' Defence ' Labour supporters

as a young voter, I am against Trident, call me naïve or whatever, but I feel you older generation have a mind-set of they want to nuke us, so we should have nukes". no nation I think really wants to use them, and which ever nation does use them, will destroyed by the rest of the world. to me all a nuke means is if "Russia" DID nuke us, all we could do before being killed is kill a few million innocent people in retaliation. just imagine if we stopped trident and invested that money into a british Space programme.

Corbyn isn't for everyone and that's exactly what this democracy election is for, you can vote someone else, and as a young voter I find it pathetic that "WEZ" called someone

"Your a lost cause,looney lefty if you cant see that corbyn is threat then your off your head" for believing in a politican, this is the exact same thing as when remainers called brexiters "racists". people mighty be voting for Corbyn for other issues,

The whole point of a nuclear deterrant is just that,it deters,may I suggest you research the concept of M.A.D

I can see corbyn on a planes steps waving a bit of white paper saying we have peace ,sound similar

I can see corbyn on a planes steps waving a bit of white paper saying we have peace ,sound similar

Yes it does

Having a "Nuclear Deterrent" doesn't essentially mean that we won't get attacked. It simply means we will attack those who attack us first.

To put it in simpler terms, 2 people stood in Petroleum, holding a match daring eachother to drop theirs first. Either way, both countries are going up in smoke.

Why can't the UK lead the way in Nuclear Disarmament? Why do we always have to act like Billy big ballocks. And by the way, while Nato states we must sound 2% ofor GDP, we've only sent 1.8%.

If you have two people soaked in petroleum, unless they are completely insane neither are likely to drop that match. As far as leading the way in scrapping these weapons are concerned, you have already said that Russia are not interested in little England.

Exactly, so why not lead the way and get disarming our nuclear weapons?

As said, who would want to go and hold a match in the first place? Why is Corbyn being attacked for not wanting to drop that match.

The world would be far safer if nobody had them. Like it or not, countries have them, and countries like N Korea are developing them. The reason Corbyn is being attacked is because he would be the one soaked in petrol with the other person holding the match, and his only means of defence would be begging for his life. May work, and the other person may spare him in exchange for his house.

Nuclear arms explained for the hard of thinking, a perfect metaphor.

YES YES YES

Having a "Nuclear Deterrent" doesn't essentially mean that we won't get attacked. It simply means we will attack those who attack us first.

To put it in simpler terms, 2 people stood in Petroleum, holding a match daring eachother to drop theirs first. Either way, both countries are going up in smoke.

Why can't the UK lead the way in Nuclear Disarmament? Why do we always have to act like Billy big ballocks. And by the way, while Nato states we must sound 2% ofor GDP, we've only sent 1.8%.

If you have two people soaked in petroleum, unless they are completely insane neither are likely to drop that match. As far as leading the way in scrapping these weapons are concerned, you have already said that Russia are not interested in little England.

Exactly, so why not lead the way and get disarming our nuclear weapons?

As said, who would want to go and hold a match in the first place? Why is Corbyn being attacked for not wanting to drop that match.

The world would be far safer if nobody had them. Like it or not, countries have them, and countries like N Korea are developing them. The reason Corbyn is being attacked is because he would be the one soaked in petrol with the other person holding the match, and his only means of defence would be begging for his life. May work, and the other person may spare him in exchange for his house.

This analogy used to work among the old guard nations but not with the new bread.Pakistan,North Korea to name but 2.The deterrant angle argument used to be watertight.Though it doesn't make headlines in the Tory press we are constantly trying behind the scenes to keep their hands off a decnt delivery system. Lucily for us some of the countries that have got nukes haven't got the means to bung them far,but if that ever happens the trident argument won't stop them.