Is it a good thing the Labour leader will never 'press the button'?

[StitchesBurstinBath]

Given his ineptitude on twitter?

Inept on twitter? How so?

he pressed like 'by accident' to people wondering if it was worse to have sex with Dianne Abbot or a pig like Dave Cameron. thus hurting her feelings.

Is it a GOOD thing"?

I'd suggest its a fantastic thing for the people of Russia who now know that if their expansionist leader ever tries a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the UK - they can go about their daily business in safety.

Russian ambassador lavishes praise on Jeremy Corbyn over foreign policy
In unusual intervention, Russian ambassador to Britain criticises David Cameron and praises Jeremy Corbyn's foreign policy

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11881065/Russian-ambassador-lavishes-praise-on-Jeremy-Corbyn-over-foreign-policy.html

Jeremy Corbyn's victory is a “radical breakthrough in British politics”, Russia has said as it attacked David Cameron for claiming that the new Labour leader is a “threat to national security”.

In a breach of diplomatic protocol, Russia’s ambassador in the UK hailed Mr Corbyn’s election and accused the Tories of a “flagrant” attempt to oppose a “democratic process” by criticising the result of Labour’s leadership election.

Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko also praised Mr Corbyn’s opposition to British membership of Nato as well as his repeated pledge to reject any attempt by the Government to endorse a military intervention abroad.

Speaking to Russian television, Mr Yakovenko said: “It is difficult to overestimate the significance of Jeremy Corbyn being elected by an overwhelming, mostly young people the new leader of the Labour party and, thus, leader of the official parliamentary opposition.

“This is nothing short of a radical breakthrough in [the] British politics of the last 30 years, which have never stepped beyond the so-called Thatcherist neo-liberal consensus of the establishment.”

Its not as if he ever tries a practise run;

Sept 11 2015; Britain scramblesTyphoons from RAF Lossiemouth to intercept nuclear-capable Russian supersonic bombers off Northumbrian coast
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3231119/Britain-scrambles-Typhoons-RAF-Lossiemouth-intercept-nuclear-capable-Russian-supersonic-bombers-Scottish-coast.html

• The Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth raced to intercept the Russian jets
• RAF pilots visually identified the Tupolev Tu-160 'Black Jack' bombers
• The Black Jacks are capable of carrying 16 short-range nuclear missiles
• The Cold War era jets are capable of flying at twice the speed of sound

Well no more than several times every month.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It wouldn't be up to him, he would be radioactive dust. It would be up to the captain of a submarine somewhere or the US president deciding to strike or even the French who might well be annoyed about a nuclear strike close by.

Well Maria Eagle is not very pleased with him.

Yes I think it's a good idea and something for a leader to say. 'I promise to never kill 100,000s of innocent people in minutes' seems fairly decent. Only surprised more other leaders don't say it.

Few with any common sense in the Labour Movement can be pleased by that Corbyn comment, as that will stay with him/them while Corbyn is leader, even if next week he does another u-turn - as all Corbyns politics are simple, worn on his sleeve, and based in the 'Ban-the-bomb' 1970s/1980s.

Corbyn gave a core belief, no one can expect him to change it if PM and the UK is in crisis, especially the Ruskies.

Has no one noticed that the UK is really very tiny and would be obliterated by one single nuclear attack, but Russia and the USA can half cope with one seeing as they are slightly larger.

Nuclear to the UK as a deterrent, is completely pointless, very expensive and does not act like much of a deterrent.

yes because of course a beleagured Russia is our current greatest threat, innit.

Linking a view on nuclear weapons use with being 'unpatriotic' or leaving the UK defenceless is immature in the extreme.

"A threat to our national security and your family" no less.

'Linking a view on nuclear weapons use with being 'unpatriotic' or leaving the UK defenceless is immature in the extreme.'

It is all being done to try and undermine COrbyn yet again. As Allegra said on Newsnight, it was going well for Corbyn, the Conference ended, the Labour attendees love him and then the media pull this rabbot out of the hat and the ususal faces in the Shadow Cabinet come out and say it is not very Prime Ministerial etc and this hypo-hypothetical is blown up to great proportions so that the public starts questioning Corbyn's leadership ability once more as lots of Shadow Cabinet members again say they diagree with him.

The giveaway of the media is that the only people they ever interview from the Shadow Cabinet or the Labour Party are the usual faces that disagree with him. They invite the same faces on night after night, chums of Blair etc, and they never invite anyone who agrees with him, and of course that is the same across all channels.

We all know Corbyn doesn't believe in nuclear weapons and wants them scrapped so it is pretty obvious he wouldn't use them. He wants to scrap them. And we all know that if it came to it and someone nuked us or was about to, then someone would probably shove Corbyn out of the way or he would be ill on that day or would slip on a banana skin on the way to his allotment, and someone else would press the button in this hypothetical.

Quite. In most people's more sane view it;s more unpatriotic and less nationally secure to hand over the running of our power industries, utility/water industries, waste disposal, nuclear power industry, rail industries, prison services etc to 'foreign' companies. And let the Americans have us 'buy' their nuclear weapons and be told when and how we can use them.

Compared to all of that, Corbyn is utterly sane. The 'enemy within' are def the Tories who put short term profit for shareholders above the national interest.

Does anyone really believe that the country's fate would be in Corbyn's hands. They are all having a laugh on TV taking it seriously, speculating on the hypothetical and it is all to make Corbyn look like a wally. And they will keep it up for hours until it sticks, and they will show the Shadow Cabinet members on repeat every hour until the public gets the message about Corbyn and how un Prime Ministerial he is.

Isn't China now invited to have a role in nuclear management, via Mr Osbourne, Tory Chancellor ffs? A bit more important than the unlikely prospect of button-pushing. People are now actually waking up to all of this stuff.

Honestly speaking, I would have serious doubts about the moral compass of any politician who said they would use nuclear weapons.

I have been to Hiroshima, and it was devastating to see the impact that the nuclear bomb had on innocent people. I understand that a single Trident warhead would be eight times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.

It would be wrong to use such a weapon in any circumstances. In any case, I think the deterrent theory is a pile of crap.

I'm not really a Corbyn fan, but I agree with him on this. I wouldn't press the button either.

Linking a view on nuclear weapons use with being 'unpatriotic' or leaving the UK defenceless is immature in the extreme.

Corbyn is a self confessed 1970's/1980s leftie throwback similar in politics to those in the link below, he even used part of a 1980's speech yesterday, and cannot bring himself to sing the National anthem, never mind support a monarchy/country he would rather be within the old Soviet Union.

“Douglas Eden reveals the extraordinary penetration of the 1970s Labour movement by pro-Soviet trade unionists and the extent of Callaghan’s toleration of the hard Left.”
www.spectator.co.uk/features/3665728/we-came-close-to-losing-our-democracy-in-1979/

Another 'smoking gun' or rather unused missile, below?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyn-hints-at-warmer-relations-with-russia-10449856.html

”In an interview with the state-run Russia Today TV station, which Mr Corbyn has made favourable remarks towards in the past, he suggested national security would be rethought if he was elected Prime Minister.”

”He told the channel: "What is security? Is security the ability to bomb, maim, kill, destroy, or is security the ability to get on with other people and have some kind of respectful existence with them?"

Putin does not 'get on' with people, other leaders are either against him, or under his control.

The way the media question Corbyn is extremely biased.

"Do you really want to be Prime Minister?"

"If you lose the election in 2020, will you give up socialism and say that you got it wrong and people don't want it?"

All nonsense. Would Thatcher have given up her belief in capitalism just because she lost an election?

Corbyn and Thatcher have and had principles. They don't change with the wind to curry favour with the media or for votes. They don't abandon everything they believe in because they fail to convince the majority. They try again.

'the old Soviet Union' etc...singing national anthem...blah....you've been peddling this pathetic reactionary mouth piece direct from the Daily Mail headlines stuff for months now - it;s so vacuous, inaccurate and tedious.

The Tory party are not about 'the nation' or 'safety' or anything else worth while. It's about a quick dollar. Even now we are providing assistance to Saudi Arabia in provision of prisons..where people will be executed, or have limbs removed, or imprisoned for protest. There is no 'core' Britishness to them. It's whoever will pay them some money. It's a value-free zone. So spare us the rhetoric about 'security' eh?

Following on from Kampeki I wouldn't press the button either.

Even now we are providing assistance to Saudi Arabia in provision of prisons..where people will be executed, or have limbs removed, or imprisoned for protest.

What has changed in Saudi Arabia since 2010, their strict rules everyone within know and could move away if they wanted?

Whereas Russia/Syria has a great Human Rights record Corbyn wants to leave be, yes?

Any prairie hat of a UK leader that was in a Labour government that screwed over our poor's life chances/homes and blew £trillions in 13-years, yet worries MORE about the Saudis in their first speech - is one sandwich short of a UK picnic.

In Saudi? Anyone can 'move away' from - really, is that how Saudi works, for women with no basic human rights and exploitation of immigrants? Okay thanks for your valuable insights.

It's just amazing the way the media framed this.

Somehow, being a 'Tough leader' (because we need more of those, don't we?) has been translated along the way as: "A leader willing to kill millions of innocent civilians".

If the UK ever reached a situation where nuking a country was necessary - then obviously at that point the 'deterrent' has already failed. The only thing 'gained' by launching news is retribution - by murdering millions of innocent people.

Totes amazeballs the media is concerned that should we ever manage to get a Trident deterrent renewal (costing about £100 bil over 30-years), then or now, it is NOT a deterrent, as he told 'the bad guys' he won't use it. Ooops

Best he goes back to the back benches days, when he used to play with Diane's 'button'.

His lack of any front bench experience is really showing. He has no idea of how to play the game. Of course his supporters will see his ineptitude as a virtue, all part of the genuineness of the man- he doesn't play the game because that's not his way of doing politics.

To the unconverted it just looks naïve and flat-footed. If he's tripping up now how will he ever cope if faced with actually having to be PM and deal with all sorts of people and organisations who will be seeking to push their positions?