UK TV debate

[skeptichaggis]

No the British empire saying america support the fenian invasions of Canada and we will use our army to invade your soil,our navy to cut your shiping lanes,our economic might to beggar you and chum up with mexico to attack from two directions is deterance. NATO saying look Khrushchev you get enough weapons to destroy most of the world and we will make up any shortfall to ensure complete destruction is utter insanity. No one would-could win.
I am morally certain over the evil of nuclear weapons-and utterly terrified that so much as one exists. The fact that some arguments for retaining some nuclear weapons make a little sense cannot justify the risk.

 

[Giz]

No the British empire saying america support the fenian invasions of Canada and we will use our army to invade your soil,our navy to cut your shiping lanes,our economic might to beggar you and chum up with mexico to attack from two directions is deterance. NATO saying look Khrushchev you get enough weapons to destroy most of the world and we will make up any shortfall to ensure complete destruction is utter insanity. No one would-could win.
I am morally certain over the evil of nuclear weapons-and utterly terrified that so much as one exists. The fact that some arguments for retaining some nuclear weapons make a little sense cannot justify the risk.

OK, I see. You think it would have been better if the only nuclear armed power would have been a totalitarian dictatorship and the alliance of democracies had no comparable weapons.

 

[skeptichaggis]

I think I'd rather be red than dead-or at least given the option. The problem with nuclear detterant is that its predicated on the person/s at the top not being total nut jobs. A normal ruler would of course be well detered, but a whackjob well wouldn't be. Politicians as history shows don't have to be sane to get the top job. A nuclear exchange could not just not have a winner what about those nations not involved they kick the bucket with everyone else. I'm sorry but I don't think the Inuit or easter islanders should suffer for a insane war that they have nothing to do with. Should our freedom from oppression be predicated on their potential destruction.
The more nations that have nuclear weapons combined with each passing year increases the possibility of a exchange,deliberate or accident. My freedom is not worth the planets destruction-its just not worth that much-neither is anyone's. You would not even have freedom you would be dead

 

[skeptichaggis]

I would like to say i understand that total disarmament would be predicated on all nations doing so honestly and that's not likely. I may sincerely believe nuclear weapons should go but that doesn't mean I'm naive enough to think there is a easy answer. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I'm not totally stupid.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Personally, as profoundly disturbing as I find their destructive power, I believe nuclear weapons have ultimately been a force for stability in the world. By being "the ultimate big stick" that can be unleashed at the push of a button, I'm fairly certain they deter or at least prevent the escalation of many types of armed conflicts (land disputes, etc) that would otherwise have the potential of developing into world wars. The Korea and Vietnam wars weren't pretty, but they were nothing compared to what a conventional war between the US and the Soviet Union, with gradually escalating force and more and more extreme measures taken, would have been.

 

[Francesca R]

Its impossible for any single western European state to individually compete [outside the EU]

Funny. You've borrowed one of the bogus arguments against the idea of Scottish independence and used it as an argument against leaving the EU. I'm afraid it's still bogus.

 

[skeptichaggis]

But as destructive as a conventional war I the 1945-89 period would have been humanity would have persevered. People would have rebuilt. Besides its not the near misses of yesterday that worry me its the near misses of tommorow. When you take the view that the Korean war or the Vietnam war are the good side of the coin, what does that tell you about the way the stockpiles of nuclear weapons have skewed our normal conceptions of decency.
Humanity has to win a lottery each time a member of the nuclear club has a military or political crises, which must be one of the dumbest ways thinkable to aid the long term survival of homo sapiens(there's a hope full name).
If the human race wants to survive we must get shot of nuclear weapons. The fact that any such attempt would probably fail does not mean we should not try. After all what's the alternative, hope that our species grows a anti-stupidity bone.
Pakistan has the bomb and I don't know about you but the thought that someone could stand before the proverbial button Koran in hand terrifies me

 

[skeptichaggis]

I borrowed one of the bogus arguments against Scottish independence and used it against not leaving theEU.
I'm afraid I can't see the connection between Scotland leaving the u.k and establishing itself as a state and the EU.
There's not really anything more I can write. Your statement makes no sense. The EU and west minister are different entity's. The implication that Scotland's situation with the EU is the same as Scotland's situation with London is well ,plain wrong.
I admit I'm a SNP member and so am a little biased in this area but I can't see how being in the EU is comparable to being politically ruled by a completely different nation. Economic ties are a fact of life bu-t are not the same as foreign imposed rule.
I've not really answered to well but that's because your statement lacks detail.

 

[Francesca R]

Your statement "It is impossible for any single western European state to individually compete [outside the EU]" is as incorrect as "It will be impossible for Scotland to compete outside the UK" was.

 

[GlennB]

'Tories to gain the most seats' drifting slightly with bookie Paddy Power. I had £50 at 1.44, now it's 1.5.

 

[CapelDodger]

I would like to say i understand that total disarmament would be predicated on all nations doing so honestly and that's not likely.

As long as the French have it, we're having it .

I think it's ludicrous either of us has it in the 21stCE, frankly; the Imperial Age is over, guys. Move on. We are no longer exceptional.

 

[Francesca R]

Mildly amusing that some folks think the point of military/defence is simply to look macho. (Or "punch above one's weight" / "strut about on the global stage" / "rule the waves")

 

[The Don]

Mildly amusing that some folks think the point of military/defence is simply to look macho. (Or "punch above one's weight" / "strut about on the global stage" / "rule the waves")

Has anyone actually made that point or have people suggested that it may be a factor ?

I'd argue that the U.K.'s nuclear capability is less about the defence of the realm and more about ensuring that we retain our position of influence internationally (and seat on the U.N. security council). A number of military strategists have made the same point.

Some European countries have designed (or are compelled by their constitutions to ensure) their military to be soley for the purposes of defence and they wholly or largely lack the ability to project that force.

 

[Craig B]

Has anyone actually made that point or have people suggested that it may be a factor?

The Labour right wing.

IT is very disappointing, if not surprising, that Jim Murphy has chosen a fellow Blairite, John McTernan, to be chief of staff of the Scottish Labour Party ("Murphy gives Blair aide top job in election campaign, The Herald, January 9).
The new branch manager and his chief clerk are both staunch supporters of Trident. Like Mr Murphy, Mr McTernan has never flinched in his willingness to defend the Bush-Blair war in Iraq.
In February 2011 Mr McTernan told BBC Scotland: "If we didn't have Trident we'd be Belgium. Some people would find that a comfortable place to be. I wouldn't. If Britain is going to be a major power, Britain should have the kinds of weapons a major power has."

Ah, these people. Fellow Scots: we have a chance to get rid of them!

 

[angrysoba]

I don't really get the anti EU argument. In 2015 in western Europe there is little chance of any one nation breaking away from the Eu having long term economic success. I would think that any nation going in the huff with the EU would just hurt itself. I don't like the idea that Brussels can interfere with internal Scottish politics but I am not stupid enough not to realize that the EU is not economically necessary. The world is changing large emerging economy's like Brazil and India lead in more and more markets. Its impossible for any single western European state to individually compete. On a last note while I know the EU does not have sole credit peace has reigned in north western Europe for 70 years.

How about Norway? Or Switzerland?

 

[The Don]

The Labour right wing.

Unless I'm misreading, it's making that case w.r.t. Trident not defence as a whole

Mildly amusing that some folks think the point of military/defence is simply to look macho. (Or "punch above one's weight" / "strut about on the global stage" / "rule the waves")

Francesca R is suggesting that there are people out there who think that the point of defence as a whole is simply to look macho.

Is there anyone out there who has suggested that ?

 

[Craig B]

Unless I'm misreading, it's making that case w.r.t. Trident not defence as a whole

Francesca R is suggesting that there are people out there who think that the point of defence as a whole is simply to look macho.

Is there anyone out there who has suggested that ?

You think the Labour right wing doesn't make that case for other Defence spending, only for Trident upgrading? Hell, McTernan has never flinched in his support for Blair's Iraq war.

 

[The Don]

You think the Labour right wing doesn't make that case for other Defence spending, only for Trident upgrading? Hell, McTernan has never flinched in his support for Blair's Iraq war.

I'm not saying that the Labour right wing doesn't support defence spending or the war in Iraq but that they don't hold the view that:

the point of military/defence is simply to look macho. (Or "punch above one's weight" / "strut about on the global stage" / "rule the waves")

My hilghting

AFAIK every mainstream politician thinks there's at least an element of "defence of the realm" in there as well.

 

[ddt]

The Labour right wing.

IT is very disappointing, if not surprising, that Jim Murphy has chosen a fellow Blairite, John McTernan, to be chief of staff of the Scottish Labour Party ("Murphy gives Blair aide top job in election campaign, The Herald, January 9).
The new branch manager and his chief clerk are both staunch supporters of Trident. Like Mr Murphy, Mr McTernan has never flinched in his willingness to defend the Bush-Blair war in Iraq.
In February 2011 Mr McTernan told BBC Scotland: "If we didn't have Trident we'd be Belgium. Some people would find that a comfortable place to be. I wouldn't. If Britain is going to be a major power, Britain should have the kinds of weapons a major power has."

Ah, these people. Fellow Scots: we have a chance to get rid of them!

I get the impression that many Scots actually want their country to be like Flanders.

devo-max

For the rest, what's actually wrong with Belgium? According to wiki, the Belgian PPP per capita is 10% higher than the British.

 

[ddt]

How about Norway? Or Switzerland?

They're part of the EEA. They have free trade with the EU (and other EEA countries), at terms set by the EU without one iota own influence in setting the terms.