Crosswords0 min ago
Will Jeremy Corbyn Be Dangerous Should He Becomes Pm?
59 Answers
The following three considerations (amongst many) could well occur should Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM:
(1) Open door policies for immigrants and refugees from all corners of the earth - causing disharmony & strive. As long as there are perceived opposing differences in ‘culture’ & ‘religion’ amongst residents of a country there will be separate lifestyles & hence potential disharmony & friction.
(2) Corbynmania is dangerous as lack of creditable defence cause wars, as tin-pot dictators only understand military force, not negotiations. Should Corbyn manage to introduce his CND policies, which he espouse, UK will FOEVER be threatened and bullied militarily (lost of sovereignty) by present & future nuclear powers. Nuclear deterrent has kept the peace between the superpowers since WW2 (over 70 years ago). UK use her nuclear deterrence everyday to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers). Also, hot pursuit of terrorists can be regarded as self-defence or confrontation of aggression/crime against humanity - like police force do. The modus operandi of megalomaniac power crazy dictators is not negotiations (as Jeremy Corbyn mistakenly keep repeating parrot fashion), but military strength.
(3) Jeremy Corbyn is keen to give-in to demands for Scottish independent referendum. Only Westminster Parliament (not devolved Parliaments) has the legislative competence whether to allow (with the approval of the monarch) an independent referendum to any home nation (like Scotland). It is also for Westminster Parliament to decide on the wording of the referendum question, date & suffrage franchise of voters in the independence referendum. Also, Scottish residents that was able to vote in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum included current Scottish residents who were: British citizens, commonwealth students & workers, Irish citizen, EU citizens living Scotland at the time.The franchise of voters for any future independence referendum (should they ever occur again) should be only be for British citizens born in Scotland (including Scottish expats), regardless of whether or not they are currently living in Scotland at the time.
(1) Open door policies for immigrants and refugees from all corners of the earth - causing disharmony & strive. As long as there are perceived opposing differences in ‘culture’ & ‘religion’ amongst residents of a country there will be separate lifestyles & hence potential disharmony & friction.
(2) Corbynmania is dangerous as lack of creditable defence cause wars, as tin-pot dictators only understand military force, not negotiations. Should Corbyn manage to introduce his CND policies, which he espouse, UK will FOEVER be threatened and bullied militarily (lost of sovereignty) by present & future nuclear powers. Nuclear deterrent has kept the peace between the superpowers since WW2 (over 70 years ago). UK use her nuclear deterrence everyday to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers). Also, hot pursuit of terrorists can be regarded as self-defence or confrontation of aggression/crime against humanity - like police force do. The modus operandi of megalomaniac power crazy dictators is not negotiations (as Jeremy Corbyn mistakenly keep repeating parrot fashion), but military strength.
(3) Jeremy Corbyn is keen to give-in to demands for Scottish independent referendum. Only Westminster Parliament (not devolved Parliaments) has the legislative competence whether to allow (with the approval of the monarch) an independent referendum to any home nation (like Scotland). It is also for Westminster Parliament to decide on the wording of the referendum question, date & suffrage franchise of voters in the independence referendum. Also, Scottish residents that was able to vote in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum included current Scottish residents who were: British citizens, commonwealth students & workers, Irish citizen, EU citizens living Scotland at the time.The franchise of voters for any future independence referendum (should they ever occur again) should be only be for British citizens born in Scotland (including Scottish expats), regardless of whether or not they are currently living in Scotland at the time.
Answers
Of course he won't. Be positively Utopian. All local Gov, N.H, Civil Service,
13:18 Sun 23rd Jul 2017
Old_Geezer stated, "As for NK, I've no doubt any erratic leader can order stupid things, but the answer is to make them impotent...ensure risky leaders (and the powers behind them) are outmanoeuvred and become irrelevant",
Exactly. The NK megalomaniac dictator should be deposed by force, as he cannot be voted out of office.
Exactly. The NK megalomaniac dictator should be deposed by force, as he cannot be voted out of office.
1) Possible but not likely. Corbyn is actually quite hostile to free movement because he considers it exploitative, but his base feels differently.
2) Disagree. The UK's nuclear policy makes no sense at the moment anyway. In the event of a nuclear war (when we're all screwed anyway), we have nowhere near enough nukes to serve as an actual deterrent, but we do have enough to be a credible target. Our policy serves nobody but the USA, and few people on the world stage care about us enough to bully us.
3) The most likely of your scenarios. Corbyn would almost certainly give in to indyref2. Personally, I feel that is a foregone conclusion anyway, but yes, if you think that's avoidable then Corbyn is certainly dangerous.
2) Disagree. The UK's nuclear policy makes no sense at the moment anyway. In the event of a nuclear war (when we're all screwed anyway), we have nowhere near enough nukes to serve as an actual deterrent, but we do have enough to be a credible target. Our policy serves nobody but the USA, and few people on the world stage care about us enough to bully us.
3) The most likely of your scenarios. Corbyn would almost certainly give in to indyref2. Personally, I feel that is a foregone conclusion anyway, but yes, if you think that's avoidable then Corbyn is certainly dangerous.
Kromovaracun said, "The UK's nuclear policy makes no sense at the moment anyway. In the event of a nuclear war (when we're all screwed anyway)".
The purpose of MAD to not increase the likelihood of nuclear war but to reduce the possibility to negligible level. Megalomaniac dictators/bullies understand force, not weak negotiations.
Nuclear is more likely if a deranged dictator with nuclear weapons threatened the world when Mutual assured destruction (or MAD) do not exist. ('When the cat's away the mouse will play')
MAD is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy that accepts that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
Nuclear deterrent has kept the peace between the superpowers since WW2 (over 70 years ago). UK use her nuclear deterrence EVERYDAY to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers).
Why should UK unilaterally give-up/surrender her nuclear deterrent forever (most likely forever, once the deterrent is given up)? This would be analogous for one of the armed police at the scene laying down his weapons when approached by a trigger-happy armed terrorist.
The purpose of MAD to not increase the likelihood of nuclear war but to reduce the possibility to negligible level. Megalomaniac dictators/bullies understand force, not weak negotiations.
Nuclear is more likely if a deranged dictator with nuclear weapons threatened the world when Mutual assured destruction (or MAD) do not exist. ('When the cat's away the mouse will play')
MAD is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy that accepts that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
Nuclear deterrent has kept the peace between the superpowers since WW2 (over 70 years ago). UK use her nuclear deterrence EVERYDAY to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers).
Why should UK unilaterally give-up/surrender her nuclear deterrent forever (most likely forever, once the deterrent is given up)? This would be analogous for one of the armed police at the scene laying down his weapons when approached by a trigger-happy armed terrorist.
Kromovaracun stated, "Corbyn is actually quite hostile to free movement because he considers it exploitative, but his base feels differently"
Answer: How can anyone trust Jeremy Corbyn on immigration from all over the world (not only European migrants) when he appoints Diane Abbott as Shadow Home Secretary?? Herewith I rest my case!
Answer: How can anyone trust Jeremy Corbyn on immigration from all over the world (not only European migrants) when he appoints Diane Abbott as Shadow Home Secretary?? Herewith I rest my case!
Trident ... what a ludicrous waste of money ... we'll never use it against the Russians or the Chinese (the Yanks won't let us) and the only way it will be of any use against mad *** and looney dictators is to take them out to sea and fire them one-by-one out of the tubes ... it's just vanity posturing in the "my swinging dick is bigger than yours" world of international relations ...
sunny-dave,
Savings from not building new ICBMs is a false argument, as the funds for building the planned 4 ICBMs carrying Successor class submarines comes from the ring-fenced defence budget of 2% of GDP pa. UK's 4 ICBMs carrying submarines are UK's safeguard/insurance policy against being bullied and oppressed militarily.
UK can launch her ICBM independently without the permission of any other nations, including USA. It is mere fiction by CND that UK need permission of USA to launch her ICBMs (Check it out on the internet).
Check out:
https:/
The key point here is that the British deterrent does not have permissive action link control, which means it does not rely on the use of codes to fire the system. The UK’s Trident fleet relies purely on military discipline to prevent a launch. In summary, the UK retains full operational control, to the extent that the US could not stop the UK from using the system".
https:/
Savings from not building new ICBMs is a false argument, as the funds for building the planned 4 ICBMs carrying Successor class submarines comes from the ring-fenced defence budget of 2% of GDP pa. UK's 4 ICBMs carrying submarines are UK's safeguard/insurance policy against being bullied and oppressed militarily.
UK can launch her ICBM independently without the permission of any other nations, including USA. It is mere fiction by CND that UK need permission of USA to launch her ICBMs (Check it out on the internet).
Check out:
https:/
The key point here is that the British deterrent does not have permissive action link control, which means it does not rely on the use of codes to fire the system. The UK’s Trident fleet relies purely on military discipline to prevent a launch. In summary, the UK retains full operational control, to the extent that the US could not stop the UK from using the system".
https:/
It doesn't matter whether the UK controls it or not. The point is whether it is a strategic use for us, and it's not. It's entirely for the benefit of the USA, so they can have missiles on their side in Europe.
MAD as a security strategy (an extremely unconvincing one imo, but that's another debate) does not hinge on whether the UK has nuclear weapons or not. We are not that important. All that needs to apply for MAD is for the main rival groups to feel equally threatened by each other. Nobody is quaking in their boots over the UK. We're a third-rate power masquerading as a second-rate one. The sooner we give up the pretense and start putting the money into either conventional forces or highly unconventional forces (like active denial systems), the better.
MAD as a security strategy (an extremely unconvincing one imo, but that's another debate) does not hinge on whether the UK has nuclear weapons or not. We are not that important. All that needs to apply for MAD is for the main rival groups to feel equally threatened by each other. Nobody is quaking in their boots over the UK. We're a third-rate power masquerading as a second-rate one. The sooner we give up the pretense and start putting the money into either conventional forces or highly unconventional forces (like active denial systems), the better.
//How can anyone trust Jeremy Corbyn on immigration from all over the world (not only European migrants) when he appoints Diane Abbott as Shadow Home Secretary?? Herewith I rest my case!//
I didn't say I trusted him, I just don't think his convictions are what you think they are. Of course, there's other factors at play than what he thinks (e.g. what his support base thinks), so your prediction is possible. I would not say it is particularly likely though
I didn't say I trusted him, I just don't think his convictions are what you think they are. Of course, there's other factors at play than what he thinks (e.g. what his support base thinks), so your prediction is possible. I would not say it is particularly likely though
Kromovaracun said, "We're a third-rate power masquerading as a second-rate one. The sooner we give up the pretence and start putting the money into either conventional forces...the better".
UK is the 5th richest country in the world and 6th strongest militarily in the world.
New equipment are constantly being updated & replaced, which include - 2 new aircraft carriers (with 48 Lightning 2 (F-35B) for the aircraft carrier squadron), 19 new warships (6 Type 45 destroyers & 13 Type 26 Global Combat Ships), 9 new Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, 7 new Astute class & 4 Trafalgar class nuclear powered attack submarines, new missles & radar (like Sea Ceptor, Sea Viper, Aster 15 & 30, Artisan 3D radar, integrated anti-aircraft Sampson radar system), 4 new Successor class ICBM submarines.
SNP complained about threats from Russia in the north of Scotland because of the presence of Russian warships, associating their presence with UK not having maritime patrol aircrafts. Surely the best way to counter the military threats from Russia is to be nuclear armed with stealthy & credible submarine based ICBM system – as they are MORE POWERFUL & EFFECTIVE THAN HUNDREDS OF WARSHIPS. Around 12,600 Scottish people in Scotland benefit by more than £1.8bn pa as a result of UK MoD & her operations.
Why do you think states like Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? It is because nuclear armed states cannot be defeated or invaded in any military conflict, hence other countries would not dare to confront them head-on with all out military conflict.
Contrary to wrong assertions by Jeremy Corbyn and SNPs (lead by Nicola Sturgeon) that UK's nuclear deterrence are ineffective - UK use her nuclear deterrence insurance EVERYDAY to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers). Britain’s ballistic missile submarines are the ultimate guarantee of our nation’s safety.
The modus operandi of megalomaniac power crazy dictators is not negotiations (as Jeremy Corbyn mistakenly keep repeating parrot-fashion) but military force.
The modus operandi of such megalomaniac power crazy dictators include imprisoning political opponents/demonstrators, torture, censorship of the media, as well as using brutal force to subdue protest from the masses, rule by dictation, doing anything (including murder of own relatives) to grasp hold of power.
Asking tin-pot dictators and bullies to become pacifists is rubbing against the grain, like persuading lions to become vegetarians.
It is submitted that being pacifist will encourage (rather than deter) others to launch military attack on oneself or other 3rd countries. Being well-armed militarily is a good deterrence from being attacked by another country – analogous to a well-armed effective police force can deter criminals.
Military strength can be used to prevent wars not start wars, analogous to having a deterrent from being bullied in a school playground.
If Europe & USA do not have credible military force, for example, it will be more likely that they will experience more threats (& even invaded) by other countries, causing chaos & disruption.
World politics, life & everything requires - making alliances, influences, trade, co-operation, look after each other interests, taking sides, preserving world order even in a playground level, never mind world government's scale.
UK is the 5th richest country in the world and 6th strongest militarily in the world.
New equipment are constantly being updated & replaced, which include - 2 new aircraft carriers (with 48 Lightning 2 (F-35B) for the aircraft carrier squadron), 19 new warships (6 Type 45 destroyers & 13 Type 26 Global Combat Ships), 9 new Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, 7 new Astute class & 4 Trafalgar class nuclear powered attack submarines, new missles & radar (like Sea Ceptor, Sea Viper, Aster 15 & 30, Artisan 3D radar, integrated anti-aircraft Sampson radar system), 4 new Successor class ICBM submarines.
SNP complained about threats from Russia in the north of Scotland because of the presence of Russian warships, associating their presence with UK not having maritime patrol aircrafts. Surely the best way to counter the military threats from Russia is to be nuclear armed with stealthy & credible submarine based ICBM system – as they are MORE POWERFUL & EFFECTIVE THAN HUNDREDS OF WARSHIPS. Around 12,600 Scottish people in Scotland benefit by more than £1.8bn pa as a result of UK MoD & her operations.
Why do you think states like Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? It is because nuclear armed states cannot be defeated or invaded in any military conflict, hence other countries would not dare to confront them head-on with all out military conflict.
Contrary to wrong assertions by Jeremy Corbyn and SNPs (lead by Nicola Sturgeon) that UK's nuclear deterrence are ineffective - UK use her nuclear deterrence insurance EVERYDAY to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers). Britain’s ballistic missile submarines are the ultimate guarantee of our nation’s safety.
The modus operandi of megalomaniac power crazy dictators is not negotiations (as Jeremy Corbyn mistakenly keep repeating parrot-fashion) but military force.
The modus operandi of such megalomaniac power crazy dictators include imprisoning political opponents/demonstrators, torture, censorship of the media, as well as using brutal force to subdue protest from the masses, rule by dictation, doing anything (including murder of own relatives) to grasp hold of power.
Asking tin-pot dictators and bullies to become pacifists is rubbing against the grain, like persuading lions to become vegetarians.
It is submitted that being pacifist will encourage (rather than deter) others to launch military attack on oneself or other 3rd countries. Being well-armed militarily is a good deterrence from being attacked by another country – analogous to a well-armed effective police force can deter criminals.
Military strength can be used to prevent wars not start wars, analogous to having a deterrent from being bullied in a school playground.
If Europe & USA do not have credible military force, for example, it will be more likely that they will experience more threats (& even invaded) by other countries, causing chaos & disruption.
World politics, life & everything requires - making alliances, influences, trade, co-operation, look after each other interests, taking sides, preserving world order even in a playground level, never mind world government's scale.
Corbyn really is an unknown quantity. However he protests he can not be trusted. He got a lot of younger (inexperienced)voters on his side by saying he would do away with student loans in order to manipulate the outcome of the last General Election, Which gave him a significant swing and is now saying he never said it. He is just a ''fixer''. He would not be able to do such things in the real world outside.
willbewhatiwill:
I'm fairly sure I'm one of AB's more "verbose" members so I can't talk, but... could you maybe just proofread what you write before you post it? The vast majority of what you posted is irrelevant to the point I was making and is so meandering and disorganised I struggle to get my head around it.
I'm fairly sure I'm one of AB's more "verbose" members so I can't talk, but... could you maybe just proofread what you write before you post it? The vast majority of what you posted is irrelevant to the point I was making and is so meandering and disorganised I struggle to get my head around it.
Kromovaracun,
What I wrote, in a hurry, is my most recent post to you are a COLLECTION of my own posts (hence a bit disorganised & long) I wrote in another thread in answerbank on http://
You said that UK's nuclear deterrent is "entirely for the benefit of the USA. Nobody is quaking in their boots over the UK. We're a third-rate power masquerading as a second-rate one. The sooner we give up the pretense and start putting the money into either conventional forces or highly unconventional forces (like active denial systems), the better".
Answer: UK is the 5th richest country in the world and 6th strongest militarily in the world - not "a third-rate power masquerading as a second-rate one".
Your argument that only USA's & Russia's nuclear deterrent matters to countries in the world is false ad wrong - why do you think states like Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? It is because nuclear armed states cannot be defeated or invaded in any military conflict, hence other countries would not dare to confront them head-on with all out military conflict.
The modus operandi of megalomaniac power crazy dictators is not negotiations (as Jeremy Corbyn mistakenly keep repeating parrot-fashion) but military force.
Asking tin-pot dictators and bullies to become pacifists is rubbing against the grain, like persuading lions to become vegetarians. In fact, being pacifist will encourage (rather than deter) others to launch military attack on oneself or other 3rd countries. Being well-armed militarily is a good deterrent from being attacked by another country – analogous to a well-armed effective police force can deter criminals.
If Europe & USA do not have credible military force, for example, it will be more likely that they will experience more threats (& even invaded) by other countries, causing chaos & disruption.
What I wrote, in a hurry, is my most recent post to you are a COLLECTION of my own posts (hence a bit disorganised & long) I wrote in another thread in answerbank on http://
You said that UK's nuclear deterrent is "entirely for the benefit of the USA. Nobody is quaking in their boots over the UK. We're a third-rate power masquerading as a second-rate one. The sooner we give up the pretense and start putting the money into either conventional forces or highly unconventional forces (like active denial systems), the better".
Answer: UK is the 5th richest country in the world and 6th strongest militarily in the world - not "a third-rate power masquerading as a second-rate one".
Your argument that only USA's & Russia's nuclear deterrent matters to countries in the world is false ad wrong - why do you think states like Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? It is because nuclear armed states cannot be defeated or invaded in any military conflict, hence other countries would not dare to confront them head-on with all out military conflict.
The modus operandi of megalomaniac power crazy dictators is not negotiations (as Jeremy Corbyn mistakenly keep repeating parrot-fashion) but military force.
Asking tin-pot dictators and bullies to become pacifists is rubbing against the grain, like persuading lions to become vegetarians. In fact, being pacifist will encourage (rather than deter) others to launch military attack on oneself or other 3rd countries. Being well-armed militarily is a good deterrent from being attacked by another country – analogous to a well-armed effective police force can deter criminals.
If Europe & USA do not have credible military force, for example, it will be more likely that they will experience more threats (& even invaded) by other countries, causing chaos & disruption.
Link to a video on UK's QE class aircraft carriers:
https:/
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.