"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote:
On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:

" ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button
and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our
politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic
that
anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the
entire human race, is the crazy person in the room."

He does have a point.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/

TW

Perhaps he does, but it is flawed.
Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed?
Beachy Head is that way

Don't understand that at all.

Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent
is taking a suicidal stance.


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having
Nuclear Weapons? I think none.
In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better
result than the destruction of some of them?

And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long
time. Has that contributed to peace?

Yep, they have ensured that there will never be a WW3.

Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in
foreign wars?

Corse not with lower level wars than a full world war.

What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another?

But no full world war again.

What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful?

Corse not.

Is North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe?

It is stopping the US from ****ing them over militarily
like it has done with so many other places it doesnt like.
Because even someone like Trump realises what would
happen to South Korea if it was stupid enough to try that.

I don't think so.

It has made it safe from being ****ed over by the US,

There hasnt been another full war between India
and Pakistan since they both got nukes, for a reason.

Yes, no one is going to try invading Britain again,
Trident is a complete waste of money now, but
thats an entirely separate matter to what nukes
are useful for for others like Israel etc.