Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Boris Johnson vs Ian Lavery: 'You pointed in my face' BBC News" video.

  1. One of the very first things a new prime minister has to do is to write a letter that instructs trident sub captains on what to do if the UK is taken out by a nuclear attack. So the question is very relevant. Despite what the fluffy-headed doormat in the audience thought.
    17
  2. The stupidity of the whole things is that a nuclear deterrent is only a deterrent if the other side think you would use yours if they used theirs. He can write whatever he likes in that letter. It would only be read in the event of a nuclear war. And is destroyed when a PM leaves office. So no one ever knows what is written. So, would it have killed him to lie and say yes I would definitely launch a counterstrike? It's just virtue signalling bullshit designed to impress other virtue signalling bullshitters. Completely undermines the whole point of trident. So why renew something that is no longer a deterrent?
    4
  3. Mike Nelson Because if an enemy knows that a nuclear attack on the UK means that the UK would retaliate in the same way, it makes it far less likely that they would launch a first strike.
    4
  4. Then why not say that? Why the whole pointless virtue signalling routine? He doesn't like nuclear war? ...well duh!
    3
  5. No. In my scenario, the attack wouldn't have happened in the first place because the enemy would know we would retaliate.
    2
  6. Japan doesn't presently have a nuclear deterrent because it has an alliance with the US. Western security is built on alliances. Once you start picking apart those commitments the whole thing quickly unravels. The UK's nuclear deterrent plays an important roll in the defence of Europe. As does France. And the UK sticks its neck out in order to safeguard the rest of Europe (UK troops are stationed in the Baltics with NATO). The eastern Europeans are particularly concerned with Russia annexing neighbouring territory. Latvia, for example, has a large ethnic Russian minority left over from soviet occupation. Much like Ukraine. So the UK is right up there on the front line. You can argue that the UK shouldn't get involved. But that undermines the security of eastern Europe. Strength in numbers, because on their own they wouldn't stand a chance. And since Trump got elected, he's been pretty uninterested in the whole NATO thing, which leaves Europe open to Russian aggression. So Europe is forced to increase their defence budget. Because being in NATO is value for money. As for north Korea, they are miles ahead of the game when it comes to playing diplomacy. They see nuclear weapons as a way to blackmail South Korea, the US, Japan, and China. They want cash. And aid. They also want an enemy to blame for all the problems created by their unworkable economic system.  So you can have as much diplomacy as you like with them. But that won't stop them from developing nuclear weapons.
    2
  7. And of course trident won't stop terrorism. It's not designed to. But then the police aren't equipped to prevent a nuclear missile dropping on London. And the NHS doesn't put out fires etc.
    2
  8. I think we all know appeasement doesn't work.
    2
  9. Appeasement is a big thing on the left now. Corbyn looked ISIS in the eye, shrugged his shoulders and went back to complaining about Israel. And the reason is the Iraq war. They couldn't take on ISIS because they knew that if they did, everything they ever said about 'war for oil', the 'military industrial complex' etc etc, would be thrown right back in their faces. So they have to act like the real world isn't happening.
    2
  10. Yeah, its probably written into their constitution. I know that not involving itself in military operations outside it's own borders is. Altho they are thinking of changing that. But then that only works if you have an ally who is willing to stand by you, like the US. But that might not always be the case.
    1
  11. No idea where you get the idea the UK 'rents' trident from the US. It's a fully independent nuclear deterrent.
    1
  12. Blahblahblah...Bankers...Blahblahblah...Hegemony....Blahblahblah Bankers...Blahblahblah....Iraq...Blahblahblah...Bankers...Blahblahblah...Military Industrial Complex...Blahblahblah....Bankers...ZZzzzzz....
    1
  13. MrSRA13 You can't move an entire tank division on the hush hush. There are no UK forces in Ukraine. Plenty of Russians tho!
    1
  14. Only the media would report it. It's kinda the thing they do. This isn't Putin's Russia.
    1
  15. Like I said, this isn't Russia. We don't have the KGB in charge.
    1
  16. Not at all. The government would have to issue a D notice in order to secretly move an entire tank division to Ukraine. And the media in this country has no problem flinging mud at the government. You are simply repeating bullcrap.
    1