The BBC have rather predictibly caved in and let Johnson off with a soft touch Marr interview. Worse still, they're using yesterday's attack to justify it. Utterly pathetic.
I'm sort of curious about why Andrew Neil has suddenly gathered the expectation that he's going to be incredibly hard on Boris, when Neil has his own share of bizarre views and is generally very right leaning.
+2
Options
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
Because while Neil is an arsehole he is universally hard on those he interviews, a large part of why his Sunday show after Marr got canned was because bigger hitters started refusing to go on and there's only so many times that you can interview the same pool of sacrificial juniors before it becomes a waste of time.
If you're not ready to use nukes, MAD doesn't work. So, what's to stop a nuclear country from just taking what it wants?
But you're just saying you'd never use them you're not like scuttling the submarines and filling in the silos, the pistol is still loaded and pointed in your face
If you're not ready to use nukes, MAD doesn't work. So, what's to stop a nuclear country from just taking what it wants?
But you're just saying you'd never use them you're not like scuttling the submarines and filling in the silos, the pistol is still loaded and pointed in your face
Right, so when you say you'll "never use them" you are just ... lying? All the politicians saying they'd never use them are just demonstrating they are liars?
I guess the question is also perfectly reasonable that way too. "I'd like to ask all of you directly which of you is a bald-faced liar. Show of hands please."
If you're not ready to use nukes, MAD doesn't work. So, what's to stop a nuclear country from just taking what it wants?
But you're just saying you'd never use them you're not like scuttling the submarines and filling in the silos, the pistol is still loaded and pointed in your face
Right, so when you say you'll "never use them" you are just ... lying? All the politicians saying they'd never use them are just demonstrating they are liars?
I guess the question is also perfectly reasonable that way too. "I'd like to ask all of you directly which of you is a bald-faced liar. Show of hands please."
But at the same time, anyone who says they will use them is lying. The whole idea of MAD is that everyone has a button to destroy the opponent, so no one ever should nuke an opponent, or be immediately nuked themselves in retaliation.
It is a silly question to which the only right answer is supposed to be "yes, if an opponent nukes us"
If you're not ready to use nukes, MAD doesn't work. So, what's to stop a nuclear country from just taking what it wants?
But you're just saying you'd never use them you're not like scuttling the submarines and filling in the silos, the pistol is still loaded and pointed in your face
Right, so when you say you'll "never use them" you are just ... lying? All the politicians saying they'd never use them are just demonstrating they are liars?
I guess the question is also perfectly reasonable that way too. "I'd like to ask all of you directly which of you is a bald-faced liar. Show of hands please."
But at the same time, anyone who says they will use them is lying. The whole idea of MAD is that everyone has a button to destroy the opponent, so no one ever should nuke an opponent, or be immediately nuked themselves in retaliation.
It is a silly question to which the only right answer is supposed to be "yes, if an opponent nukes us"
What? No. The whole idea of MAD is that you will 100% use nukes in retaliation. That's what MAD means. You will absolutely use your nukes is what the entire thing is built on. It's not a lie in any way, shape or form to be saying "Yes, I would use them". So unless the question is specifically "Would you use them in a first strike", the answer is supposed to be "Yes".
And frankly, the question of "Would you use nukes in a first strike?" is also itself a question worth knowing the answer to.
shryke on
+4
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited November 2019
consistent labour bounce observable in last few days of polling, i would say something like 3%, perfectly timed to make the yougov MRP less helpful than everybody wanted it to be
The only ethical answer to "would you deliberately lay waste to a chunk of the earth's surface, killing a load of people and devastating the surrounding environment for generations to come" is an emphatic no. "But they did it first!" is a frankly batshit justification when considered outside of any frame except the one where human geopolitics is the most important thing in the universe.
The fact this question is not only up for debate but that the only politically acceptable answer to a large part of the population is 'yes' is indicative of a fundamental fucking problem with humanity. And we all know this, and we all know that the Greens can't answer 'yes' without betraying their entire underlying cause, and that any left-wing Labour leader is gonna have trouble answering 'yes' without pissing off pacifists, humanists, and environmentalists, and that the Conservatives and other right wingers are gonna have no problem saying "You betcha!" with great gusto because at this point they're all more than halfway to being an ecocidal death cult. It's insane that in the 21st century, with a full understanding of the ramifications and a genuine global catastrophe literally on the doorstep, national leaders are expected to posture as future progenitors of (reluctant) mass slaughter in order to be taken seriously.
And I do understand the political realities surrounding nuclear deterrence, and it's place in the quasi-stability of the global power balance of the last fifty odd years. It just seems like by now we should surely have moved beyond this point and grown up a bit. But we haven't. That's why this question gives me the utter shits - it's indicative of a cultural refusal to move beyond an adolescent mindset.
The only ethical answer to "would you deliberately lay waste to a chunk of the earth's surface, killing a load of people and devastating the surrounding environment for generations to come" is an emphatic no. "But they did it first!" is a frankly batshit justification when considered outside of any frame except the one where human geopolitics is the most important thing in the universe.
The fact this question is not only up for debate but that the only politically acceptable answer to a large part of the population is 'yes' is indicative of a fundamental fucking problem with humanity. And we all know this, and we all know that the Greens can't answer 'yes' without betraying their entire underlying cause, and that any left-wing Labour leader is gonna have trouble answering 'yes' without pissing off pacifists, humanists, and environmentalists, and that the Conservatives and other right wingers are gonna have no problem saying "You betcha!" with great gusto because at this point they're all more than halfway to being an ecocidal death cult. It's insane that in the 21st century, with a full understanding of the ramifications and a genuine global catastrophe literally on the doorstep, national leaders are expected to posture as future progenitors of (reluctant) mass slaughter in order to be taken seriously.
And I do understand the political realities surrounding nuclear deterrence, and it's place in the quasi-stability of the global power balance of the last fifty odd years. It just seems like by now we should surely have moved beyond this point and grown up a bit. But we haven't. That's why this question gives me the utter shits - it's indicative of a cultural refusal to move beyond an adolescent mindset.
I don't see how this has anything to do with an "adolescent mindset". We haven't "moved beyond it" because nothing about the basic logic of nuclear weapons has changed, so nothing about the political realities of their place in foreign policy has changed.
I mean, there was actual work being done on at least drawing down nuclear arsenals but that's pretty much stalled out these days I believe. And given the political realities of having nukes, some other countries (see - NK) are eager to join the "don't fuck with me" club.
+7
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
The only way this debate ends is with the trolley problem and we all know so let's just not.
The only ethical answer to "would you deliberately lay waste to a chunk of the earth's surface, killing a load of people and devastating the surrounding environment for generations to come" is an emphatic no. "But they did it first!" is a frankly batshit justification when considered outside of any frame except the one where human geopolitics is the most important thing in the universe.
The fact this question is not only up for debate but that the only politically acceptable answer to a large part of the population is 'yes' is indicative of a fundamental fucking problem with humanity. And we all know this, and we all know that the Greens can't answer 'yes' without betraying their entire underlying cause, and that any left-wing Labour leader is gonna have trouble answering 'yes' without pissing off pacifists, humanists, and environmentalists, and that the Conservatives and other right wingers are gonna have no problem saying "You betcha!" with great gusto because at this point they're all more than halfway to being an ecocidal death cult. It's insane that in the 21st century, with a full understanding of the ramifications and a genuine global catastrophe literally on the doorstep, national leaders are expected to posture as future progenitors of (reluctant) mass slaughter in order to be taken seriously.
And I do understand the political realities surrounding nuclear deterrence, and it's place in the quasi-stability of the global power balance of the last fifty odd years. It just seems like by now we should surely have moved beyond this point and grown up a bit. But we haven't. That's why this question gives me the utter shits - it's indicative of a cultural refusal to move beyond an adolescent mindset.
I don't see how this has anything to do with an "adolescent mindset". We haven't "moved beyond it" because nothing about the basic logic of nuclear weapons has changed, so nothing about the political realities of their place in foreign policy has changed.
I mean, there was actual work being done on at least drawing down nuclear arsenals but that's pretty much stalled out these days I believe. And given the political realities of having nukes, some other countries (see - NK) are eager to join the "don't fuck with me" club.
Also The Ukraine's decision to give up their nuclear arsenal didn't work out well for them.
The only ethical answer to "would you deliberately lay waste to a chunk of the earth's surface, killing a load of people and devastating the surrounding environment for generations to come" is an emphatic no. "But they did it first!" is a frankly batshit justification when considered outside of any frame except the one where human geopolitics is the most important thing in the universe.
The fact this question is not only up for debate but that the only politically acceptable answer to a large part of the population is 'yes' is indicative of a fundamental fucking problem with humanity. And we all know this, and we all know that the Greens can't answer 'yes' without betraying their entire underlying cause, and that any left-wing Labour leader is gonna have trouble answering 'yes' without pissing off pacifists, humanists, and environmentalists, and that the Conservatives and other right wingers are gonna have no problem saying "You betcha!" with great gusto because at this point they're all more than halfway to being an ecocidal death cult. It's insane that in the 21st century, with a full understanding of the ramifications and a genuine global catastrophe literally on the doorstep, national leaders are expected to posture as future progenitors of (reluctant) mass slaughter in order to be taken seriously.
And I do understand the political realities surrounding nuclear deterrence, and it's place in the quasi-stability of the global power balance of the last fifty odd years. It just seems like by now we should surely have moved beyond this point and grown up a bit. But we haven't. That's why this question gives me the utter shits - it's indicative of a cultural refusal to move beyond an adolescent mindset.
I don't see how this has anything to do with an "adolescent mindset". We haven't "moved beyond it" because nothing about the basic logic of nuclear weapons has changed, so nothing about the political realities of their place in foreign policy has changed.
I mean, there was actual work being done on at least drawing down nuclear arsenals but that's pretty much stalled out these days I believe. And given the political realities of having nukes, some other countries (see - NK) are eager to join the "don't fuck with me" club.
Also The Ukraine's decision to give up their nuclear arsenal didn't work out well for them.
I dont think France is going to reignite the Hundred Years war
0
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Pacifists get rolled over. This is true in the past, its true now, and its very likely to be true in the future. You may not like that nukes exist (I sure don't!), but they do. Countries without the capability and willingness to defend their borders either lose sovereignty, or end up as client states under someone else's umbrella. Like yes, use of nukes and the threats to do so are horrific, but they exist. We can't undo that, so the only meaningful choices in the modern era are to either acquire them and maintain them in perpetuity, dive under someone else's protection who has them and is willing to maintain them in perpetuity, or get conquered by someone who does have them.
Considering NATO, it's an irrelevant question for the PM. If Russia nukes London then Moscow will get nuked by someone regardless of what order comes out of Downing Street.
Pacifists get rolled over. This is true in the past, its true now, and its very likely to be true in the future. You may not like that nukes exist (I sure don't!), but they do. Countries without the capability and willingness to defend their borders either lose sovereignty, or end up as client states under someone else's umbrella. Like yes, use of nukes and the threats to do so are horrific, but they exist. We can't undo that, so the only meaningful choices in the modern era are to either acquire them and maintain them in perpetuity, dive under someone else's protection who has them and is willing to maintain them in perpetuity, or get conquered by someone who does have them.
Sorry this is social Darwinist, "might makes right"-type thinking
That the only two possible states in international relations are power and submission and the only meaningful choice is to exert "power" is something which both colonialists and fascists tried to tell themselves
I mean, there are definitely other choices. One is just not always given the chance to exercise said choices.
Tice is Brexit party, Sunak is Tory, Swinson is Lib Del leader, Long-Bailey is Labour.
Sturgeon is SNP, Lucas is Green party, Price is Plaid Cymru.
Honest question, is there a particular reason this has become An Important Question?
Corbyn famously says he would never use nuclear weapons, which has diplomatic and political impacts (regardless of whether we think it’s a good idea personally).
So now everyone gets asked.
ETA: I gather it’s a totem issue for the Greens and the SNP as well, though I suspect Corbyn’s personal views are what’s catapulted it to the main stage, so to speak.
No, Corbyn said he would not issue a pre-emptive nuclear strike. He then wouldn't speculate on the hypothetical of a retaliatory nuclear strike.
This happened at the 2017 QT special. Where upon questioner after questioner asked him if he would use the nukes.
In response to the repeated question this is where the term Wall of Gammon was coined.
In this tweet avoidembeding-twitter.com/bendavis_86/status/872951456504172544
Pacifists get rolled over. This is true in the past, its true now, and its very likely to be true in the future. You may not like that nukes exist (I sure don't!), but they do. Countries without the capability and willingness to defend their borders either lose sovereignty, or end up as client states under someone else's umbrella. Like yes, use of nukes and the threats to do so are horrific, but they exist. We can't undo that, so the only meaningful choices in the modern era are to either acquire them and maintain them in perpetuity, dive under someone else's protection who has them and is willing to maintain them in perpetuity, or get conquered by someone who does have them.
Sorry this is social Darwinist, "might makes right"-type thinking
That the only two possible states in international relations are power and submission and the only meaningful choice is to exert "power" is something which both colonialists and fascists tried to tell themselves
I don't think it makes it right at all. I think the current state of affairs is horrid. But unless you can prevent some humans from being willing to use force on each other to gain resources/power AND prevent nukes from existing, then yeah, MAD is going to be the current best option. Its resulted in the lower % of humans dying from war, either directly or indirectly, in human history. MAD has proven to be unreasonably effective at preventing large power from engaging in the endless meat grinders of WW1/WW2.
I don't think might in any way confers any sort of right, but nukes and belligerents with them exist. The amount of change that would have to sweep the world to ensure world peace to the point where we all agree to turn our swords to plowshares forever just isn't going to happen. For citation, see all of human history. I fully support efforts to deescalate conflicts via diplomacy, mutual beneficial agreements and any other method to peacefully resolve our conflicts before ever considering violence. But we can't just pretend that violent, bad faith actors armed with nukes don't exist, and it follows you can't just fight them with moral clarity, diplomacy and best wishes.
Pacifists get rolled over. This is true in the past, its true now, and its very likely to be true in the future. You may not like that nukes exist (I sure don't!), but they do. Countries without the capability and willingness to defend their borders either lose sovereignty, or end up as client states under someone else's umbrella. Like yes, use of nukes and the threats to do so are horrific, but they exist. We can't undo that, so the only meaningful choices in the modern era are to either acquire them and maintain them in perpetuity, dive under someone else's protection who has them and is willing to maintain them in perpetuity, or get conquered by someone who does have them.
Or in short to quote a PAC slogan; Every country in the world has a standing army inside it, either their own or somebody else's.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
consistent labour bounce observable in last few days of polling, i would say something like 3%, perfectly timed to make the yougov MRP less helpful than everybody wanted it to be
My view continues to be that this will be a close run thing. This is the Brexit election and it is going to come down to tactical voting. When the shit hits the fan a lot of Lib Dems may go Labour and a lot of Tories may go Brexit (and a not insignificant number Lib Dem--OK no one is going Lib Dem). It is still the Tories to lose but Boris current "I love everybody and I'm totally Blair and totally Thatcher" bit is going to get very old very fast. Peak pander is not a 21st century strategy. If BJ wins it will be a combination of luck and Labour being 10 years ahead of the populace.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
When we ask candidates whether or not they would authorize a non-retaliatory nuclear strike we're deep in fantasy land
On the other hand, nuclear non-proliferation is almost certainly going to be a more pressing concern for a sitting British PM (the UK was one of the signatories of the Iran nuclear deal)
It's not a sensible question
Given that we have people here to think that there is an acceptable answer other than the one you find it clearly is a reasonable question for which different answers are informative
Weird question, but since there are a lot of Guardian readers here - anyone else having an issue just over the last day or two where a new page or a page refresh jumps right to the bottom of the page? I'm getting it in both Firefox and Edge on my PC, and Firefox on my phone.
Tice is Brexit party, Sunak is Tory, Swinson is Lib Del leader, Long-Bailey is Labour.
Sturgeon is SNP, Lucas is Green party, Price is Plaid Cymru.
Honest question, is there a particular reason this has become An Important Question?
It is a dumb question because I'm pretty sure no human being really knows what they would do if some shit went down and they had to make this choice. The no fucking way crowd may hit the button in a heartbeat and the never ever crowd may spam the red button like someone trying to avoid an unacceptable elevator partner. It means nothing in the context of nuclear war but it might mean something in another context. All information is potentially useful.
It's not really a dumb question at all. It's the core question of MAD, which is the keystone of nuclear weapon strategy in foreign policy. Basically the only purpose of nuclear weapons is that everyone knows you have them and would use them.
No it is a dumb question because it just becomes this:
It's that "tough on crime" bullshit. That "Would you do what is necessary if The Event happened?" nonsense that is not about policy but about showing how tough and made-of-leadership-material you are. It is not a serious or relevant question. As @eEK! points out, it's like asking candidates if they would kill baby Hitler. Who gives a shit? What the fuck does a Yes or No answer tell us about who we should pick to make choices for the next four years?
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
If you're not ready to use nukes, MAD doesn't work. So, what's to stop a nuclear country from just taking what it wants?
But you're just saying you'd never use them you're not like scuttling the submarines and filling in the silos, the pistol is still loaded and pointed in your face
Right, so when you say you'll "never use them" you are just ... lying? All the politicians saying they'd never use them are just demonstrating they are liars?
I guess the question is also perfectly reasonable that way too. "I'd like to ask all of you directly which of you is a bald-faced liar. Show of hands please."
Skipping over the whole "wow, politicians that would lie??" thing, the problem here is that in such a situation authority is the first thing to be thrown out as not real.
The PM is not actually able to physically restrain the guy in the submarine with his finger on the button. Whether the PM would authorize use or not does not matter if it is possible to act against that authority. MAD isn't a theory worth much discussion because the only question is if the other side is capable and able. Do they have the things and are they able to launch the things? If "Yes" then you can't attack.
I would hope that no one here actually thinks that unambigious circumstances exist under which a nuclear first strike would be acceptable
When Barry Goldwater implied that such circumstances might exist he lost by a landslide and political efforts over the last thirty years have been mostly towards non-proliferation
I hope you forgive me for thinking it is very "out there" that a British PM would just nuke the shit out of another country and that people would make an albatross out of it if they don't show a certain base willingness to do it
Typically politicians do not answer “yea lets first strike peope” in response to the question.
Tice is Brexit party, Sunak is Tory, Swinson is Lib Del leader, Long-Bailey is Labour.
Sturgeon is SNP, Lucas is Green party, Price is Plaid Cymru.
Honest question, is there a particular reason this has become An Important Question?
It is a dumb question because I'm pretty sure no human being really knows what they would do if some shit went down and they had to make this choice. The no fucking way crowd may hit the button in a heartbeat and the never ever crowd may spam the red button like someone trying to avoid an unacceptable elevator partner. It means nothing in the context of nuclear war but it might mean something in another context. All information is potentially useful.
It's not really a dumb question at all. It's the core question of MAD, which is the keystone of nuclear weapon strategy in foreign policy. Basically the only purpose of nuclear weapons is that everyone knows you have them and would use them.
No it is a dumb question because it just becomes this:
It's that "tough on crime" bullshit. That "Would you do what is necessary if The Event happened?" nonsense that is not about policy but about showing how tough and made-of-leadership-material you are. It is not a serious or relevant question. As @eEK! points out, it's like asking candidates if they would kill baby Hitler. Who gives a shit? What the fuck does a Yes or No answer tell us about who we should pick to make choices for the next four years?
Except both people exist who clearly want their politicians to answer “no” and also politicians who do do that!
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Except both people exist who clearly want their politicians to answer “no” and also politicians who do do that!
I like Corbyn's answer of "no" to a pre-emptive strike and refusal to speculate on retaliation but I also accept "no" in answer to the general question, because I understand that politicians can't just go "What the fuck is your fucking problem?" to moderators in a televised debate.
But yeah obviously the answer tells us something about them being the kind of fuckers to care about this shit or not, my point was that it doesn't actually tell us anything about what they will actually do in real life. I linked that Simpsons clip for a reason. The question is a deliberate distraction from the real issues.
Weird question, but since there are a lot of Guardian readers here - anyone else having an issue just over the last day or two where a new page or a page refresh jumps right to the bottom of the page? I'm getting it in both Firefox and Edge on my PC, and Firefox on my phone.
Yup! noticed yesterday but could've been going a smidge longer than that
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
I was going to ask "What is it about Corbyn that brings out the loyalty in an election and makes him gain ground at a ridiculous pace so he does better than he should but not good enough to win?"
But I think I had it backwards. I think most people who aren't committed to a party, facing the prospect of a real election and not poll posturing, realize that the Lib Dems and Greens don't have a shot, Nigel Farage's Drunk-Stumbling Circus is redundant, and they're not in Scotland or Northern Ireland. It's Tories or Labour.
And then some of those people who aren't committed to a party but would never vote Tory look at Corbyn and can't quite bring themselves to vote Labour, either. Which, for the Remainers, if the only issue on the table was Brexit, I could almost understand. Corbyn might deliver a softer Brexit, maybe, but otherwise what would be the point?
Yet, despite what British political media's behavior over the past three and a half years would indicate, Brexit is not the only issue. It is intertwined with basically every issue and makes everything worse, but it's not the only damage the Tories are planning. Given a choice, a Brexited Britain with Labour taxing the ever-loving fuck out of the rich to keep social services afloat is a much better prospect than multinationals being invited to loot the place.
I just really hope that Johnson is enough of a handicap that enough people can hold their nose and vote for Corbyn this time.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Brexit is the only legitimate reason to dislike Corbyn given the stakes. He is less of an anti-semite than Johnson is a general racist, I don't understand the big deal about his blasphemies regarding certain violent groups and I think he is morally correct and fiery but not very effective in his debating and rhetoric. But his waffling on Brexit is just as aggravating as the Lib Dems' general demeanour,
+4
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
boris (presumably the spad and social media guy who prepare posts for this account?) have managed to screw up by giving a not particularly edited version of a blogpost a lawyer wrote about all the nonsense he was spouting yesterday about the early release thing
secret barrister is a pseudonymous twitter account written by a barrister who afaik specialises in criminal law and has been extremely critical of the failure to adequately fund the courts and the reductions to legal aid
boris (presumably the spad and social media guy who prepare posts for this account?) have managed to screw up by giving a not particularly edited version of a blogpost a lawyer wrote about all the nonsense he was spouting yesterday about the early release thing
secret barrister is a pseudonymous twitter account written by a barrister who afaik specialises in criminal law and has been extremely critical of the failure to adequately fund the courts and the reductions to legal aid
not the end of the world but extremely stupid
So quite literally copying the American Republican playbook now?
boris (presumably the spad and social media guy who prepare posts for this account?) have managed to screw up by giving a not particularly edited version of a blogpost a lawyer wrote about all the nonsense he was spouting yesterday about the early release thing
secret barrister is a pseudonymous twitter account written by a barrister who afaik specialises in criminal law and has been extremely critical of the failure to adequately fund the courts and the reductions to legal aid
not the end of the world but extremely stupid
So quite literally copying the American Republican playbook now?
Well... the American First Lady's playbook at least.
Posts
There is a kind of second order effect here
CCHQ have basically telegraphed that Johnson will only do what they perceive to be soft touch interviews
I would imagine that this would influence the approach of any journalist that does secure an interview
Given that it's easy to interpret this as a personal insult towards Marr himself, he might surprise us all by going for the jugular
I mean, I doubt it, but one can hope
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
But you're just saying you'd never use them you're not like scuttling the submarines and filling in the silos, the pistol is still loaded and pointed in your face
Steam | XBL
Right, so when you say you'll "never use them" you are just ... lying? All the politicians saying they'd never use them are just demonstrating they are liars?
I guess the question is also perfectly reasonable that way too. "I'd like to ask all of you directly which of you is a bald-faced liar. Show of hands please."
But at the same time, anyone who says they will use them is lying. The whole idea of MAD is that everyone has a button to destroy the opponent, so no one ever should nuke an opponent, or be immediately nuked themselves in retaliation.
It is a silly question to which the only right answer is supposed to be "yes, if an opponent nukes us"
What? No. The whole idea of MAD is that you will 100% use nukes in retaliation. That's what MAD means. You will absolutely use your nukes is what the entire thing is built on. It's not a lie in any way, shape or form to be saying "Yes, I would use them". So unless the question is specifically "Would you use them in a first strike", the answer is supposed to be "Yes".
And frankly, the question of "Would you use nukes in a first strike?" is also itself a question worth knowing the answer to.
EDIT: this is dominic raabs constituency
please please please narrow further
The fact this question is not only up for debate but that the only politically acceptable answer to a large part of the population is 'yes' is indicative of a fundamental fucking problem with humanity. And we all know this, and we all know that the Greens can't answer 'yes' without betraying their entire underlying cause, and that any left-wing Labour leader is gonna have trouble answering 'yes' without pissing off pacifists, humanists, and environmentalists, and that the Conservatives and other right wingers are gonna have no problem saying "You betcha!" with great gusto because at this point they're all more than halfway to being an ecocidal death cult. It's insane that in the 21st century, with a full understanding of the ramifications and a genuine global catastrophe literally on the doorstep, national leaders are expected to posture as future progenitors of (reluctant) mass slaughter in order to be taken seriously.
And I do understand the political realities surrounding nuclear deterrence, and it's place in the quasi-stability of the global power balance of the last fifty odd years. It just seems like by now we should surely have moved beyond this point and grown up a bit. But we haven't. That's why this question gives me the utter shits - it's indicative of a cultural refusal to move beyond an adolescent mindset.
I don't see how this has anything to do with an "adolescent mindset". We haven't "moved beyond it" because nothing about the basic logic of nuclear weapons has changed, so nothing about the political realities of their place in foreign policy has changed.
I mean, there was actual work being done on at least drawing down nuclear arsenals but that's pretty much stalled out these days I believe. And given the political realities of having nukes, some other countries (see - NK) are eager to join the "don't fuck with me" club.
I dont think France is going to reignite the Hundred Years war
For a given definition of "they".
Steam | XBL
I mean, there are definitely other choices. One is just not always given the chance to exercise said choices.
No, Corbyn said he would not issue a pre-emptive nuclear strike. He then wouldn't speculate on the hypothetical of a retaliatory nuclear strike.
This happened at the 2017 QT special. Where upon questioner after questioner asked him if he would use the nukes.
In response to the repeated question this is where the term Wall of Gammon was coined.
In this tweet avoidembeding-twitter.com/bendavis_86/status/872951456504172544
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I don't think it makes it right at all. I think the current state of affairs is horrid. But unless you can prevent some humans from being willing to use force on each other to gain resources/power AND prevent nukes from existing, then yeah, MAD is going to be the current best option. Its resulted in the lower % of humans dying from war, either directly or indirectly, in human history. MAD has proven to be unreasonably effective at preventing large power from engaging in the endless meat grinders of WW1/WW2.
I don't think might in any way confers any sort of right, but nukes and belligerents with them exist. The amount of change that would have to sweep the world to ensure world peace to the point where we all agree to turn our swords to plowshares forever just isn't going to happen. For citation, see all of human history. I fully support efforts to deescalate conflicts via diplomacy, mutual beneficial agreements and any other method to peacefully resolve our conflicts before ever considering violence. But we can't just pretend that violent, bad faith actors armed with nukes don't exist, and it follows you can't just fight them with moral clarity, diplomacy and best wishes.
Or in short to quote a PAC slogan; Every country in the world has a standing army inside it, either their own or somebody else's.
My view continues to be that this will be a close run thing. This is the Brexit election and it is going to come down to tactical voting. When the shit hits the fan a lot of Lib Dems may go Labour and a lot of Tories may go Brexit (and a not insignificant number Lib Dem--OK no one is going Lib Dem). It is still the Tories to lose but Boris current "I love everybody and I'm totally Blair and totally Thatcher" bit is going to get very old very fast. Peak pander is not a 21st century strategy. If BJ wins it will be a combination of luck and Labour being 10 years ahead of the populace.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Given that we have people here to think that there is an acceptable answer other than the one you find it clearly is a reasonable question for which different answers are informative
Steam | XBL
No it is a dumb question because it just becomes this:
It's that "tough on crime" bullshit. That "Would you do what is necessary if The Event happened?" nonsense that is not about policy but about showing how tough and made-of-leadership-material you are. It is not a serious or relevant question. As @eEK! points out, it's like asking candidates if they would kill baby Hitler. Who gives a shit? What the fuck does a Yes or No answer tell us about who we should pick to make choices for the next four years?
Skipping over the whole "wow, politicians that would lie??" thing, the problem here is that in such a situation authority is the first thing to be thrown out as not real.
The PM is not actually able to physically restrain the guy in the submarine with his finger on the button. Whether the PM would authorize use or not does not matter if it is possible to act against that authority. MAD isn't a theory worth much discussion because the only question is if the other side is capable and able. Do they have the things and are they able to launch the things? If "Yes" then you can't attack.
Typically politicians do not answer “yea lets first strike peope” in response to the question.
Except both people exist who clearly want their politicians to answer “no” and also politicians who do do that!
I like Corbyn's answer of "no" to a pre-emptive strike and refusal to speculate on retaliation but I also accept "no" in answer to the general question, because I understand that politicians can't just go "What the fuck is your fucking problem?" to moderators in a televised debate.
But yeah obviously the answer tells us something about them being the kind of fuckers to care about this shit or not, my point was that it doesn't actually tell us anything about what they will actually do in real life. I linked that Simpsons clip for a reason. The question is a deliberate distraction from the real issues.
Yup! noticed yesterday but could've been going a smidge longer than that
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Well. Hopefully this inspires more enthusiasm than complacency.
I mean there is this too.
But I think I had it backwards. I think most people who aren't committed to a party, facing the prospect of a real election and not poll posturing, realize that the Lib Dems and Greens don't have a shot, Nigel Farage's Drunk-Stumbling Circus is redundant, and they're not in Scotland or Northern Ireland. It's Tories or Labour.
And then some of those people who aren't committed to a party but would never vote Tory look at Corbyn and can't quite bring themselves to vote Labour, either. Which, for the Remainers, if the only issue on the table was Brexit, I could almost understand. Corbyn might deliver a softer Brexit, maybe, but otherwise what would be the point?
Yet, despite what British political media's behavior over the past three and a half years would indicate, Brexit is not the only issue. It is intertwined with basically every issue and makes everything worse, but it's not the only damage the Tories are planning. Given a choice, a Brexited Britain with Labour taxing the ever-loving fuck out of the rich to keep social services afloat is a much better prospect than multinationals being invited to loot the place.
I just really hope that Johnson is enough of a handicap that enough people can hold their nose and vote for Corbyn this time.
secret barrister is a pseudonymous twitter account written by a barrister who afaik specialises in criminal law and has been extremely critical of the failure to adequately fund the courts and the reductions to legal aid
not the end of the world but extremely stupid
So quite literally copying the American Republican playbook now?
Well... the American First Lady's playbook at least.