Socialism is the Future

[NICE MOBIUS]

Sorry, too inefficient! Too many holidays!

[Bereta_Eder]

haaaha.
Maybe I will talk some other time about this kind of... communism. gosh...

[NICE MOBIUS]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=soviet+poster+socialism+is+the+future&biw=1024&bih=631&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQsARqFQoTCL_98qCstccCFUOB2wodnmwAdA

Using: soviet poster socialism is the future

Can't read Cyrillic though

[kentonio]

Why is, if you'll excuse the pun, Trident your 'thin red line'?

Because in a world where nuclear weapons exist, you either have them, have very close allies who have them, or you run the risk of being dominated and oppressed by other aggressive nations. Nuclear weapons are one of the main reasons why people in the west today are so idiotically laid back about the threat of war. The idea that another country could literally bomb the **** out of you, drive tanks into your streets and imprison and/or kill your people just seems fanciful now to the UK. But it only seems fanciful because we have that big horrible weapon of last resort.

Germany does just fine without nuclear weapons, so too does the rest of Europe, apart from France. Do we really need it THAT much!?

The only reason Germany and the rest of Europe do ok without nuclear weapons is because they sit under the shield of British, French and American nuclear weapons. Demanding the UK give up nukes is nothing more or less than a demand that we stop paying for our own security and rely on the US and French to do it for us.

Conventional threats just aren't the same any more, if you witness Russia's conflict with Ukraine. Russia won't be rolling across Europe anytime soon. So basically you're worried about what? Russia one day deciding to nuke us without the possibility of retaliation?

Conventional threats are exactly the same danger as they've always been, the only thing that keeps them in check is the nuclear deterrent. The balance of power across the entire world is predicated on nuclear weapons. Take those away completely, and the world becomes a more violent place. Take them away from only some members of the nuclear club and you create a shocking imbalance and a more violent world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry, too inefficient! Too many holidays!

The Chairman shall hear of this!

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, while going through Google Image search, I found this

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seriously, Commies have better propaganda art...

[Proteus_MST]

Because in a world where nuclear weapons exist, you either have them, have very close allies who have them, or you run the risk of being dominated and oppressed by other aggressive nations. Nuclear weapons are one of the main reasons why people in the west today are so idiotically laid back about the threat of war. The idea that another country could literally bomb the **** out of you, drive tanks into your streets and imprison and/or kill your people just seems fanciful now to the UK. But it only seems fanciful because we have that big horrible weapon of last resort.



The only reason Germany and the rest of Europe do ok without nuclear weapons is because they sit under the shield of British, French and American nuclear weapons. Demanding the UK give up nukes is nothing more or less than a demand that we stop paying for our own security and rely on the US and French to do it for us.



Conventional threats are exactly the same danger as they've always been, the only thing that keeps them in check is the nuclear deterrent. The balance of power across the entire world is predicated on nuclear weapons. Take those away completely, and the world becomes a more violent place. Take them away from only some members of the nuclear club and you create a shocking imbalance and a more violent world.

Unfortunately I have to agree.
I don´t have many doubts that, without MAD, there would have been a WW3 with a battlefield on europe, most probably between the USSR and the western powers.

If all current nuclear powers would get rid of all of their nuclear weapons, this wouldn´t prevent any rogue state from trying to get hold on nuclear armament on their own (IMHO it would only be a matter of time).

IMHO it isn´t a question on whether nuclear weapons are needed as a means of deterrence ... rather a question on, how many are sufficient.

[NICE MOBIUS]

Because in a world where nuclear weapons exist, you either have them, have very close allies who have them, or you run the risk of being dominated and oppressed by other aggressive nations. Nuclear weapons are one of the main reasons why people in the west today are so idiotically laid back about the threat of war. The idea that another country could literally bomb the **** out of you, drive tanks into your streets and imprison and/or kill your people just seems fanciful now to the UK. But it only seems fanciful because we have that big horrible weapon of last resort.

The only reason Germany and the rest of Europe do ok without nuclear weapons is because they sit under the shield of British, French and American nuclear weapons. Demanding the UK give up nukes is nothing more or less than a demand that we stop paying for our own security and rely on the US and French to do it for us.

Not necessarily. It would free up more of our 2% GDP pledge for conventional forces (though I somehow doubt that Corbyn would be for this).

Like I said, my preference would be to maintain some kind of nuclear deterrent, just not 4 subs with 200 warheads!

Conventional threats are exactly the same danger as they've always been, the only thing that keeps them in check is the nuclear deterrent. The balance of power across the entire world is predicated on nuclear weapons. Take those away completely, and the world becomes a more violent place. Take them away from only some members of the nuclear club and you create a shocking imbalance and a more violent world.

I just said that I don't think Russia has sufficient forces to mount the sort of conventional campaign you're scared of, otherwise it would have completed its objectives in Ukraine. China, maybe in the future? But we're sufficiently far away from them and we have the channel.

Look, even the US balks at invading Iran, as you so ably demonstrated.

Also, it's not a question of what Corbyn wants, it's what he can convince people of. He said he's already committed to a democracy of ideas (unlike Blair), so just how likely is he to get his way with nuclear disarmament and leaving NATO?

Obama wanted to close GITMO

[NICE MOBIUS]

Sanders gaining ground on Clinton

Hillary Clinton is struggling to keep her edge over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, a new poll found.

Imagine if Clinton lost out for a second time...!?

[giblets]

So, while going through Google Image search, I found this

Is that a morlock slaughtering an eloi?

[Sava]

maybe the near future

human political systems are ****

if the species is to survive, it is going to need a method of organization designed to give optimal results

[kentonio]

Like I said, my preference would be to maintain some kind of nuclear deterrent, just not 4 subs with 200 warheads!

MAD only really works if you can say 'Hey if you invade us we have the capability to turn your country into a pile of molten slag!'. 4 submarines means you can always guarantee you have one at sea, that's all.

I just said that I don't think Russia has sufficient forces to mount the sort of conventional campaign you're scared of, otherwise it would have completed its objectives in Ukraine. China, maybe in the future? But we're sufficiently far away from them and we have the channel.

Look, even the US balks at invading Iran, as you so ably demonstrated.

Right now of course not, but they certainly have the power to invade their close neighbours, and the problem is that political upheavals leading to war can happen very quickly. Unfortunately that doesn't apply to nuclear defence systems. If you don't have it and the world starts going to ****, then tough luck.

As for Russia and Ukraine, Russia are more than powerful enough to flatten Ukraine under their boots, but they know very well that in a nuclear armed world that kind of escalation can lead to a situation no-one can back down from. A full invasion could lead NATO to intervene, and a war between NATO and Russia immediately puts us potentially only minutes away from nuclear war.

Also, it's not a question of what Corbyn wants, it's what he can convince people of. He said he's already committed to a democracy of ideas (unlike Blair), so just how likely is he to get his way with nuclear disarmament and leaving NATO?

Obama wanted to close GITMO

The nuclear thing worries me because its a complex issue that its easy to sell as 'Russia isn't going to invade are they? You want to spent billions on bombs not on the NHS?!' and a LOT of people will go along with it. The SNP independence campaign showed how marketable the idea is, and the explanation for why its a really bad idea requires too much explanation to stop people thinking it's just old fashioned scaremongering.

[The Mad Monk]

Isn´t the average layman in Greece already thinking, germany is one step away from fascism, because we are demanding our goddamn money back?

FTFPaiktis

[Imran Siddiqui]

From 538 (you know, Nate Silver's outfit):

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-youre-no-barack-obama/

The best data we have — polling, endorsements and fundraising — says Clinton is in a much stronger position now than she was at this point in the 2008 cycle.

Just sayin'