Alternatively....
"Think of it this way: Corbyn declared to Britain's potential enemies that with him in charge they could disregard a multi-billion pound weapon system.
Or, perhaps, put it like this: a man with a lifetime commitment to scrapping Britain's deterrent promised not to kill untold thousands of innocent people if he had the opportunity.
Many politicians choose not to be so frank."
That's simplistic paranoid nonsense that the Daily Mail would be proud to print. As is this...
Corbyn is left wing, he is not a communist. That like saying you're a Nazi because you have a right wing viewpoint. Not sure why you even mention communism in context of not wanting nuclear weapons, after all the USSR was the other side in the nuclear arms race.
Besides all those failed communist societies were in reality oligarchies with a few powerful + rich people in control and a downtrodden populace. Which could also describe a lot of right wing states.
In fact the difference between the far right and far left is just that the excuse used to behave in the same crappy way to others is different. The end results are much the same.
jjj
You puzzle me: reading this, I can't decide which point of view you are actually espousing. Neither can I see from whence cometh your suggestion that the option to press the 'button' was based upon any desire to kill zillions of innocent people; I imagined that it was clearly the case that the intent behind any deterrent was to prevent
anyone from pressing buttons, the opposite of deciding to kill all those innocents. The only way I see this panning out is thus: A has the button as has B. If A presses it, then B knows about it well before it's too late to respond. So, A is exterminated by B seconds after A has exterminated B. In the case that B had not responded, the casualties would not be limited to B, but that massive amount of radiation required to eliminate B would hit the territory of A as well, along with many of the alligned and non-alligned countries too.. Don't forget that that single reactor meltdown in Russia affected Scotland as well.
As for the nuclear powers dependent on religious maniacs, well, they are something else and certainly do not preclude our own (UK) need to be vigilant. As for the lower levels of such mentalities, we are already powerless to defend ourselves - how do you combat suicide jockeys?
Now, take a look at the world map and, for this purpose, exclude the entire Americas. What do you see? You see Russia pretty much landlocked but for its often frozen northern edges and hinterland. Look to the east and you see China, to the south yet more of China, the middle-east, Balkans and parts of an Islam which when not hostile to Russia as in Afghanistan and even Russia's own Islamic-strong territories, shares some mutually useful interests beyond its own borders. What does Russia need most? It needs warm seas giving access to the wider world at any time. As you already know, that's the main reason it is concerned with Syria: such, at the moment tiny, access it already has right there. Do you imagine it will aid the vanishing of the current dictator in charge of that area it uses? Don't you think that a successful propping up of that dictator will be rewarded with even more facilities? After all, if Russia is all that's keeping him alive, of course he'll strengthen Russia as much as he can.
Look westwardly and you see what was its early satellite countries, which it is already eyeing with appetite once again. What incentive for that eye to stop its roaming right there? There's the rest of the European continent just beyond, largely filled wih a population neither concerned about or even much aware of the larger game being played and hidden in broad daylight.
The only viable force standing in the way of such expansion to the west is NATO. Remove the British content, which is exactly what the UK's fellow-traveller reds desire, and France will crumble again too, followed by the rest of the herd.
Now, I asked you to exclude the entire Americas for a moment. Okay; imagine a scenario where there is neither a UK nor a French button to push (a French one would vanish PDQ too, I expect) and Russia decides to move itself westwards. What prevents it? You imagine that the White House will start pressing buttons for 'over there' and risk instant retaliation when it knows perfectly well that Russia wouldn't take
it on? We'd be on our own, sans any defence worth squat. Our own red govermnet would have fixed that!
But for the fact of that pesky button, the world would be a very different shade of pink right now, starting with Cuba and the rest of the Caribbean and far down into latin America too.
No wonder some factions see great benefit accrue in reducing the number of western fingers capable of touching buttons.
Rob C
