Nuclear weapons or public services?
 

'A Cabinet minister has appeared to question whether Britain could continue to afford well-equipped schools and hospitals if it spends money on new nuclear weapons.

Matthew Hancock, the cabinet office minister, was appearing on BBC One’s Question Time programme.'

Which would you rather have?....


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6751206.html

When and if the darkness comes, it will be the world and not just half of it. When and if we are nuked, the initial bombs will be triggered by a nation committing suicide and it will happen regardless of our defence.

BoTh. No need for either either.
Thankfully with this government we appear to have them both.

Public services are being destroyed from all they were ever since this PM took office in the coalition and worse still now.
Even though public services were not perfect before.

I have a view that we should look for a cheaper nuclear deterrent and also have one that is not under the rule of the USA either.
On balance if it was a straight choice between public services and the nuclear issue then I would go for public services.

Both

Can't see why we can't have both.

its not an either or dilemma. Both is just fine

Obviously both but the question asked for one or the other, if the choice was on a referendum say of do we keep public services or nuclear weapons,which would I choose. Then no doubt, I would take the chance/risk and choose public services.

If we didn't have nuclear weapons though, would one of the countries that hates us and has them, not just fire one our way and destroy us all? If this would be the outcome of not having nuclear weapons then I can't choose public services, because what would be the point in having them if there's no public?

There is no both option.

'A Cabinet minister has appeared to question whether Britain could continue to afford well-equipped schools and hospitals if it spends money on new nuclear weapons.

Please try pick one or the other.

Indeed, this is how I see it. If a nuclear war DOES start, everyone is ****ed regardless of how big their own nukes are :shrug:

but its not a realistic option. The cabinet minister is, not to put to fine a point on it, being a simplistic prick

Maybe the question should have been worded, which do you prefer 'even more cuts to public services in order to build more nukes' or 'public services left alone and our nukes are fine'. Would this have been better and stopped the it will never happen answers?

“We have to reduce our debt but we’re still the fifth richest nation in the world and this week while we’re been told we can’t afford this, we can’t afford that – Cameron’s telling us those four nuclear submarines will cost £40bn,” the veteran Labour politician had argued.
“It’s a question of the choices you make. I’d rather our kids had a better education and that we had more hospital beds than four nuclear submarines.”

Another panellist, comedian Matt Forde, told Mr Livingstone: “I want schools, hospitals, and nuclear submarines.”

But Mr Hancock, who has responsibility for the government's efficiency drives, questioned whether all three priorities would be affordable at once.'

These were the comments that led to the 'either/or' question, he inferred that both were not an option simultaneously.

Imagine you could not pay for your dog to get cured because your partner had spunked all the money on another new burglar alarm?

Yes you could get robbed but really...

Brilliant analogy.. :laugh:

but you are simplifying the issue beyond what is reasonable

I have to for Kirk

:fan:

:joker::joker: Kirk, you have my permission to smack him :joker:

You are complicating the issue, he suggests all three are not a viable option... so what gives? schools, hospitals, or WMDs?

i'm not complicating the issue. He and he alone is saying the choice is one or the other. That's just not realistic and it is over simplistic.


I could equally say, we can afford to pay for cancer treatment or old age pensions. Pick one ..... Its not realistic. He is taking 2 elements and connecting them together when there is no direct either or choice. Only within his simplistic mind

'Mr Hancock, who has responsibility for the government's efficiency drives, questioned whether all three priorities would be affordable at once.

“Maybe that’s why we ran up so many debts under Labour,” he told the audience.'

It is simple, he scoffs at Labour for borrowing to achieve all three, suggesting that if 40 billion is spent on defence then other elements will suffer.
It's more brutally honest than anything,without further borrowing they can't achieve all three either so what will they do?

:clap1::clap1::clap1: A PROPER brilliant analogy. And the question in the OP IS ridiculous and over simplistic - you are 100% correct BitOnTheSlide.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

:joker::joker::joker:

Clearly a flippant comment where he was playing to the TV audience and intended as a joke at Labour's expense, even if it was an ill judged one. Its not exactly an official declaration of government policy.

I think we should scale back our nuclear arsenal regardless, We spend far too much on what's essentially a 'mutually assured destruction' button. I'm all for preventative measures but the billions spent on nuclear weaponry would be better served elsewhere.

Not too simple for you to answer it seems, looks like given the choice it would be you sat alone hugging your nuke :joker:

Precisely, it's not defense if we're all going to be wiped out regardless of its usage. Nuclear weapons need to be internationally outlawed completely, horrible dangerous things.

Trident is obsolete that's the issue, this would be our chance to decommission, so why not?

Are you suggesting that I am only equal to answering 'simple' questions?

Yes, I am all for the preservation of an up-to-date nuclear deterrent but - again - the choice posed in the OP is idiotic and beneath legitimising with an answer.

We have both, and the only possible way that we will end up with neither, is heeding the advice and wishes of anti-Uk, anti-Democracy Mr Wurzel Gummidge Corbyn and all the Aunt Sallys which follow him. :joker:

Multi-Lateral disarmament is a pipe-dream Josh, and unilateral disarmament would be a lethal nightmare.

Well I am happy to be an Aunt Sally following Corbyn,far better than following ditherer Cameron any day, at least Corbyn sticks to what he says in the main.

I think the OP question is quite valid,a simple choice between preserving public services or spending more and more on nuclear weapons which in all truth, should not and likely would not ever be used.

I agree also with all Dezzy said too,the spending should be curbed back as to nuclear weapons and again I say, we should have something that is ours and not reliant on permission granted from the USA to use,if god forbid we ever had to.

I've gone then from also being a loonie left wing extremist to an Aunt Sally, it just gets better and better.
However if all those terms mean I don't support this heartless bunch of what we have in this present govt, then call us Labour supporters all you like.

Anyway,Insults thrown at others, say more about the one insulting, than it ever will about those who are the ones being 'generalised' insulted.

Agreed, there's no argument that we should be investing in growth, infrastructure, jobs, health or education just the relentless focus on war and welfare spending from this govt.

:joker: From one Aunt Sally to another,I agree totally,which will be of no surprise to anyone I doubt.:wavey:

I once won a fancy dress competition as aunt sally :laugh: So it was quite prophetic really, hey we should join the Sally army! ;)

[QUOTE=joeysteele;8321806]Well I am happy to be an Aunt Sally following Corbyn,far better than following ditherer Cameron any day, at least Corbyn sticks to what he says in the main.

"far better than following ditherer Cameron any day"

I did not vote for Cameron - I voted for Farage, but I do support more of Cameron's policies than the non-policies of Corbyn, who sadly is an unmitigated disaster for an already ailing Labour Party.

"at least Corbyn sticks to what he says in the main".
Come on Joey - Corbyn is like a restrained feral dog which has been muzzled and pumped full of tranquilisers by his 'owners' so that he toes the party line and presents a more 'acceptable face' to voters.

As a result of the above, Corbyn does ANYTHING but 'stick to what he says', as his unrelenting succession of infamous 'U Turns' attest.

Is the 'Poppy Wearing, 'Queen Bowing', 'National Anthem Singing', 'EU Agreeing', 'Trident Tolerant', 'Non Nation Book Balancing', Jeremy Corbyn the REAL Corbyn?

Is it hell.

"I agree also with all Dezzy said too,the spending should be curbed back as to nuclear weapons and again I say, we should have something that is ours and not reliant on permission granted from the USA to use,if god forbid we ever had to."


The OP clearly states that this is a straight CHOICE beween TWO options -
"well-equipped schools and hospitals" OR "New Nuclear Weapons", so you cannot elect to have a reduced or modified version of a nuclear deterrent because it is outside the paramaters of the idiotic question in the OP.

"I've gone then from also being a loonie left wing extremist to an Aunt Sally, it just gets better and better. However if all those terms mean I don't support this heartless bunch of what we have in this present govt, then call us Labour supporters all you like."

Now, I am being taken out of context. I was referring specifically to Corbyn - a man who I detest as much as you detest Cameron.

I did not refer to the Labour Party OR Labour Supporters. I clearly said; "Wurzel Gummidge Corbyn and the Aunt Sally's who follow him', because - to me - Corbyn DOES NOT REPRESENT THE REAL LABOUR PARTY, as over half the Shadow Cabinet and an increasingly more vociferous number of Labour supporters are in agreement. To me, 'Following the Labour Party' and 'Following Corbyn' are two DISTINCLY different things, and that DISTINCTION is becoming more apparent every day - evidenced by the growing schism WITHIN the party due to Wurzel and his TRUE ideologies.

"Anyway,Insults thrown at others, say more about the one insulting, than it ever will about those who are the ones being 'generalised' insulted."

I know all about 'insults' on here Joey, being the recipent of numerous ones - no matter how much they may be thinly veiled or mitigated by a joker emotican or two, and I am sorry if you feel insulted by my comments, but I feel that I have as much rights to berate and name-call a hateful idiot such as Corbyn as you do Cameron.

And yes - I did refer to anyone following Corbyn as an Aunt Sally, because I cannot understand how anyone can follow this dangerous idiot, because he does not even REPRESENT true Labour values and I fear that the truth is, that the majority of those who do follow him do so by default because he IS the Labour Leader (by title) and as such is the antithesis of Cameron - a man they detest, or because in Corbyn, they have found a man who embodies all the anti-Western, anti-British, anti-Democratic, Terrorist Appeasing, warped ideologies they themselves hold dear.

I do not personally place you in either category so I am a little confused where you are concerned Joey, I confess.

Josh, I want you to think about this - You are a trouble causing aggressive bully out looking to punch someone's head in for no good reason. There are two men standing at a bar - one stands all of 5' 2"" tall, weighs 6 stone, and wears spectacles and clutches a copy of the 'Nerd Weekly For Pacifists' in his frail, soft pink little hand, the other is 6' 6" tall, weighs 20 stone of rippling muscle, has a battle-scarred face carved from granite, and is clutching a copy of 'Ring' magazine in his massive fist.

Which potential 'victim' are you going to follow and attack?

That's right Josh - the DEFENCELESS one. The one most likely not to retaliate, the one least EQUIPPED to put up much of a fight and beat you even if he DID try to retaliate.

Should '6 stone weaklings' have a RIGHT to live life without being attacked by moronic bullies? YES of course.

But DO moronic bullies sometimes beat up 6 stone weaklings anyway? YES of course they do.

And this is EXACTLY WHY we NEED a nuclear deterrent.

Sane, peace-loving people do NOT WANT nuclear weapons, but in this world of insane violent terrorists and unstable Regimes run by insane violent Despots - we NEED a nuclear deterrent.

Many countries around the world have conventional weapons - guns, bombs, knives - but they are NOT using those guns to kill innocent people. They are NOT using those knives to behead innocent people, and they are not strapping those bombs to themselves to commit suicide in order to kill innocent people.

All too sickenly frequently, atrocity after atrocity comitted by IS in some country of the world makes headlines. But analyse the stories behind those headlines and you will RECOGNISE a very clear pattern - These insane murderers are NOT bravely parachuting into Army barracks or into heavily defended Military areas, they are cowardly taking unarmed, unprepared inocent victims by surprise and using the advantage their weapons gives them to GUARANTEE success of their evil plans.

Which is the point of my opening analogy.

BULLIES will NOT engage with 'Victims' who are prepared and equally armed .
So can you imagine what would happen if these nutcases did get hold of nuclear weapons (as they are trying to do as I write).

Do you think they would shrink from using them against an unprepared 'enemy' who DID NOT have nuclear weapons with which to retaliate, the same way they use bombs, bullets and knives against unprepared unarmed innocent civilians now?

In the 70 years since these terrible weapons were first used - no one has used them since.

They have been, and are a DETERRENT. Which IS their real purpose.

But to be a detterrent, such weapons must be updated and ready to meet or surpass any threat which evolves from implied to imminent.

The cost of ensuring an up to date nuclear deterrent might be indecently high, but the cost of NOT having one WILL one day be fatally imeasurable and unthinkable.

[QUOTE=kirklancaster;8322305]I am not bothered in the least,I insult no one, even generally or directly, I have my opinions on voters in some areas of the UK who are at odds with the rest of the UK.
I judge Politicians, PMs and cabinet Ministers on what they do with power.

You did not however specify who the Aunt Sally's were,you just said the Aunt Sally's who supported Corbyn.
Well I for one do support him, I also don't accept that he is in any way dangerous either.

Furthermore, I answered the question,I said in a straight choice between the 2 in the vote above, I would vote for Public services.
That however does not stop me also agreeing with Dezzy, who made a valid strong and reasoned point too in relation to topic at large in expansion of the topic.
It still doesn't mean the vote is void as it asks a specific choice from those who decide to vote in it.

I always maintain and accept there is little that is only black or white in total, there are always loads of grey areas too.
That does not prevent me making a choice in a simple question with 2 choices one way or the other, if that was the only options given at the time.

If however I don't like the question,then I do not need to vote in it,very simple.
That does not however in any way negate the question asked nor should it invite derision as to who asked it either.

Now flying right off topic for a time but to deal with the points you threw at me.
Finally I think you are wrong completely as to Corbyn not representing the Labour party, there were all the years of Blair not doing that and turning Labour into a milder Conservative party.

This Labour party appeals to me far more than Blair's ever did or could,there is loads too I could agree with the Conservatives on if they were not so discriminating,heartless and void of all compassion in their current policymaking.
Furthermore as to policy,I know a great many in Labour who like the policies unfurling from Corbyn and whether he stays or goes before 2020, I hope much of his plans and policies remain intact, as a real and true alternative to the heartlessness and injustice there has been this last 5+ years now under this particular PM and his govt.