[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

Sure
but he was Stamping down
he is nothing like ex-leader/former labour Corbyn.

Stamping down implies a temper tantrum. I don't want anyone as a leader that believes they're ready to use nukes. It's the one thing absolutely no one should be ready for.

[bots]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Stamping down implies a temper tantrum. I don't want anyone as a leader that believes they're ready to use nukes. It's the one thing absolutely no one should be ready for.

Our only legal justification for using nukes is if an opponent fired one against us (nato) first and if that has actually happened, it then becomes a case of retribution

Nukes are and have always been a threat. Even if a leader says they won't use them, who is to say they won't immediately change their mind if they actually do get attacked. Unless we disarm, it is always there as an option to future leaders

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Our only legal justification for using nukes is if an opponent fired one against us (nato) first and if that has actually happened, it then becomes a case of retribution

Nukes are and have always been a threat. Even if a leader says they won't use them, who is to say they won't immediately change their mind if they actually do get attacked. Unless we disarm, it is always there as an option to future leaders

It shouldn't necessarily follow that even if one is used against us, that we should retaliate straight back, because there is no good ending in that scenario.

I think you're missing the point a bit; caution should be the first response if they were fired at us, not eagerness for mutually assured destruction.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

It shouldn't necessarily follow that even if one is used against us, that we should retaliate straight back, because there is no good ending in that scenario.

I think you're missing the point a bit; caution should be the first response if they were fired at us, not eagerness for mutually assured destruction.

I get what you're saying, and you are right imo.

But there would be public pressure for Sunak/Starmer to retaliate with nuking the aggressor back, if we were to be attacked with a nuke ourselves.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I get what you're saying, and you are right imo.

But there would be public pressure for Sunak/Starmer to retaliate with nuking the aggressor back, if we were to be attacked with a nuke ourselves.

That's why it takes a stronger person to not give in and pander to the crowd. Let's say it's Russia and we got "fortunate" as it landed down by Plymouth/Exeter, and we got away with the minimal amount of casualties for a nuke, the minute we fired back and their satellites detected our retaliation, they would send over enough to just wipe us out. Because they aren't used, I feel like the power of nukes can seem a bit abstract.

Jeremy was right to show caution when being pressed on this issue during his time as leader, and it is only candidates who are weak (regardless of political persuasion) that need to act as though they're ready to destroy the world to appease the Galahads.

[arista]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Stamping down implies a temper tantrum. I don't want anyone as a leader that believes they're ready to use nukes. It's the one thing absolutely no one should be ready for.

Look he gets angry every time Corbyn is mentioned


So Sunak should chuck that at tubby Starmer

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

Look he gets angry every time Corbyn is mentioned


So Sunak should chuck that at tubby Starmer

No one would like to have a mirror held up at them, revealing how vacuously empty they are.