|
Alchenar posted:I swear the single best move Corbyn could make right now would be to sack Seamus and replace him with someone competent. That stunt with Lewis's speech not only plays to every story about how it's impossible to work in the shadow cabinet without being undermined but it puts trident back on the table in a speech that was supposed to settle the issue. Has it even been a confirmed that this is a thing that even happened? All I've seen is one paper claim that he was notified by post-it note on stage, while ITV claims he was notified by text-message before going on stage. Neither of them have any sources to verify the speech was changed at all.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
radmonger posted:No, the current zeitgeist is the center. That's what the words mean; if it was away from the center, it wouldn't be 'the' zeitgeist, just an opinion some right-wingers held. Get over yourself
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/79326/clive-lewis-trident-speech-changed-seumas-milne has this supposed confirmation: quote:A spokesman for Mr Corbyn said: "All speeches are put together in conjunction with the leader's office. It was confirmed to Clive that the agreed speech had been amended on the autocue." speaking of Thornberry, it looks like their game plan is multilateral disarmament: quote:"A future Labour government will not just revive talks on multilateral nuclear disarmament among the world’s great powers, we will make the success of those talks the test of our success on foreign policy," she told delegates in Liverpool. i.e. basically nothing that the CND wants. It's an NPT sort of commitment and bringing India and Pakistan on board will involve more rather than less nuclear tech, never mind the prickly problem of Israel and the totally unsolvable problem of post-2003 North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
ronya posted:https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/79326/clive-lewis-trident-speech-changed-seumas-milne So they're backing the nuclear deterrent, while at the same time making it clear that Corbyn would never authorise a strike, therefore making it useless. So that pisses off the people that want a deterrent, and the people who don't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
let's be real though, if it ever gets to the stage where corbyn has to refuse to use the nuclear weapons we're hosed anyway right, one assumes we would be firing them as a response, not a first strike, therefore it would be a retaliatory strike and we'll all be dead anyway. well you stupid cunts who still live in the UK (RIP) at any rate. it's such a stupid loving argument, no-one is going to use nuclear weapons. and corbyn saying he won't use them isn't going to cause russia or china to be like "ah ha now's our chance to nuke the UK"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
UK missile subs can launch at any time anyway, it's not like the PM has anything other than nominal control over them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:UK missile subs can launch at any time anyway, it's not like the PM has anything other than nominal control over them. The point has always been that the Trident subs alongside the nuclear deterrent carry a number of normal missiles. Alongside Nato this provides a massive strategic advantage for non-nuclear warfare since (I think) Nato can hit anywhere in the world inside 5 minutes. There is a legitimate argument for maintaining Trident whilst also never firing a nuke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:it's such a stupid loving argument, no-one is going to use nuclear weapons. and corbyn saying he won't use them isn't going to cause russia or china to be like "ah ha now's our chance to nuke the UK" So why is he okay with the money being spent on a system which he will never use? The answer, of course, is to placate the unions. Yorkshire Tea posted:The point has always been that the Trident subs alongside the nuclear deterrent carry a number of normal missiles. I've never heard that before, source?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
I shared a taxi with John McDonnell and Seb Corbyn last night!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:So why is he okay with the money being spent on a system which he will never use? no other Prime Minister has used Trident
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:no other Prime Minister has used Trident I phrased the question poorly. I'll have another go: Why is he okay with the money being spent on a weapons system which he has explicitly said he will never authorise the use of?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:The point has always been that the Trident subs alongside the nuclear deterrent carry a number of normal missiles. Alongside Nato this provides a massive strategic advantage for non-nuclear warfare since (I think) Nato can hit anywhere in the world inside 5 minutes. There is a legitimate argument for maintaining Trident whilst also never firing a nuke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:The point has always been that the Trident subs alongside the nuclear deterrent carry a number of normal missiles. Alongside Nato this provides a massive strategic advantage for non-nuclear warfare since (I think) Nato can hit anywhere in the world inside 5 minutes. There is a legitimate argument for maintaining Trident whilst also never firing a nuke. That seems a bit odd given that non-nuclear ICBMs seem like a very bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That seems a bit odd given that non-nuclear ICBMs seem like a very bad idea. Maybe they could paint a sign on the side: "Not carrying nuclear weapons, honest!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
First I've heard of it. Bit dumb to put conventional missiles on a sub that's supposed to be your ninja "could cause Armageddon from anywhere" nuclear deterrent. As soon as they used them, their location wouldn't be a loving secret any more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
I don't really see a problem with defence spending to placate defence workers and the wider, murder-happy electorate. I would greatly prefer abolishing most of the armed forces but it would never fly in an election. tooterfish posted:First I've heard of it. The greater issue is that firing an ICBM will immediately trip every nuclear missile detection system, and they won't assume it's not loaded with nuclear weapons. The submarine can move after firing but it can't stop other people from assuming you just started world war 3.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:I phrased the question poorly. trident has never been used and is likely to never be used by anyone ever. if it does get used the UK is dead already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Also nuclear ICMBs don't have the courtesy to announce themselves, so suddenly firing missiles from a sub without warning is a great plan to start the apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
What the gently caress was Milne / Corbyn thinking changing the speech like that at the last minute? Terrible, terrible PR which overshadows most of the conference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Why are speech revisions something the press is privy to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:So why is he okay with the money being spent on a system which he will never use? It's actually because the party agreed at conference last year to replacing the nuclear deterrent. I won't disagree that it's bad politics to outright say he'll never use them when it hardly needed to be stated, but on the whole it's a wise compromise to make, even if I agree with Jeremy that it's both an abhorrent weapon that can never be used & an obscene waste of money. But if it's the price to pay to keep Labour united and in a position to win the next election then so be it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
no-one gives a flying gently caress about party confernces or the speeches at them, especially as tomorrows news will be dominated by the Trump / Clinton debate because no doubt some loving ridiculous poo poo will be said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Imo the most evil option for the pms trident letter is the one where they give command to the sub commander
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why are speech revisions something the press is privy to? Press generally get shown advance copies of speeches so they can publish the story as soon as the speech happens. Especially in this day and age. Anyway, whoever was saying Milne should be replaced with someone competent is on to something. Except for the obvious question. "Who has the experience and attributes for the role while also being close enough to Jeremy's politics?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:So they're backing the nuclear deterrent, while at the same time making it clear that Corbyn would never authorise a strike, therefore making it useless. The next general election campaign is going to be an utter bloodbath. The posters just write themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The greater issue is that firing an ICBM will immediately trip every nuclear missile detection system, and they won't assume it's not loaded with nuclear weapons. If you're using them against a nuclear country, you're already making several unprecedented and probably unwise strategic decisions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
If they didn't I'm sure the tories could just make some things up or just photograph people until they get a stupid looking one. As if the UK populace gives a shite about substance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
let's nuke middlesbrough
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:The point has always been that the Trident subs alongside the nuclear deterrent carry a number of normal missiles. Alongside Nato this provides a massive strategic advantage for non-nuclear warfare since (I think) Nato can hit anywhere in the world inside 5 minutes. There is a legitimate argument for maintaining Trident whilst also never firing a nuke. Are you conflating the conversion of some of the US's Los Angeles-class subs from ICBMs to cruise missiles following SALT II? Because none of them carry a mix. It's either strategic missiles or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsokGIeQFFI
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:let's nuke middlesbrough Oi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Press generally get shown advance copies of speeches so they can publish the story as soon as the speech happens. Especially in this day and age. You don't need the last bit. You just need a professional willing to work for money for the top job. Underneath him you fill out an organisation of people with the right views but who lack experience and over time things sort themselves out. e: as a friend has just pointed out, the other shambles is that the position on whether there will be a reshuffle has changed about six times progressively from 'imminently' to 'after a special NEC conference in November'. The first thing anyone knows about political communication strategy is that you don't breath a word about a reshuffle until the thing has actually started. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:let's nuke middlesbrough I like OwlFancier though
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Miftan posted:I like OwlFancier though it's a tough decision and unfortunately there will be some collateral damage but ultimately it is a price worth paying to demonstrate to the world that we are willing to use Trident
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:it's a tough decision and unfortunately there will be some collateral damage but ultimately it is a price worth paying to demonstrate to the world that we are willing to use Trident I was against this idea but this sort of tough decision is the type of thing that wins over people with opposing views. You've got my vote, JFairfax! OwlFancier, you need a place to crash?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
I'm not going anywhere further south than York, I've heard funny things about what goes on down there. It's full of scroungers who don't work and live off other people's hard earned money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not going anywhere further south than York, I've heard funny things about what goes on down there. London must be like Vegas for you. Funnily enough, we hear funny things about what goes on up there, though it could just be your accents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:As far as I am aware (and as far as wikipedia is aware too...), this is not at all true - their only armament is torpedoes for shooting at other subs, and trident missiles for initiating Judgement Day. This isn't the case - Royal Navy submarines are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and have fired them mutliple times operationally from Kosovo to Libya.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Miftan posted:London must be like Vegas for you. I've never actually been, I've literally never been further south than York in my adult life, and only once to Bath when I was a kid and once to Somerset. kapparomeo posted:This isn't the case - Royal Navy submarines are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and have fired them mutliple times operationally from Kosovo to Libya. RN attack submarines are, nuclear attack submarine doesn't mean submarine armed with nuclear missiles, it means nuclear powered submarine designed for attacking things conventionally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
kapparomeo posted:This isn't the case - Royal Navy submarines are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and have fired them mutliple times operationally from Kosovo to Libya. That's in Astute, which is a fleet submarine not the nuke carrying submarine (which is Vanguard). e: The Vanguard replacement will be a new sub as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:52
|
|