Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!

[Celery]

Not if the NATO and the Parliament has to say anything about it.

 

[xoso]

Ah, now I understand so let's put this in context. It was following a statement from Jersey corbyn, the socialist puppet leading the opposition who stated publicly that he would never authorise a nuclear strike. Are you suggesting any American president would not do the same?

 

[Celery]

He can but a lot of red tape to do it.

 

[xoso]

I can assure you Theresa May doesn't just have a red button on a remote control in her handbag.

Personally I think if the same question was put to Trump he'd say 'Hell yeah, when can we start. Let's do the Mexicans first'.

 

[Technician1]

LOL well yeah, who wouldn't?

 

[root]

Our new 'unelected' prime minister is indeed a hateful old bitch but I doubt very much she said anytrhing like that

she said EXACTLY that.

Not if the NATO and the Parliament has to say anything about it.

Nato has no say in whether Britain uses nuclear weapons or not.

just the same as Britain (a nato member) could not stop the US using its nuclear weapons.

Ah, now I understand so let's put this in context. It was following a statement from Jersey corbyn, the socialist puppet leading the opposition who stated publicly that he would never authorise a nuclear strike. Are you suggesting any American president would not do the same?

exactly, the discussion was about funding a nuclear deterrent.

the point is that most, if not all nuclear state leaders in the world probably would not press the metaphorical big red button.

but... you have to believe that they will.

the weapons aren't there to be used, they are there to make you think that they will be used, keeping people in line.

which is exactly why it was so stupid for corbyn to say that he would not use it under any circumstances, he is saying, you can do whatever you like, start whatever wars you like, commit whatever genocide you like, there is no way I would use that ultimate weapon.

whilst May gave the exact right answer.

"would you say that you would be prepared to use a nuclear deterrent."
"yes"

that's the only answer that makes sense, if your public about not prepared to use it, there is no point in having it and there is no way you can pretend to share a state with any other major nation.

On the other hand, you could have complete conviction that you will not use it, you could have even just have empty warheads and no nuclear weapons at all. so long as the world thinks that you have these weapons, and thinks that you'll use them peace is maintained.

Whether or not a leader would actually authorize a nuclear strike is not the point.

When asked, the only sensible answer, the only answer that maintains peace, is "yes"


In case you think that Corbyn is right, and you should just not have nuclear weapons at all. and the whole bluff game is stupid (it's a huge amount to spend maintaining weapons systems that nobody really wants to use but everybody want you to think that they would use.

After the breakup of the USSR the Ukraine (you know that one being invaded Russia) had the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. (more than America, more than Russia etc)

they gave them up in a treaty signed with Russia, UK, France and the US that they would give up their nuclear power in return for protection from the other states, (I.e if invaded from the west Russia would help, if invaded from the east Britain, US and France would help...)

That worked well for them didn't it?

 

[Celery]

Empty warheads?

ROTFLMAO!

As long as there are terrorist threats there ain't no empty warheads.

 

[root]

Empty warheads?

ROTFLMAO!

As long as there are terrorist threats there ain't no empty warheads.

kind of missed the point.
The power of a deterrent is that people believe that you have the most powerful weapon known to man kind and that you are prepared to use it.

It doesn't matter if those warheads are filled with cheese, provided your enemy believes that they are going to be annihilated by it, and act accordingly.

 

[Celery]

I know exactly what you mean. There ain't gonna be any empty warheads here though.

 

[lhuser]

To me, the worst thing that could happen would be an invasion to other countries to slam Trump Towers everywhere. Problem with presidency and owning a series of businesses could lead to a conflict of interest, pretty much meaning getting more perks for his businesses.

HOWEVER, any new laws or actions need to go through the senate, and since both sides seem to hate him, the risk of Trump having no effect through his presidency could occur. There is one way that could render the senate useless; provide decisions that only the president can vote on. Common laws indeed.

I don't know what's all the hoopla about the negative reactions; Clinton may have had the same treatment.

Funny thing is that in Quebec, when PKP was elected the prime minister of the PQ, the other parties wanted him to either leave his prime minister status or Quebecor, since that it creates of conflict of interest.