Should he get to Number 10, he said simply, he would not press the nuclear button.
Think of it this way: Corbyn declared to Britain’s potential enemies that with him in charge they could disregard a multi-billion pound weapon system.
Apparently Corbyn has made a massive ‘bombshell’ u-turn on his nuclear weapons policy…once an ardent, fanatical nuclear disarmer and someone who would never, ever press the button he would in fact now use them, he would press the button if Britain were attacked. The BBC hasn’t noticed. Apparently this has always been his policy and there’s nothing new here. Or he’s lying to win votes…and again the BBC makes no comment on his exploitation of ‘fake news’ and post-truth politics’….free ride to No 10 from the BBC?
Corbyn is even anti-nuclear power stations having said so in 2011..
“I say no nuclear power, decommission the stations we’ve got”.
The Conservatives have said Corbyn’s position on nuclear weapons is a threat to national security and thus he is unfit to be in office as PM. Nick Robinson says the Tories are ‘smearing’ Corbyn with such a claim. Robinson said Corbyn had a legitimate argument and that the Tory claim was thus a smear….Corbyn is perfectly entitled to his position but then his opponents are also entitled to comment on that…aren’t they? Apparently not according to Nick Robinson who is obviously suggesting that the Tory argument is thus not legitimate.
Trouble is it’s a claim that Corbyn’s own party must agree with as they back Trident.
And what of that slippery phrase now being used by Corbyn, that he wouldn’t use a ‘first strike’? He used it on Marr and Marr did not blink, and Humphrys on the Today show, despite noting that Corbyn had previously said he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons, quoted the ‘first strike’ phrase without comment on the importance of that phrase and Corbyn’s slippery u-turn….the significance of which can be ascertained by the way the Labour man immediately jumped in saying ‘You’ve hit the nail on the head…he wouldn’t use it as a first strike’...leaving open the suggestion that he would use it as retaliation….when he would not, ever. Post-truth politics?
Here’s Marr not reacting at all to the ‘bombshell’ u-turn in Corbyn’s position that he now would use nuclear weapons…just not as a first strike…
Why did neither Marr nor Humphrys challenge that positioning by Corbyn? Corbyn would never, never, use nuclear weapons and to imply he might is utterly dishonest.
The BBC hides the story about Corbyn’s nuclear stance on the politics page….why is such an important story not on the frontpage, or maybe even just on the UK page? But no, you have to dig into the politics page to find it…
Speaking to Andrew Marr on BBC One, Mr Corbyn – a long-standing opponent of nuclear weapons – said he would never launch a “first strike” attack as prime minister and wanted to de-escalate global tensions, working with other countries including the US, Russia and Iran.
But hang on, is that a massive u-turn or a convenient lie?…he has made his views quite plain in the past…here’s his own Stop the War Coalition praising his position…
The new leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has sparked a political firestorm by challenging the myths around nuclear weapons and Cold War deterrence. Corbyn announced that he would never use a nuclear weapon.
Here’s the Guardian reporting his stance…
Jeremy Corbyn: I would never use nuclear weapons if I were PM
And here is the BBC itself reporting his ‘never, ever’ position…
Jeremy Corbyn row after ‘I’d not fire nuclear weapons’ comment
It did not take a debate, within Labour or the House of Commons. A few words on the Today programme did the trick.
Should he get to Number 10, he said simply, he would not press the nuclear button.
Think of it this way: Corbyn declared to Britain’s potential enemies that with him in charge they could disregard a multi-billion pound weapon system.
“I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.
“I do not think we should be renewing Trident.”
Pretty clear isn’t it? Under no circumstances would Corbyn, the terrorist sympathiser, ever press the nuclear button.
Why is the BBC now pushing all that down the memory hole and peddling Corbyn’s new ‘not a first strike’ pose as if this was his policy all along with nothing unusual going on, nothing to see here?
It’s a lie. A lie intended to con the British public into thinking Corbyn can be trusted to defend British interests and maintain our security when in fact he has no intention of doing so and would happily surrender to the first threat in order to avoid any bloodshed at all. And the BBC is backing that position by not challenging his lie and the subterfuge that he might use nuclear weapons if attacked….he would never use them, he has said so many times.
Shame the BBC has forgotten….a massive apparent policy u-turn by Corbyn in order to fool the voters and win an election…where is the BBC’s famed ‘Reality Check’ where are the cries of ‘Fake News’? There came none….just as there came none when Corbyn completely fabricated a story about there being no seats on a train in order to bolster his Marxist drive to nationalise the railways.
So Corbyn is now not against using the nuclear option but only against using it as a First Strike weapon. But isn’t that the whole point of the Nuclear Deterrent, a name which gives a clear description of it’s intention, which is not that it should be used as a First Strike but that it should deter others from using it as a First Strike against you.
Unless I slept through a long period of the Cold War I don’t recall any politician anywhere near a position of power in either the Soviet Block or the West, and specifically not in Britain, who ever came near to threaten using it for a First Strike.
Admittedly there were a few times when serious warnings were issued by both East and West that there would be retaliation if a nuclear attack were made against them but that was the whole point of it, to deter Nuclear War from breaking out in the first place.
In his attempt to pretend he has come up with something which is really no different from his previous stance Corbyn is being deceitful to say the least. There is a huge policy change from his previous stance of abandoning nuclear weapons completely and his sudden current conversion to having nuclear weapons but only using them if attacked.
You either have nuclear weapons or you don’t, the choice is as simple as that, and from a determination to have none to a policy of having them but not using them as a First Strike is a complete U-turn however you try to spin it.
A. Lad
Mutually Assured Destruction was the acronym that summed up the balance of power during the Cold War. Both sides knew they would be annihilated if they struck first, but each nevertheless understood that they had to convince the other that they would if push came to shove. Kept the peace, or at least prevented WWIII.
Worzel Dustybyn seems now to want to spend hundreds of billions on Nuclear weapons, and then tell everyone that we won’t use them. What’s the point in having them then.
Corbyns CND credentials are showing .He probably believes he can lead from behind and get the world to disarm.
We just had eight years of Obamas non leadership and look where that got us.
His bank holiday policy is a typical socialist giveaway that will penalise job creators . Welcome to the 1970s.I don’t want to go there again thanks.
Yes, it is a huge change in policy. The BBC made a huge song and dance about May’s inconsistency on calling an election, so where is their song and dance about Corbyn’s stance on nukes – which I suggest is a tad more significant? I don’t know. Corbyn might just be learning fast about leadership. It might be starting to occur to him that you don’t defeat your enemies by disarming them with the moral purity of your pacifist positions. Real political leadership requires being strong enough to take, if necessary, decisions that kill people, even innocent civilians. If you feel too queasy about ever doing that, then you better return to your quiet life photocopying leaflets.
A historical note, with apologies for the length.
Throughout the Cold War, the nation with a ‘no first use’ policy towards nuclear weapons was the Soviet Union [because it had apparent overwhelming superiority, pre the early 80’s, in conventional weapons]. The Soviet philosophy was to roll over the West’s defences via two possible routes:
The North German Plain, easy territory for tanks, was where they positioned two of their three available crack units (the 3rd Guards, an armoured unit, and the so-called 3rd Shock Army. The reserve formation was the 20th Guards). These positions were defended by British BAOR, Dutch, Belgian and West German forces.
Further South, the Central Uplands provided – and provide – more defensible positions; the widest available access here is the Fulda Gap. More dificult terain for an attacking force, but closer to the Rhine. The usual Soviet unit here was the 8th Guards, with the 1st Guards Tank army somewhat to the rear. These positions were defended by US and West German forces.
By reason of historical accident – which Western units ended up where at the end of WW2 – the most easily defended position was held by the strongest NATO forces and, notwithstanding US domestic propaganda, the most likely route of attack remained the Northern one until the rise of Thatcher and Reagan, who effectively forced an end the threat.
The Western powers had a policy of ‘no first use of force’ rather than ‘no first use of nukes’.
The West had that policy because they new that failure to stop massed Soviet armour crossing the Northern Plain or less likely, the Fulda Gap, meant surrender or go nuclear, at least at a theatre level.
The Soviets new this, so their ‘no first use of nukes’ policy made perfect sense to them – they would win conventionally, or the West would end up using tactical nukes on West German soil.
Corbyn’s ‘no first use of nukes’ policy is extremely dangerous, as it effectively says “throw anything you like at us, conventional, chemical, biological, I don’t care, I still won’t use the most powerful weapon we have.”
Whilst no-one wishes to see a nuclear strike, the whole point of a massively powerful deterrent is to … er … deter.
The clues in the name, Jeremy.
Has anyone noticed that:
Every Radio 4 news bulletin that I have heard since the announcement of the election (once non-domestic items are covered) starts with either “The Labour party” or “Jeremy Corbyn”
Every day the BBC website has had for the background to the “Election Campaign Latest” a shot of Jeremy Corbyn, looking messianic or even statesmanlike, surrounded by adoring fans (Actually today it’s Kier Starmer) Any Conservative announcement is dealt with by quoting other parties rubbishing of the policy.
To be fair, the policy line seems to be we like Labour but not Corbyn because he is useless, so it’s anybody but the Tories
Also the BBC never seem to say Conservative just Tory, used one feels as a pejorative term. Why is it Labour and not Trots?
Conservativeman,
Being the type who arranges his affairs so that I can stay up all night to watch election results – I’m trying to work out the line albeeb ( HRH Dimbleby ) will take when the results come in ( Sunderland first of course)..
1. Surprise labour win
2 coalition against conservatives
3 conservatives fail by only getting small majority
4 conservative win
5 conservative landslide.
6 the winning party won but the other lot got more votes .
7 Timmy doubles number of MPs and says ‘prepare for government’
It’s going to be like that game bullsh t bingo . Long time to go..