Jeremy Corbyn has betrayed his voters
 

Jeremy Corbyn intends to scrap the UK’s Trident nuclear programme as soon as possible, according to the founder of the Glastonbury festival, Michael Eavis. As the festival in Somerset ended on Sunday Eavis recounted a conversation he had had with the Labour leader, telling an audience on Sunday that he had asked Corbyn: “When are you going to get rid of Trident?” Corbyn, he said, had replied: “As soon as I can.”

I obviously know about Corbyn's views on our nuclear deterrent but he went into the GE on a manifesto promise of renewing Trident.Now he will scrap it as soon ad he can.
I voted for Labour because of this manifesto which was leaps and bounds better than the Tory one.However it seems that there was atleast one lie in there and it's a biggie.Many people put their reluctance aside because of this issue.Now he's just given a big kick in the nads to those people who were duped into voting for him.
I'm not voting again tbh until a proper alternative option is available.

He can't be trusted. He has blatantly lied - how many more lies will there be. As I have said on several occasions our security is not safe in his hands.

He doesn't support nuclear weapons, our forces, controlling our borders to protect us from terrorism and I suspect he doesn't much support our police either despite the rhetoric for more police officers - will that be the next broken manifesto promise I wonder.

Hmm PMQs led with this heresay too.... It's almost like it was brand new information, he dislikes nukes, he would prefer there not to be nukes. Labour are in favour therefore he has to take the parties line ... Nothing has changed.

He broke a manifesto promise - he lied. What next? You would be quicker than the speed of light to jump on May for the same. At least she was more honest.

Not good is it.
He reckons he will be PM within 6 months as well....wonder what they have planned.

He never suggested he was in favour of trident.

Politics is a power game. They all lie to get the power they want. I'm sorry you were disappointed.

His hands were tied on this issue either way. The policy was voted by the Labour Party members, not him, and as an individual MP he has every right to oppose something even if the party's official stance isn't the same.

He hasn't :suspect:

He has never pretended to be a fan of trident. But he specifically said it was not his decision alone (which is true) and that the policy on trident was a labour party position, not his own personal one. And nothings changed :laugh:

It would be an issue if he was actually scrapping Trident after saying he/the party would not. but thats not the case here...

JC in not a fan of nukes shocker...

I think people who defend Trident don't really understand what it is.

It's not a defence system, it can't do a single thing to stop a nuke heading straight for us. It's a response system for if we do get nuked which is pointless since revenge won't matter to the people that would be killed by a nuclear attack.

Trident should be scrapped and in it's place we need an actual defence against nuclear warfare because Trident won't do a thing to protect us against the kind of mad man that would WANT to kick off a nuclear war.

Pretty much, this is a case of people rushing to find reasons to hate JC without taking the time to pay attention to the facts.

Trident is a deterrent. It's been a deterrent every day since we've had it, so. People who want to scrap it probably don't understand that.

Nuclear war itself is a deterrent for nuclear attacks, nobody of sound mind would actually launch a nuke at another country because everyone knows that would lead to the end of us all....well almost everyone it seems.

Trident is a waste of money, deterrents do nothing to stop a nuke that's on it's way. It should be common sense to invest money into Anti-missile technology instead because in a situation where we have been nuked, Trident does nothing but offer up a revenge attack which is meaningless to the people affected by the nuke in the first place.

Honestly, it should be quite simple to understand.

The risk of a revenge attack is a deterrent.

If there is no risk of retaliation, attackers have a lot less to lose.

Trident isn't our only nuclear launchers so it's not like we couldn't respond with a nuke without Trident and like I said before, I don't think anyone that is insane enough to fire off a nuke at a country with nuclear capabilities probably doesn't care about the prospect of a revenge attack.

Deterrents won't work in a situation like that. We need actual defensive systems. Trident should be retired and replaced.

It's the word 'probably' that concerns me there. When it comes to security I prefer certainties.

So you're trying to invalidate a valid opinion based on the terminology of one word?

Deterrents don't work on someone intent on attacking, that's just common sense. Trident is flawed because it relies on all the other nuclear powers not being insane. I'd much rather have something that is capable of averting an nuke rather than a flawed deterrent that can't do anything if the worst happens.

There is an argument that it was nuclear weapons that were the thing that prevented the cold war from becoming a hot war i.e WW3.

The important thing to remember about Trident is that that it's a strategy which depends entirely on hiding a massive submarine deep in the ocean and hoping that no one develops the technology to find it!

Crispin Blunt, the (Tory) chair of the foreign affairs select committee voted against renewal of Britain's nuclear weapons system last year for the simple reason that, in the modern world, this is an absurd assumption. As he put it: "Marine biologists are already able to track shoals of fish in real time from several hundred miles away.

Ballistic missile submarines depend utterly upon their stealth by utilising the sheer size of the oceans. If we are today able to detect the gravitational waves first created by the big bang, how can we be so confident that a capable adversary would not be able to track our submarines 20 years from now?

The system vulnerabilities are not restricted to its increasingly detectable signatures. Trident might also be risk from cyber attack. There is every incentive for adversaries to invest in offensive cyber capabilities in order to neutralise them.

frightening

This communist man is friends with hammas, the ira, probably the russians too. He opposes all anti terror laws, wants open borders and increase population of 5 million every 10 years and never even came clean over europe...He wants more benefits for everyone, wants public sector wage rises across the entire country...so massive public expenses when labour already left us with over a trillion pounds of public debt. Now he wants to totally disarm us. He wont even be honest enough to admit it. He is fiscally irresponsible and as for safety you may as well put a tiger in charge of security at bristol

OMFG I had no idea :worry:





:laugh2:

wtf is funny about the dangers he brings? NOTHING

I had no idea Corbyn frightened right wingers like you to this extent. You really do need to stop making up siht though because it doesn't make you look at all knowledgable. Every time you come out with this ludicrous stuff, I think, "here we go again trying to pray on the gullible"