but as Peter Hitchens points out, it's a solution to a threat (from Russia) that doesn't exist any more.

 

Better maybe to have a bigger standing army with decent equipment than spend £100 billion or whatever on a Trident replacement?

[foxy lady 10]

We have had several wars that have been won with conventional missiles and armaments so its quite obvious they do damage. Notice how the UK have used several expensive £100,000 Brimstone missiles in Syria so far and yet no Nukes have been used. Submarines can also be equipped to carry and fire conventional missile just the same.

 

Ah yes. The 1000 bomber raids. There is rather a difference between spending your money on 1000 Lancaster bombers that will fly over Germany and drop 5000 tons of bombs a night and a £20 billion submarine that can launch a misile with a 100kg conventional warhead.

 

If you want to hit a target with a brimstone you can do. Like you said it costs around £100K. It will probably do as much damage as a £50 million Trident missile if you delete the nuclear payload.

 

Just what deterent value do you imagine the threat of being hit by a non nuclear Trident missile would have over and above threat of the Brimstones?

Edited January 17, 2016 by foxy lady

[apelike 10]

Just what deterent value do you imagine the threat of being hit by a non nuclear Trident missile would have over and above threat of the Brimstones?

 

Just how many Nukes does it take to become a deterrent?

[foxy lady 10]

It looks like he is suggesting it, in the face of union opposition to the job losses that would occur by scrapping Trident. He's got to keep the paymasters happy as well as Momentum.

 

I think his next idea might be to reopen coal mines and use the coal they extract to fill in the shafts of the ones they have closed.

 

---------- Post added 17-01-2016 at 15:05 ----------

 

Just how many Nukes does it take to become a deterrent?

 

Something greater than zero. A deterent is something that by the time the enemy can locate and destroy it can take out 10 of your major cities. It isn't a deterent if all you can do is damage the stand on one of their football grounds.

Edited January 17, 2016 by foxy lady