Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To think saying you would never push the button is moral cowardice?

58 replies

VeryEarlyDays · 30/09/2015 18:56

If corbyn is anti nuclear and for disarmament then those are the colours he should nail his mast.
Today he seemed to say I will not oppose trident because that would loose votes so I'll let millions of pounds be spent on something but then say personal I wouldn't use it. Just seems cowardly..

OP posts:

Mistigri · 30/09/2015 19:02

I thought he was supposed to be unelectable so how is this even an issue?

Speaking as someone who didn't (and won't) vote for Corbyn, I must say that many of his opponents have their knickers in a right old twist given that none of them think he will ever be in a position to press red buttons.

I find the whole thing very odd.

DoreenLethal · 30/09/2015 19:05

Cowardly? Surely it is more cowardly to just be able to press a button without concern for the people that it will murder?

Original poster

VeryEarlyDays · 30/09/2015 19:08

I didn't mean cowardly not.to press the button I mean cowardly not to stand up and say nuclear disarmament. To say it by the back door as it were...

OP posts:

Coffeethrowtrampbitch · 30/09/2015 19:09

Anyone who genuinely would press the button and horribly murder millions of human beings should never be Prime Minister.

AuntieStella · 30/09/2015 19:11

I think he's right to stand by his principles.

I don't agree with some of his argumentation (strawman about 9/11) and even though there might be a veto on use during any hypothetical term he has in office, maintaining it in existence as part of the East/West balance and wider international deterrence patterns could yet be very important.

Look at what Russia did over Syria today. The older 'game' hasn't gone away.

Mistigri · 30/09/2015 19:13

If you put it like that you might get a less snarky answer ;)

He was elected on a platform of grown-up politics, in which adults are able to disagree and where policy is not imposed from the top down. He can't impose disarmament on a party which doesn't agree with him on this issue (and he is right not to IMO).

There are other parties who are in favour of unilateral disarmament who you could vote for ...

MrsTerryPratchett · 30/09/2015 20:07

There are plenty of things that I personally wouldn't do. That doesn't mean I would ban them. Least he's honest.

ghostyslovesheep · 30/09/2015 20:10

no it's honesty - hth

JeffsanArsehole · 30/09/2015 20:12

Cowardly to not kill the human race

You may need more than a head wobble, would a glass of claret help ?

lorelei9 · 30/09/2015 20:16

Well the thread title is completely wrong

He's conscious he won't be in charge of the party forever so has compromised. Seems fair to me.

I don think I can recall many times I've been struck by the decency of a politician but the fact he won't push the button makes me like him more than I did. I'm seeing a lot of dignity in him.

lorelei9 · 30/09/2015 20:17

Ps to be clear, I already liked him and now like him more.

DarthVadersTailor · 01/10/2015 08:08

Cowardice? Not at all. A somewhat forced compromise? Definitely that. He has to try to unite a divided party and Trident appears to be one of the issues he needs to compromise on. Not that I agree personally as I'd love nothing more than to see it scrapped.

Mistigri · 01/10/2015 08:25

What darth said.

I'm constantly amazed by seemingly constant demands for unity on certain issues in the Labour party, when people seem to turn a blind eye to potentially far more serious differences of opinion in other parties, notably over Europe, but also on issues such as the HRA (a number of sensible Tories think their manifesto promise was lunacy).

Trills · 01/10/2015 08:33

If you think it's so important you can keep it, I won't force you to get rid of it, but while I'm in charge that button is not getting pressed.

Sounds like a reasonable statement to me.

DandyDan · 01/10/2015 09:18

What Trills said.

I think the Tories supprting and promoting the selling of arms to a number of countries and inviting multi billion pound investment from China in a nuclear power plant in the UK affects our national security 100 times more than Corbyn sticking to his principles of nuclear disarmament.

IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou · 01/10/2015 09:22

I think any country where the PM is an avowed pacifist and who wouldn't use any or all of the countries defenses to protect itself could be at a disadvantage on the international scene.

Putin is sending bombers into our airspace on a weekly basis, they get chased off by the RAF at the moment.

If it's known that there is absolutely no risk of them getting shot down if they push too far, what's to stop them flying deeper into our territory? Who knows what emissions based mischief they could get up to?

attheendoftheday · 01/10/2015 09:23

One if the things I really like about Corbyn is his integrity. I don't think he's being cowardly at all, just clear about his standards.

limitedperiodonly · 01/10/2015 09:43

If it's known that there is absolutely no risk of them getting shot down if they push too far, what's to stop them flying deeper into our territory?

Putin had someone poisoned with nuclear sushi over here and we did nothing. I think he probably has an inkling that we wouldn't dare shoot down one of his planes.

IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou · 01/10/2015 09:55

I think he probably has an inkling that we wouldn't dare shoot down one of his planes.

He might, I certainly don't. If a Russian bomber had entered British Airspace and was heading towards London (for example) I'm pretty sure it wouldn't reach there....

Gottagetmoving · 01/10/2015 09:59

Corbyn is quite clear on his stance on Trident. However, he is not a dictator - and he has to go with how the rest of his party vote.

Pixi2 · 01/10/2015 10:10

This is what worries me. In theory and pre DC I would have agreed in disarming trident. Post DC I want my country and children safe. Putin is testing and pushing boundaries too far and every politician knows it. Where would the deterrent be if we did not have trident. Would the money saved go into strengthening our forces so we can fend off attacks instead of further cuts? He says the Cold War is over. It may well be but who is to say another will not start at this rate?

Gottagetmoving · 01/10/2015 10:29

I don't think having Trident in any way guarantees any of our safety.

howabout · 01/10/2015 10:56

Agree with Trills and Gottagetmoving

Finding it quite difficult to get my head round DC pontificating on US TV about the nature of the Syrian problem when he has never bothered to explain it to me on UK TV and in any event US and Russia are doing their own thing while we are largely sidelined anyway.

Pretty incredulous that any UK PM would ever unilaterally push the big red button and certainly wouldn't want them doing it on the say so of another nation.

TheFairyCaravan · 01/10/2015 11:02

He wouldn't need to press it. If Putin presses his, America will press their's before our PM's got his arse out of the chair.

bluebolt · 01/10/2015 11:24

Whilst I would be more than happy for removal of trident, his position of never using it leaves his party in nowhere land. Those in the Labour Party who do support will need the Tories to stay in power or overturn their leader. He openness also worries me, will he protect international waters or will he allow boats to fish in our waters whilst he has discussions? Then there is Gibraltar and the Falklands. I admire his principles and in most cases I agree with him but on an international level I personally am not sure.

Flip

1 2 3