EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 213
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
| ||
|
Faggatron
United Kingdom65 Posts
On July 18 2016 07:40 kollin wrote: The best thing Labour supporters can do at this point is campaign their hearts out for proportional representation - alongside UKIP, Lib Dems and Greens - and hope the collective pressure is enough to get it implemented before the next election. Agreed. Unfortunately they have MPs like the one who wrote this. http://labourlist.org/2016/07/the-people-have-spoken-they-dont-electoral-reform/ | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6641 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9847 Posts
On July 19 2016 06:23 jello_biafra wrote: Trident renewal confirmed, 472 to 117, pretty decisive. It was always going to be, this was just a good way to split Labour a bit deeper while they have a leadership election. | ||
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
| ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On July 19 2016 06:55 KwarK wrote: We're never going to use Trident aggressively so logically the best option would be to scrap Trident, use the money for other things and tell everyone we still have Trident while keeping cardboard cutout submarines in dock. So from that perspective I disagree with Trident but as I've not seen the missiles with my own two eyes I can't guarantee they haven't already done exactly that. This is pretty much how i feel about it, just lie, that way we keep the deterrent and the money. However there is probably some law stopping them from doing that. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
 | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:32 Shield wrote: The UK isn't my country, but I feel like upgrading Trident was the smart choice. I'm against war and nuclear weapons mean war, but they can also mean peace if they keep discouraging wars. Only the US have used nuclear weapons so far. When would we ever use Trident? | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
Hopefully never. Nuclear weapons are also for defense. I think they serve this purpose very well. Otherwise, I'm against their use as aggression. Edit: Imagine Trident is abandoned. What will you do against Russia, China, North Korea, etc? | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:34 Shield wrote: Hopefully never. Nuclear weapons are also for defense. I think they serve this purpose very well. Otherwise, I'm against their use as aggression. If we're never going to use them why do we have them? It's not like the US doesn't have thousands more, Trident would just be a drop in the pond in comparison. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:38 kollin wrote: If we're never going to use them why do we have them? It's not like the US doesn't have thousands more, Trident would just be a drop in the pond in comparison. Will the US let you use their nuclear weapons as your own though? If yes, then you probably don't need Trident. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:34 Shield wrote: Hopefully never. Nuclear weapons are also for defense. I think they serve this purpose very well. Otherwise, I'm against their use as aggression. Edit: Imagine Trident is abandoned. What will you do against Russia, China, North Korea, etc? What would a nuclear weapon do to help us against North Korea? The only time we could possibly justify using one would be a total war to the death of one of the two civilizations and North Korea doesn't have many regional conflicts with the UK. Consider this hypothetical. There is a cold war between two large blocs which collectively cover the globe. Each has enough nuclear weapons to completely obliterate the other and each vows annihilation if the other attacks. One day you hear reports that the other bloc has launched and that in 30 minutes your entire civilization, spanning half the globe, will be utterly destroyed. The question at this point isn't "can you stop it?", you're all going to die, it's over, the question is "do you still launch your own counterstrike?". I would argue no. It doesn't matter at this point to you, you're all dead and so is your entire civilization, all you can do is upgrade that to the entire of humanity. From a game theory perspective you want the enemy to believe you would fire nukes out of spite, even when they couldn't save you, even if it were to destroy the world, but from a practical standpoint it is never the rational choice. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
In any case, the threat itself is what makes the difference. No sane leader would push their luck on that Kwark hypothetical. And I don't think his viewpoint would win out either. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9847 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6274 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote: What would a nuclear weapon do to help us against North Korea? The only time we could possibly justify using one would be a total war to the death of one of the two civilizations and North Korea doesn't have many regional conflicts with the UK. Consider this hypothetical. There is a cold war between two large blocs which collectively cover the globe. Each has enough nuclear weapons to completely obliterate the other and each vows annihilation if the other attacks. One day you hear reports that the other bloc has launched and that in 30 minutes your entire civilization, spanning half the globe, will be utterly destroyed. The question at this point isn't "can you stop it?", you're all going to die, it's over, the question is "do you still launch your own counterstrike?". I would argue no. It doesn't matter at this point to you, you're all dead and so is your entire civilization, all you can do is upgrade that to the entire of humanity. From a game theory perspective you want the enemy to believe you would fire nukes out of spite, even when they couldn't save you, even if it were to destroy the world, but from a practical standpoint it is never the rational choice. Now imagine this hypothetical: the opponent has intelligence and they find out your nukes are cardboard ones. Now you have no deterrence left. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On July 19 2016 06:55 KwarK wrote: We're never going to use Trident aggressively so logically the best option would be to scrap Trident, use the money for other things and tell everyone we still have Trident while keeping cardboard cutout submarines in dock. So from that perspective I disagree with Trident but as I've not seen the missiles with my own two eyes I can't guarantee they haven't already done exactly that. How do we know that's not what they've already done? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote: What would a nuclear weapon do to help us against North Korea? The only time we could possibly justify using one would be a total war to the death of one of the two civilizations and North Korea doesn't have many regional conflicts with the UK. Consider this hypothetical. There is a cold war between two large blocs which collectively cover the globe. Each has enough nuclear weapons to completely obliterate the other and each vows annihilation if the other attacks. One day you hear reports that the other bloc has launched and that in 30 minutes your entire civilization, spanning half the globe, will be utterly destroyed. The question at this point isn't "can you stop it?", you're all going to die, it's over, the question is "do you still launch your own counterstrike?". I would argue no. It doesn't matter at this point to you, you're all dead and so is your entire civilization, all you can do is upgrade that to the entire of humanity. From a game theory perspective you want the enemy to believe you would fire nukes out of spite, even when they couldn't save you, even if it were to destroy the world, but from a practical standpoint it is never the rational choice. you have a fail hypothetical. if you have nukes to "completely obliterate the other block" and "your civilization, spanning half the globe, will be utterly destroyed" it means that, by the logic of how nukes work, you'll destroy the whole globe. so, face with total extinction you also fire your nukes because why would you leave your nukes as legacy to whatever monkey comes next?. Edit: but even if magic is real and your exact scenario happens, you still launch your counterstrike. | ||
|
Evotroid
Hungary176 Posts
On July 19 2016 18:19 xM(Z wrote: you have a fail hypothetical. if you have nukes to "completely obliterate the other block" and "your civilization, spanning half the globe, will be utterly destroyed" it means that, by the logic of how nukes work, you'll destroy the whole globe. so, face with total extinction you also fire your nukes because why would you leave your nukes as legacy to whatever monkey comes next?. Edit: but even if magic is real and your exact scenario happens, you still launch your counterstrike. Care to elaborate on the bolded part? what logic of how the nukes work mandates that you can only destroy all of human civilization with them, and not only say the american continents worth of civilization? Obviously, there will be adverse effects for the entire world, especially with globalism and what not, but it's not like there is some quirky physics that automatically makes the whole planet automatically uninhabitable. | ||
| ||
