Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

They could launch rocket propelled sternly worded letters.

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Agreed. In much of London a million pounds will barely buy a house and in some of London won't get much above a single bedroom flat, if that.

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

:D

Or white flags of surrender maybe.

When Corbyn's removed as party leader, I'm sure he could have a lucrative future ahead of him in Eurolalaland. They appreciate stupid ideas after all...

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Judging from the deafening silence emanating from our lefty leaning friends, it may just be possible that even the hardened left are realising that he's made the Labour party unelectable while he's in power. I don't think Labour have a mechanism to remove him either if he doesn't step down. This may mean that they need to give up 2020 before a new character can be put into place.

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Yup and I'm sure the Tories will be delighted to see Corbyn in place for a very long time.

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Well, I like him (!) He's honest and hasn't changed his views or image to win votes. It may well be that he is 'unelectable' at the moment - but the next election is a long time away and a lot can happen. He's providing an opposition; the right of the labour party is only offering a Tory 'lite' agenda - what's the point ? - it denies people a choice.

Cameron/Clegg/Blair - you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference if you didn't know which party they were from. With Corbyn, you know you've got a difference and a choice. He'll be there to pick up the pieces when the Tory party inevitably presses the the self destruct button (it'll have the word 'Europe' on it, again !).

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Or flies without planes, especially when on aircraft carriers

---------- Post added at 20:39 ---------- Previous post was at 20:35 ----------

I agree and so do many millions more regardless of party politics

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Yeah, and they could fire paint!! Really freak the opposition out.

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Now you're just being silly.

I've had a better idea.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2016/01/24.png

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

I think he is suggesting that they are converted to conventional weapons, which is feasible as the yanks have converted some of their Ohios to ssgns.

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Indeed. Although they still have 14 of the 18 carrying Trident II. The 4 remaining can carry, amongst other things, nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

The only real point in our having those submarines there is to deter a nuclear first strike against us.

Unlike the USA or Russia we don't have the benefit of enough land mass to put ICBMs far enough away from the coast that any incoming SLBMs will have an appreciable travel time and bombers are, for obvious reasons, vulnerable.

My local Labour party is I note considering a motion on unilateral disarmament that's recently come in. Unilateral disarmament is utter insanity.

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Actually, I've an idea for them. They could be converted into 'cruise' submarines - people would pay a fortune....

Replacement cost of trident is estimated to be £167bn ! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6708126.html). More than the cost of the whole NHS for a year ! Bit expensive, for an out of date toy that nobody would ever use anyway.

We're in NATO - protected by the US - almost all other European countries don't feel the need for their own nuclear weapons. We're not a Super Power any longer, and insignificant to the Russians I'm sure.

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Please try to understand the meaning of the word "deterrent".

For a nuclear deterrent to be "used", it must meet the following criteria:

1. It exists.
2. It works.
3. The will to launch it exists.

Note that *actually* firing it is not required for deterrence. Actually firing it is proof that deterrence had failed. At that point, it becomes a last-resort offensive weapon.

Trident is used 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, because Trident's primary mission is to deter an attack.

I'm not entirely sure why you artificially restrict your survey to other European nations. Nuclear weapons are proliferating in several other places, all of them less stable and posing a greater threat to our long-term security than Spain or Italy.

Though given your rather woolly thinking on this issue, I can't say I'm surprised that you don't understand how recent history might make the UK's ability to unilaterally defend itself something of a policy imperative.

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Linky

Madness :mad:

Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 

Why would you entrust the nations security to another nation.

There's no guarantee the US would retaliate with nukes if they themselves were not attacked, regardless of NATO.