Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Jeremy Corbyn pressed over whether he'd use nuclear weapons - BBC News" video.

  1. If you're going to ask a question, at least ask one that makes sense. It's like asking 'You have third party fire and theft insurance? Why would want your car to be set on fire and stolen?' Nobody wants a nuclear war. But a nuclear strike on this country is considerably lessened if a potential enemy knows that any nuclear attack on the UK would be answered with nuclear retaliation. Hence the words 'nuclear deterrent'. It's pretty fuckin obvious if you think about it.
    3
  2. He won't answer the question. He just waffles on. But refuses to answer. Vacuous, sanctimonious old fart. Then some fluffy-headed doormat in the audience says ''...I don't understand why everyone in this room seems so keen on killing millions of people" No, kitten. They want to know if Corbyn has got what it takes to safeguard the lives of 60 million people. Because the world is a dangerous place. And a nuclear attack on this country is lessened considerably if any potential enemy knows that a first strike on the UK would be answered by a similar response.
    2
  3. Worst of both words. Only a complete fuckup of a shambles could managed that one.
    1
  4. Its called a 'nuclear deterrent' for a reason. If a potential enemy knew that a nuclear attack on the UK would be responded to with nuclear retaliation, they would be far less likely to launch a nuclear attack. Having said that, you're spot on. All he had to do was lie and trident would at least be worth the money being spent on it. No point renewing it if it know longer acts as a deterrent.
    1
  5. Trident is a submarine based weapons system. There is always at least 1 sub somewhere under the sea. The very minimum required is a fleet of three vessels. This is so that if one or two is in need of repair, there is always one out on patrol. There always needs to be at least one out on patrol. Because in the event of a nuclear attack it would be too late to launch a sub. Not only that, but if during heightened tensions with a possible enemy it were known that nuclear armed subs were being sent out, it would heighten tensions all the more. The subs constantly monitor news and current events so they know what's going on. There is a set of procedures that the crew will go through in the event that the UK has been hit. One, I believe, is to check if BBC Radio 4 is still broadcasting. But its obviously far more than just that. In the event of a nuclear attack on the UK, the subs captain goes to a safe in his cabin. Opening the safe he will find the launch codes and a letter written by the prime minister. When a new prime minister is elected, this is one of the very first things he or she must do. What the letter says is never divulged. Only the prime minister knows what is says. And when a prime minister leaves office, it is destroyed without being read. The letter will be the prime ministers last instructions on what to do in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK. It might say launch a retaliatory attack. It might say don't launch a retaliatory attack. Or it might say go to the nearest friendly port and put your vessel under the command of an allied power. Pretty sobering stuff. But then the defence of 60 million people isn't to be taken lightly in a world were less friendly nations are also armed with nuclear weapons. The idea of a nuclear deterrent is not to be used. But to deter. If an enemy nation thinks that there is a good chance that if they launch a nuclear attack on the UK, then the UK will respond with a nuclear attack of its own (regardless of the UK no longer existing), it makes a nuclear attack on the UK far less likely. So trident does it's job just by being there. Obviously, if the UK didn't strike back, then the rest of the world would be faced with how best to deal with an aggressor nation that launched a first strike and got away with it. Having already launched a first strike, it would be likely that those countries closest to it would very quickly capitulate. What other nuclear armed countries like the US or France would do is anyone's guess. But if the UK failed to act in its own defence it might possibly be the case that no one else would act in the UK's defence either. If they did launch a retaliatory attack in defence of the UK, well, then most likely they too would be targeted. So you have three nuclear attacks instead of two. What the world would look like after that idk. If you are prime minister, these are things you actually have to think about. Like I said, one of the very first things a new prime minister does is to sit down and write that letter. So those questions are important. But the only use of a nuclear deterrent is that it deters. It doesn't deter if you tell everyone you would never use it. So, in the event you know for sure you would never use it. And you put that in writing to the captain. What is stopping you from lying and saying you would?
    1
  6. And I might just point out that if an enemy did launch a nuclear first strike on the UK. And we didn't retaliate. Then yes. Someone would've won a nuclear war.
    1