The hate filled rag that is the Daily Mail today used it’s front page to attack Jeremy Corbyn. This is standard fare for the paper, which is so Tory it may as well be publisher with blue ink.
The reason for the attack was that Corbyn refused to answer if he would use Trident, the UK’s nuclear weapons, to “defend Britain”. I’m sure to the core readership of the paper this is further evidence of the hippy’s weakness as a potential leader and he should have answered the question.
The problem is that you can’t use Trident to defend Britain. It doesn’t stop a nuclear attack on the UK, not in a weaponized sense. Trident won’t shoot Russian nukes out of the sky. It works because nobody with nukes will attack us because they know we can retaliate.
Mutually assured destruction is how the nuclear arms situation works. Nobody fires because they know if they do, that’s all she wrote.
This always makes me wonder if perhaps we could save money and bluff. Say we’re renewing Trident, keep the subs milling about but actually use the cash to shore up the NHS on the quiet. Or fund school lunches. You know something useful that wouldn’t potentially end mankind.
Corbyn has been attacked for not agreeing with the continued funding of Trident. But it’s a reasonable thing to object to. In times of austerity why continue to pay billions upon billions for a weapon that will probably never be used. Why not sit with other nuclear powers and discuss this? Find some way to end the stalemate that has reigned since the USSR built it’s first nuke, kickstarting the tense face off of the Cold War.
A British PM would only use a nuke in two situations- if they went nuts and fired first, or as a retaliation. Neither is a defensive move. If Russia, for example, wanted to it would only take around 10 bombs of 100 megaton payloads to essentially wipe out Britain aside from a few folks in the Highlands and other remote areas. That’s every major town and city gone. (You can work all this out on the depressing Nukemap website).
At that point firing our nukes isn’t defending ourselves, it’s a final, needless retaliation.
Who could morally justify firing at that point? We’d be down and out, and the last action of Britain in the history books would be lashing out. Condemning millions of innocents to death without hope of victory or any greater strategy beside a vengeful “f××k you” from our death bed.
In that situation you hope a leader would react with compassion and not rage. To resist the urge to fire back, to stop the death and destruction there and not add more to the radioactive pyre.
The nuke question is routinely trotted out. Corbyn wouldn’t give the “if necessary” answer because quite frankly it will never be necessary. The other nuclear powers can’t use theirs for fear of what it would unleash. So, why not just say “no, I wouldn’t use nukes”.
Well, Corbyn would have been attacked for this. Look at the lefty loony who says he won’t slaughter millions and leave countless others suffering and disease, what a wimp!
I would be far more worried of a PM candidate who could glibly answer yes to the nuke question or worse gleefully announce that they would have no remorse pressing the button.
But thankfully none of the leaders seem that cracked. Although, has anyone asked Paul Nuttall?
Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO.