Theresa May says "Yes," she's prepared to kill hundreds of thousands in nuke attack

a reply to: awareness10

I dont know much about this woman but is she a loose cannon, or just blowing steam? What do the people of Great Britain on the Forum think of her and what she's saying in regards to this?

Funny how ever since the Brit Exit everyone cried doom; "the cost of borrowings will go up" etc. Where'r the money coming from? But we gotta keep the cold war rhetoric up - nothing changes - and serve her banker/MIC masters.

a reply to: intrptr

She actually carried war to Argentina over the Falklands.

Argentina illegally seized the Falklands, her response was inevitable.

Hillary is a warmonger, too.

You've earned your bonus.

a reply to: awareness10

"would not take a decision that kills millions of innocent people," saying: "I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to go about international relations."

to be fair if it came to down us being nuked or them being nuked. i know which one i would go for. ITs not like she will be nuking people out of fun. More if it comes to too us or them.

She disgusts me tbh but I don't think she's totally insane; making your enemies think you're willing to go further than them is a deterrent.

Hundreds of thousands? Try millions.. if not tens of millions.. or even billions.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Well, she must be doing something right. She's got all of you convinced she's going to nuke the world as soon as she can!

That's more or less the point of MAD. If everyone believes she will, then no one will test her. Did none of you learn this? And have none of you been studying our frenemies who have been steadily ramping up their own militaries and armaments, treaties be damaned.

I know, right?

At least she can say, "don't say i didn't warn you"!

But seriously, she said she wouldn't take it off the table, like Trump.

Why tell people what you won't do?! Why bother having the weapons in the first place.

That's STUPID, right Obama?

originally posted by: IllegalName
"Which part of the non-proliferation treaty do they not understand?"

All of it. I could be mistaken but my impression is that we’re only supposed to have the one warhead we supposedly had at the time of signing the treaty. We’ve already broken it so this really comes as no surprise.

So you guys were allowed to have one to hold on to, and you went and dun broke it.

How the hell did you "break" a nuclear weapon?

Spill tea on it?

Did some biscuit crumbs fall down in there or something?

Did you tell it too many bad jokes and it just stopped working?

Why should you get another if you just broke the first one, these aren't free you know, they don't grow on trees.

a reply to: MisterSpock

Did he mean the UK is only supposed to have one?

Last time I heard, we had a couple of hundred of the God awful things....and that was just the official numbers.

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: ketsuko

I have no idea, that's why i posted in hopes someone knew more about this Woman. Is she a nutcase? Is she like Reagan threatening to push the big red button?

There's a lot of stuff going on right now in the news, tensions are high, I'm just asking what people think nothing more.

Why is she a nutcase? Are you thinking this through? The UK, like the US and several other countries has a nuclear deterrent. If as the current political leader of your country you say you would never actually use it, it's not much of a deterrent, is it?

I know a lot of people will have views around nuclear weapons, but your comments in your OP really are a bit of a stretch.

And the “civilized enlightened” west is afraid of terrorism!

The greatest terror is that these” civilized enlightened” western nations and NATO who with all these weapons can destroy this world and parts of the solar system, aren’t doing much to bring peace to the world.

There restarting the cold war


But they’ll, like that racist jackass in congress, tell us how great the western world is.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ketsuko
Are you assuming that just because she says she's prepared to strike that means she's talking first strike?

Who cares?

They are calling her the Ice Maiden, is that posturing for the perceived enemy? Or narcissistic psychopathic tendency?

Photo source

That's why he's dead

a reply to: awareness10

Theresa May's a donkey's baw sack.

The woman wants to get a grip and stop residing in Thatchers shadow.

Yes shes a lady prime minister but why she feels the need to posture in such a fashion is beyond me.

They were discussing trident, she was asked questions and gave answers.

I don't particularly like the woman...but in all fairness, what do people think she is supposed to say?

No...no, we'd never do that! The backlash if she made a comment like that woul dbe far worse, she's prepared to do what might need to be done, I suppose it's fair to say that's what some people want to hear.

If people expected she'd say something different they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

a reply to: samerulesapply

Fair point but its a hell of a day when the leader of a first world nation that promotes world peace(Cough,Cough LoL) plainly announces shes prepared to kill hundreds of thousands of people with nuclear weapons.

Suppose she is correct considering if the UK were ever to launch such an attack people would die, including millions of our own.

a reply to: awareness10

She's taking the same stance as Cameron, Blair and Thatcher. Even though they are Labour and Conservative PMs, they lived on the side of hawks.

May's an accomplished politician and is able to be more outspoken about nuking places because she's blown by the winds of popular opinion. It isn't anything the other three weren't thinking, it's more acceptable today to come out and say it.

Being an elite politician means she also knows the likelihood of nukes being used is almost zero.

I'm more in line with reducing nuclear weapons and side more with the doves. Saying that, I wouldn't want a leader who wasn't prepared to authorise a nuclear strike. As long as anyone has nukes, leaders have to be prepared to say they'll use them. Saying otherwise would leave a nation open to intimidation from those saying they would use nukes.

On top of that, the BREXIT vote means having to puff out the feathers and leverage importance to remain relevant on the world stage.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, it's a tough world - especially the political world.

If she's said otherwise - no I am not prepared to use nukes should the need arise, she's have gone the way of cameron.

doing a job she simply isn't fit for...which would have been great if you ask me, but she's smarter than that. i can't really chastise her for it.

I'd say the same for Cameron, not a fan but for once he stepped up and did what was right - resigning was the most open and honest thing he has done.

I can imagine Mr Corbyn stating how he would probably rather get rid of trident...sounds great on paper but in reality? not so sure...this is why he'll fail if you ask me. He reminds me of the old hippy type guys who eat lentils and wear the same clothes all the time, living in communes.

The polar opposite of May...personally, I'd like an in-betweener, someone who has some nuts and isn't blinded by lefty ideology, but at the same time has that human side...a May-Corbyn hybrid or something. But in all honesty I prefer her to him, she's all about business and he's all about downtrodden.

British politics is a quality circus right now, throw Sturgeon into the mix and it's comedy gold.

a reply to: samerulesapply

Aye Sturgeons a witch but with a "b".

Shes lost a lot of faith and followers up here by way of her stance on refugees and immigration, never mind the fact that she refuses or is unable to sort out her own constituency of Govanhill.

As to Cameron, well lets face it the Man tampers with pigs.

a reply to: andy06shake

Aaaawwww...govanhill!

I had a friend who lived there many years ago, late 90's and it was bad then, it's ten times worse now.

She's lost interest in local politics, not tat I really think she was ever that much interested to begin with. I never liked Salmond, I like her even less.

Doing dodgy deals over in China and what have you. She's good at playing that role, the caring mother of her baby nation but I never bought it. she has her own motives and she ain't so forthcoming where that's concerned..but her bleating over the EU and sad desparation to be part of it is what seals it for me.

This ludicrous notion of independence beneath some shady, unelected shadow government...the woman's a class A moron as is her predecessor.

Yes, I think may is a bit of a cold, inhuman elitist...trying to be civil here, but I honestly prefer her to Sturgeon.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: awareness10

She's taking the same stance as Cameron, Blair and Thatcher. Even though they are Labour and Conservative PMs, they lived on the side of hawks.

May's an accomplished politician and is able to be more outspoken about nuking places because she's blown by the winds of popular opinion. It isn't anything the other three weren't thinking, it's more acceptable today to come out and say it.

Being an elite politician means she also knows the likelihood of nukes being used is almost zero.

I'm more in line with reducing nuclear weapons and side more with the doves. Saying that, I wouldn't want a leader who wasn't prepared to authorise a nuclear strike. As long as anyone has nukes, leaders have to be prepared to say they'll use them. Saying otherwise would leave a nation open to intimidation from those saying they would use nukes.

On top of that, the BREXIT vote means having to puff out the feathers and leverage importance to remain relevant on the world stage.

Yeah, I think we are in danger of forgetting she was asked the question on the day parliament was to vote on renewing the UK deterrent, which was won, with 140 something Labour MPs also voting in favour of it. If she said she wouldn't be prepared to use it then the vote would possibly have been lost.

I don't think it's feather puffing, the decision has to be made at some point so not sure why Brexit would come into it one way or another. I guess it would have put huge pressure on our involvement in NATO if the vote had been lost.

a reply to: samerulesapply

I lived there for 15 years until our beloved government decided to dump 5000 odd Roma people in the area.

Im a live and let live type of dude but when you cannot allow your 7 year old daughter out to play for fear of little nine year old Roma children proclaiming "Come in to the bushes and we will have sex" it time to move on.

And that's not the half of it. Cant say more through because ile just be perceived as being racist.