eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
Someone from inside his circle will get it done if things dont go 100% in Ukraine. He’s getting more erratic and even his allues wont like him going too far.
Someone from inside his circle will get it done if things dont go 100% in Ukraine. He’s getting more erratic and even his allues wont like him going too far.How?
Was it 4 years it took in ww2 and then Bosnia we took a while to respond.Well aware of what the Treaty says. Has it ever been tested? If Russia moves 20km into all the border states and stops would it lead to all out war? 30km? 100km?
As you say it brings in the US but it's a long way to move resources in a short period of time. It would not be a conventional war like we've seen before.
We need to understand why Putin is doing this and what he wants
If it’s something we can give then the world needs to do it and if it’s not the world needs to take overwhelming action
Was it 4 years it took in ww2 and then Bosnia we took a while to respond.
We need to understand why Putin is doing this and what he wants
If it’s something we can give then the world needs to do it and if it’s not the world needs to take overwhelming action that putin doesn’t waste time and lives before he realises he won’t get it
Let’s not for one minute think the USA will act unless they are affected directly.
It depends. If all this about him looking strong to stay in power or to pick who follows him then what can be done to make him look strongSo our response should be to cave to Putin’s demands as much as humanly possible?
I admire your optimismThe USA will act if a NATO ally is attacked
I admire your optimism
Was it 4 years it took in ww2 and then Bosnia we took a while to respond.
We need to understand why Putin is doing this and what he wants
If it’s something we can give then the world needs to do it and if it’s not the world needs to take overwhelming action that putin doesn’t waste time and lives before he realises he won’t get it
Let’s not for one minute think the USA will act unless they are affected directly.
It's not a defence, it's a deterrent. If a nuke is sent by Russia Trident has failed. It will not protect anyone from the effects of that attack. All we could do is fire some back before we got obliterated to destroy parts of Russia as retaliation.
As much as I wish such weapons didn't exist, if we don't have our own we are at the mercy of others. Look at the likes of Japan and what Trump was demanding of them in return for U.S. 'protection'. Yet you can guarantee if Japan had said "we'll just make our own nukes then' he'd have been first in line to denounce the plan and demand an end to it.
Fact is our nuclear arsenal is costly, small and ageing. It's a deterrent but in comparison to others it's not great.
So you would rather scrap it then? Have nothing at all whatsoever?
Come on. That is totally ridiculous. If we had Corbyn we wouldn't even have that. I know you don't like to hear it, but it is fact.
We need to understand why Putin is doing this and what he wants
If it’s something we can give then the world needs to do it and if it’s not the world needs to take overwhelming action that putin doesn’t waste time and lives before he realises he won’t get it
Not much of a defence tbh
Also the will to use them. When you have only one voice on one side and multiple voices on the other becomes more complicated.I agree with you. The only defence against nuclear weapons is Mutually Assured Destruction and for that to apply both sides need to have nuclear weapons
It's not love for Corbyn. Don't go for the massive leapsIt is the best insurance policy we have by a mile and the damage those missiles can do is staggering.
We have four submarines with 8 bombs on each. Each of these bombs is around eight times as destructive as the bomb which flattened Hiroshima. If someone tries to fuck with us then we are able to do some serious damage to them. The concept of that alone is a serious deterrent.
Scraping it is absolute madness, especially when we face the situation we do right now. It amazes me that people's love for Corbyn can blind them so much into thinking that we would be better off with nothing.
Also the will to use them. When you have only one voice on one side and multiple voices on the other becomes more complicated.
It's not love for Corbyn. Don't go for the massive leaps
No it isn't. I said simply it's not much of a defence. That's nothing to do with anything other than my view that it's not much of a defenceis partly to do with it.
No it isn't. I said simply it's not much of a defence. That's nothing to do with anything other than my view that it's not much of a defence
Not reallyIt is a defence though
So he can do what he likes in Ukraine cause we won’t act for fear of escalating the crisis. Okno disrespect Pete but its to soft in saying we need to understand why Putin doing it or give him what he needs, he has never thought twice about this attack, hence why he had militarily personal scattered around the place. he is killing innocent people as we speak.
InterestingWhy not just send a sniper for the c**t?
Fox News has more influence than Corbyn and they’ve just been talking about their stance on LBC and it’s quite staggering. Agent’s of Russia isn’t and understatement. That’s Fox News, owned by Murdoch and who’s UK media arm helped sell the UK Brexit.Its bizarre that with all this going on people still want to bang on about Corbyn who has literally zero influence over anything that is happening.
Its bizarre that with all this going on people still want to bang on about Corbyn who has literally zero influence over anything that is happening.
So he can do what he likes in Ukraine cause we won’t act for fear of escalating the crisis. Ok
Chelsea going cheap?
They’re not in a rush to address it. Chris Bryant has just used parliamentary privilege to raise the issue in the commons and the head of the commons has just brushed it off suggesting it’s addressed on Monday.Chelsea going cheap?
I was just trying to map out an understanding. Eventually a solution and peace will be agreed why not do it at the start and if not putin needs to know nothing he does will be acceptableNO, that's what I'm saying he shouldn't be able to do what he likes and get away with it. maybe I got the wrong end or something, its going to escalate regardless now.
What are you on about. Corbyn isn't, and never has been, PM or Foreign Secretary. What he does or doesn't want to do makes absolutely no difference to anything.It has a lot of influence if Russia decide to take on the world and we have absolutely no means of defence. It isn´t hard to spot the apologists at all.
Just accept that your vote would have meant us being walked over. My last say on the matter.
If one single nuclear bomb is launched from either side that'll be the end. I can't see you can have a limited nuclear exchange. Whether we have one nuclear sub or one hundred it's all quite academic.It is the best insurance policy we have by a mile and the damage those missiles can do is staggering.
We have four submarines with 8 bombs on each. Each of these bombs is around eight times as destructive as the bomb which flattened Hiroshima. If someone tries to fuck with us then we are able to do some serious damage to them. The concept of that alone is a serious deterrent.
Scraping it is absolute madness, especially when we face the situation we do right now. It amazes me that people's love for Corbyn can blind them so much into thinking that we would be better off with nothing.
I think he will be taken out by his own people who will blame the West…Why not just send a sniper for the c**t?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?