Jeremy Corbyn has suggested the UK could keep its Trident submarine fleet but without carrying nuclear warheads.
The Labour leader told the Andrew Marr show that protecting defence jobs was his "first priority" and there were "options" for doing this while taking a lead in global nuclear "de-escalation".
Labour, which is split over the issue of renewing Trident, has said the idea is similar to one adopted by Japan.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said Labour would weaken the UK's defences.
Mr Corbyn is at odds with many of his MPs over the future of the UK nuclear weapons system - which the government has estimated will cost £31bn to renew - and has commissioned a review led by shadow defence secretary Emily Thornberry to look at its future, likely to report in the summer.
The Labour leader has been a longstanding opponent of Trident but some MPs and peers have threatened to resign if Labour reverses its decades-long support for the nuclear deterrent.
Parliament is to hold a vote later this year on whether to proceed with building successor submarines to the existing Vanguard fleet, which is due to become obsolete by the end of the next decade.
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested the UK could keep its Trident submarine fleet but without carrying nuclear warheads.
The Labour leader told the Andrew Marr show that protecting defence jobs was his "first priority" and there were "options" for doing this while taking a lead in global nuclear "de-escalation".
So he wants to "protect defence jobs" but he doesn't want them to actually engage in, you know, "defence"....
Maybe the subs could cruise around delivering flowers...
Somebody needs to explain to Mr. Corbyn what the purpose of a military is...
Here's a hint:
It doesn't exist to be a make-work social welfare program....
ETA:
You would think that for a person who aspires to lead a nation that his "first priority" would be, well, "the defence of the nation" rather than, "protecting defence jobs"....
But apparently not in Mr. Corbyn's case...
Re: They can have guns, but no bullets
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:54 pm
by Sue U
Lord Jim wrote:Somebody needs to explain to Mr. Corbyn what the purpose of a military is...
Here's a hint:
It doesn't exist to be a make-work social welfare program....
Submarines are valuable for a lot of things other than delivering strategic nuclear weapons. They are used to launch cruise missiles with conventional warheads, for one. The US has more submarines fitted to launch cruise missiles than it does ballistic missiles:
And they have played a vital role in espionage by tapping into Russian undersea telecoms cables.
The US defense budget is "weaponized socialism for the rich". The biggest single pork item in the budget.
yrs,
rubato
Re: They can have guns, but no bullets
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:37 am
by Gob
Re: They can have guns, but no bullets
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:44 am
by Lord Jim
Re: They can have guns, but no bullets
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:44 am
by MajGenl.Meade
Gob wrote:
Again - just the word Image.... even on my Preview
Edit NOW there's an image in both. What the ....?
MGM. TRY THIS
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:58 pm
by RayThom
MajGenl.Meade wrote:... Again - just the word Image.... even on my Preview... Edit NOW there's an image in both. What the ....?
Place your (Firefox) mouse over the image and right click "view image."
Problem solved. Next image... please.
Re: They can have guns, but no bullets
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:39 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Try reading Ray - there was no image. Just the word Image. I tried the mouse/view image thing but it cared nothing. I might as well have clicked view image on the word cricket
I figure there was something wrong with my internet service - all new pictures were delayed in opening - for as long as 5 minutes. Seems OK today
MGM. OK... IF YOU SAY SO
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:16 pm
by RayThom
That's pretty close to sounding like something my father would say. But who am I to judge?
Keep in mind that "age progression" can often play trick on the mind. Sometimes a distraction from internet activities -- like word and/or sudoku puzzles, or watching a "Honeymooner's" episode on Hulu -- can get things back into proper perspective.
Hey, jes' sayin'. I'm happy that you're back in fine working order.
Re: They can have guns, but no bullets
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:26 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Maybe you were a provocatory smartass to your father too, then? I like Samurai Sudoku - five squares, yum! Just the Fiendish, Evil and Hard categories though. I usually do one per day - sometimes two. Have to download them from the 'net though and print 'em out.
Re: They can have guns, but no bullets
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:32 pm
by Lord Jim
Meade, I'm concerned you may also be having problems viewing Youtube videos embedded on the site, so I thought I would pick one at random for you to test to make sure that functionality is working for you:
You should probably watch the full 26 minutes to make sure it doesn't cut out on you...(and also make sure the sound is working for you)
No need to thank me...Hey, what are friends for?
Re: They can have guns, but no bullets
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:43 pm
by Guinevere
Meade are you logged in? That seems to make a difference with how images are shown.
Re: They can have guns, but no bullets
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:32 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
I'm always logged in... thanks. Noticed yesterday that some of the most important cable channels were breaking up - Fox Soccer Plus, BEIN Sports and Foxsports1 - there are no other important channels... oh except for NBCSN... and wait... I have to rush off; Tottenham kick off at 2:30 against Leicester in the FA Cup
And thanks to you, LJ. I'm sure that video appealed to anyone whose taste in comedy is even lower than their taste in music - which excludes me because the epitome of good taste in music is Leonard Cohen.
