Did the UK armed forces just threaten a coup if Corbyn's Labour wins?

It would be very interesting to see, though doubtful it would come to fruition... Frankly, I'd agree with them if they did take action, as -- from what I see -- Corbyn represents a serious break from reality...
 
Wayne said:
It would be very interesting to see, though doubtful it would come to fruition... Frankly, I'd agree with them if they did take action, as -- from what I see -- Corbyn represents a serious break from reality...
Click to expand...
You must be rich (or royal).
 
Wayne said:
Frankly, I'd agree with them if they did take action, as -- from what I see -- Corbyn represents a serious break from reality...
Click to expand...

Are you continuing that stereotypical US/UK tradition of being completely in favour of democracy.... but only until the electorate make what you consider a dangerous choice?
 
Robert said:
Are you continuing that stereotypical US/UK tradition of being completely in favour of democracy....
Click to expand...
Not exactly, but anyone who doesn't understand that -- these days more than ever -- a country's defense is necessary to maintain its freedom is completely out of touch with reality...

Corbyn by all accounts is the kind of guy who wants to abolish all military and just lay down and wait for invaders to arrive...

The reality of the need for a strong defense is a lesson I would have thought better learned by WWII and other conflicts...
 
Wayne said:
Corbyn by all accounts is the kind of guy who wants to abolish all military and just lay down and wait for invaders to arrive...
Click to expand...

Eh?
By all accounts?
All military?
Well, none of the accounts I've read suggest anything of the sort. Perhaps you could point me towards all these accounts I've been missing?

On the other hand, he does want to abolish Trident, and I completely agree with him there. It's a ridiculously expensive (to the UK) extension of the US nuclear arsenal which can never be used without Uncle Sam's say so.
 
Best to say "in accordance with everything I've heard and read", he pretty much wants to weaken the defense of a nation, much like Obama is doing with America...
 
Wayne said:
Best to say "in accordance with everything I've heard and read", he pretty much wants to weaken the defense of a nation, much like Obama is doing with America...
Click to expand...

So nothing like what you first said at all, then? :p

Anyway, when it comes to defence, I broadly (although not completely) agree with him.
His two main points are that we shouldn't be wasting billions on a bomb we are not allowed to use and we shouldn't be bombing and invading other countries.

Neither of these constitutes a weakening of UK defence.
On the contrary, they are entirely sensible positions to take.
 
Robert said:
His two main points are that we shouldn't be wasting billions on a bomb we are not allowed to use and we shouldn't be bombing and invading other countries.
Click to expand...
I would agree on the first, but can only agree on the second point on condition. While I would agree in the most general sense, there are organizations in the middle east which have taken, or are taking over entire countries. Those entities represent a clear and present danger to both our nations. In such a case, you can either be reactive, or proactive.

I'm more of a "shoot the snake before it bites you" kinda guy.
 
Robert said:
So nothing like what you first said at all, then? :p

Anyway, when it comes to defence, I broadly (although not completely) agree with him.
His two main points are that we shouldn't be wasting billions on a bomb we are not allowed to use and we shouldn't be bombing and invading other countries.

Neither of these constitutes a weakening of UK defence.
On the contrary, they are entirely sensible positions to take.
Click to expand...

Honestly the reason for maintaining a nuclear deterrent isn't as a means to attack others with, it is to ensure in totality that this country will never again be invaded.

If Iraq had had nukes, we would not have invaded, that Pakistan does means they never will be. Whilst right now we can all agree that Europe isn't in any immediate danger of invasion ala WW2, that says nothing about the future.

I broadly agree with not invading other countries, that said, developing a capability takes a lot of time - consider that it'll be 2020 before we have fully re-established our fixed wing carrier capability, something we only lost in 2011. Maintaining our ability (even if we don't use it) to project power does require a great deal of money.
 
Wayne said:
he pretty much wants to weaken the defense of a nation, much like Obama is doing with America...
Click to expand...
Compared to whom? His immediate predecessor?

Wayne said:
While I would agree in the most general sense, there are organizations in the middle east which have taken, or are taking over entire countries. Those entities represent a clear and present danger to both our nations. In such a case, you can either be reactive, or proactive.
Click to expand...
It is probably worth mentioning that ISIL rose to power in Iraq after the country had been invaded by certain other external forces in an effort to be "proactive"... Slippery slope, and all that.

I'm more of a "shoot the snake before it bites you" kinda guy.
Click to expand...
That is an odd policy to have if you happen to also be breeding snakes...
 
the_leander said:
Honestly the reason for maintaining a nuclear deterrent isn't as a means to attack others with, it is to ensure in totality that this country will never again be invaded.
Click to expand...

I don't really believe that.
Galtieri invaded British territory regardless.
Probably because he knew as well as you and I both do that Uncle Sam would not have permitted nuke use against Argentina at that time.

Maintaining our ability (even if we don't use it) to project power does require a great deal of money.
Click to expand...

Especially when a huge chunk of our budget is spent on maintaining our ability to project someone else's power.
 
Robert said:
I don't really believe that.
Galtieri invaded British territory regardless.
Click to expand...

We were at the time negotiating their hand over to the Argentinians prior to the invasion. I was talking more of the mainland, but you knew that already.

Robert said:
Probably because he knew as well as you and I both do that Uncle Sam would not have permitted nuke use against Argentina at that time.
Click to expand...

Which is of course why HMS Invincible went down there packing nukes... But no, the reason he went in was because he believed, just as both the USSR and the USA believed, we could not muster enough force to take them back through conventional means.

They were horribly incorrect in this.

Robert said:
Especially when a huge chunk of our budget is spent on maintaining our ability to project someone else's power.
Click to expand...

You could just as well argue that due to the politics of the west, we should disband the entire military for the exact same reasons. I'd say your position was misguided in both cases.
 
the_leander said:
I was talking more of the mainland, but you knew that already.
Click to expand...

You used the expression "to ensure in totality", not that I think it makes much difference to your point because it ensures no such thing.
Even taking the Argentine example to a ludicrous extreme, had Galtieri actually landed forces on the mainland, there is still no way the US would have permitted a nuclear response.

the reason he went in was because he believed, just as both the USSR and the USA believed, we could not muster enough force to take them back through conventional means.
Click to expand...

And if he thought there was any chance we would resort to nukes he would have done no such thing

You could just as well argue that due to the politics of the west, we should disband the entire military for the exact same reasons.
Click to expand...

I disagree and would never argue for that.
But you knew that already. ;-)
 
Whatever his views on royalty, Corbyn (or at least, his closest colleague) seems to be making a royal arse of things.
First of all, and somewhat bafflingly, he announced that Labour would support part of the Tories upcoming austerity plans.
This was widely criticised, not least by the SNP who were against it from the beginning.
Then Corbyn changed his mind. Whilst I agree with his new stance, I'm finding difficult to reconcile the original hare-brained decision:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...sibility-u-turn-sends-wrong-message-labour-mp

The U-turn sparked an angry reaction at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party at Westminster on Monday. Former cabinet minister Ben Bradshaw declared, within earshot of waiting reporters, that the meeting had been a “total {bleep} shambles”.

The Labour MP John Mann told the BBC that the u-turn had left McDonnell looking “ a bit of a fool” and that he had fallen into a political trap set by George Osborne.

“Just one hour before the Parliamentary Labour Party was due to meet, without McDonnell choosing to speak, he announced his u-turn,” writes Mann. “Yet in all of this time there has been no debate, nor any consultation within the Labour Party. So two contradictory policy announcements, without a single collective discussion.”

Mann continues: “The reality is that to have voted with Osborne would have led to political meltdown in Scotland and McDonnell’s political judgement faces some big questions. New Corbyn supporters would have been bemused and demoralised. It would have been a political disaster with huge consequences.”
Click to expand...

There has been a lot of bollox and propaganda against Corbyn but this genuinely doesn't look good.

He's also been caught lying about the SNP, claiming they privatised the railways in Scotland which does his credibility no good whatsoever.

Pity, as he seemed like a decent sort for an all too brief while.
That said, I'd still rather see him in charge than either of the other two muppets.
 
An opinion that sides with Corbyn on the subject of Trident.
(It also touches on the Falklands)
As to whether Nuclear weapons protect against attack, that is probably somewhat true, but if that is what you want then they should be weapons that you own and control.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
An opinion that sides with Corbyn on the subject of Trident.
(It also touches on the Falklands)
As to whether Nuclear weapons protect against attack, that is probably somewhat true, but if that is what you want then they should be weapons that you own and control.
Click to expand...
Interesting read. I knew (and agree with) most of it already but this was new to me:
“Specifically, the American-designed, Chinese-made Actel/Microsemi ProASIC3 A3P250 — commonly known as the PA3 — chip was found by Cambridge researcher, Sergei Skorobogatov, to have a backdoor, or trojan, deliberately built into it. Most alarming is that the PA3 is considered to be one of the “most impenetrable” designs on the market. The chip is used in US military made “weapons, guidance, flight control, networking and communications” hardware.”
Click to expand...
Don't know how much there is to that and I don't think it actually makes that much difference since the idea of the UK firing nukes in defiance of the USA is absurd on its face, regardless of any tech "backdoor".

Still this bit of the abstract from the linked paper is certainly intrigueing:
The backdoor was found to exist on the silicon itself, it was not present in any firmware loaded onto the chip. Using Pipeline Emission Analysis (PEA), a technique pioneered by our sponsor, we were able to extract the secret key to activate the backdoor. This way an attacker can disable all the security on the chip,reprogram crypto and access keys, modify low-level silicon features, access unencrypted configuration bitstream or permanently damage the device.Clearly this means the device is wide open to intellectual property theft, fraud,re-programming as well as reverse engineering of the design which allows the introduction of a new backdoor or Trojan. Most concerning, it is not possible to patch the backdoor in chips already deployed, meaning those using this family of chips have to accept the fact it can be easily compromised..
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top