ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Asked about using nuclear weapons, Mr Corbyn says: "I think the idea of anyone ever using a nuclear weapon is utterly appalling."He says as prime minister he would be "working to avoid that". He highlights other threats - cyberwarfare, terrorist attacks like Manchester, "globally ungoverned spaces like Libya" and environmental disasters. Pressed about whether or not he would ever use nuclear weapons, he says he wouldn't fire nuclear weapons first.
"I'm concerned that you're not prepared to nuke millions of people."
I love Jeremy but he's kind of missing the point when it comes to having a deterrent; even if you'd never use it under any circumstance you have to make sure that people think you would otherwise it's completely ineffective in deterring anyone from potentially attacking the UK.
That being said, I don't think we're in any immediate danger of going to war with a nuclear-equipped nation so I can't see it really being an issue were Jeremy to be PM.
+Fat Sack Alright Pepe back in your cave, the grown-ups are having a conversation.
11volt come on think about it, thats not the point, yes we all understand that killing people is bad but what he has just done is admitted that he would not react in "response" which opens the door for any potential for attack because they know he wont respond. what is the point in having a deterrent and paying alot for it, if the person in control admits to not using it. It doesnt take a genius to say killing people is bad, but that isnt the real problem. Because if he said he would use it it may actually save peoples lives because nuclear war wouldent happen. That is why it is a deterrence!
it's really very simple. you say "if someone nukes us, we'll nuke them". the purpose of saying this is to send the message to all those with nukes, if you press the red button, you kill your own as well as us. it's a better deterrent than, if you press the button, you kill us. hence the term nuclear deterrent, not nuclear ........erm....
timmya4000 exactly! some people dont understand.
Girl at the end made up for the horrible line of questions.
A sprinkle of sanity!
XI XXY Rudely shouting over people is consider "sanity" by the left. Who'd a thunk it.
TheIceyeddy just shows the difference between baby boomers and us millennials.
I felt so relieved when she said that. At least a few reasonable people in the audience.
How many countries have nukes? Does this mean that any country that does not have them is not safe? Are countries, like Brazil, who have disarmed, any less safe? I agree we should not renew Trident, but JC allowed the democracy of the party to prevail, while pursuing global disarmament under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
If Labour don't win this election, I wonder how well they would have done had the PLP (and others in the party) got behind their leader, instead of continually trying to undermine him! There are a lot of people - including so called lifelong-Labour supporters - who are running scared of the man and his policies.
This is still one of the most depressing things I’ve ever seen
Pussy
@@TheInfiltrator101 What about it?
@@GiantSandles you don’t get any?
@@TheInfiltrator101 It took you a day to come up with that, nice one pal
@@GiantSandles no reply? Nice one pal.
Talking is the only way forward! There's no world left if we use nuclear weapons!
There would be no world if we didn't have MAD.
nuclear weapons are the reason we still have a world
Try to tell that to religious zealots in North Korea or Iran or Pakistan. You are stupid because you think they would take your interests into consideration and would have the same self effacing guilt you have. What if you're wrong. What if they would happily kill you and believe their god would reward them for it. Morons. Utter complete morons.
cfcfan, no they are not, they are the reason the world is in constant threat of destruction
There will be no world if we still have MAD, given that there has been a multitude of mishaps and mistakes that nearly brought the world to the brink during the past 80 years. Now extend that timeframe another 50, 100 or 200 years the accident deployment of nukes is far more likely, it is only sheer dumb luck that a nuke hasn't gone off.
Honestly if this sinks him in the polls the country deserves the Tories
I can assure you it will not, because its absolutely irrelevant, everyone knew that he believed a free nuclear world, he was fighting for that thorough out of his life, unlike Theresa Mayhem, who asked her dogy husband to hide offshore corrupted accounts, the nation is ready, we are ready, and millions of new voters are ready to make Jeremy at Number 10
Fabrizo, by 'many' I assume you mean Pakistan? Who only possess aircraft dropped bombs and short range ballistic missiles with an effective range of ... India. Oh and LOL at the idea of terrorists developing a nuke, let alone a missile mounted that would we could target before launch ... Jesus wept.
Fabrizio, even if terrorists seized control of Pakistan's entire nuclear arsenal, nothing in their inventory has the capability to reach us. The concept of using nukes as a first strike to defend against an imminent attack is to hit the launch sites for ICBM's, something that they do not have.
And if terrorists had been working on developing a nuclear weapon for decades, enriching the uranium to the required level, designing and building a delivery system and building the facilities for either the enrichment or delivery system we would know about it. Nuclear weapons aren't something you can build in a shed.
Ozzie Isaacs No one's seizing pakistan nuclear assets, the CIA didn't even know we developed the bomb till it was too late for them to do anything otherwise they would have bombed us ages ago. they know the spy agency isi is world's no1 and pakostan army isn't no Iraq or iran lol
Kamran Mohammed, it's Fabrizio who is concerned about your countries nukes being taken over by terrorists dude, not me. But on your second point. there is no chance you could you have developed a deplorable nuke without anybody noticing, they probably didn't stop you because it wasn't something worth starting a dumb ass war over same as with every other county that have developed nukes over the last 20 years, say for example NK.
Theresa May gets a 30 second segment on brexit, the most important issue facing us right now which we fail to answer, but Corbyn gets 7 minutes on whether or not he'd nuke as a last resort? This audience was insane, the interviews were stacked in May's favour from the start.
>bbc
>in right wings favour
ahahahahahha you commies are hilarious.
Labelling every leftist as a commie is a bad generalisation. Like saying all right wingers are fascists.
green text = alt right nazi
The BadMan green text meymey go back to /fit/ m'piss Lord
Marxist fuck head. Wow. We got ourselves a triggered snowflake. I am fully aware the BBC is Labour leaning so why are you watching it?
Hmm, I wonder why the Tory BBC would post this over every other thing he talked about....
IybraesilGaming I know what you mean
IybraesilGaming BBC are left wing...
Really? Then why would they ask guests on political panels to not go hard on the Tories?
twitter.com/WillBlackWriter/status/870670317227737089
IybraesilGaming ikr u would think they would show other stuff he said instead. he clearly did better than tm in the debate
Because the safety of this country comes first in all thing unless you have no backbone and just worry about getting better travel rates to football matches.That's why....
"I don't want to kill millions of people, neither do you" - that's Corbyn's stance on nuclear weapons! ❤
MAD keeps us safe and if you're not willing to use them then there is no point.
I am willing to potentially kill millions of people to prevent actually killing hundreds of millions.
Give me one example of where Nuclear Weapons have kept us safe.
Toby Murray 1. 1949-1991, prevented a soviet blitzkrieg of Europe
Mutually assured destruction
"MAD keeps us safe and if you're not willing to use them then there is no point."
MAD has almost caused nuclear weapons to be used based on false alarms several times, look up the report that goes into 13 instances of nukes almost being used by accident. And those are just some of the ones we know about.
He handled this very well to be fair
To be fair, he didn't. He's wobbling!
AlCabal In my opinion, he handled it pretty well. Yes he was wobbly but he's also human, if you have a few in the audience ganging up on you its not gonna feel nice is it? He made his view clear, and I'm sure most people agree with him and not with the trigger-happy few in the audience.
I don't think he handled it very well, but I think he came out on top thanks to that punchline from that woman in the crowd.
Dr Pinhead Sorry but someone who wants to be the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world shouldn't be "wobbly" on issues as sensitive as nuclear weapons. Corbyn has never lead anything in his life and theres a good reason for it: hes a senile old wreck.
lol, what? the customary SJW student saved his face at the end, don't make me laugh
Will you kill millions Jeremy? Will you kill millions Jeremy?
See, as a Tory voter I have an unquenchable thirst for human blood. That can only be sated WITH THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPONS EVER CONCEIVED BY MAN!
- From Hbomberguy's amazing Brexit video
It’s actually from his election video made a year later
What a childish audience
what a stupid question? nuclear war would be catastrophic for everyone regardless of whom launched the weapon first. would the chap who asked the question really want to press the button knowing he would kill millions of lives.. not to mention the affect on the rest of the planet with radiation issues?
i would in a heartbeat in retaliation.
The BadMan I cannot recall any other election campaign whereby a prospective pm was asked if they would press the red button.
Andy Watts because in no other election was it such a blatant issue
Matt Gaston so post Iraq war? question want asked!!!!
Scott van Breda I respectfully agree to disagree. we have a situation whereby Isis mingle about in public blowing up innocent civilians. that is a far more dangerous situation we need to address more than would ANY future pm press the button.
I like him way more than May
This should reaffirm that opinion
theworldturnedupsidedownne.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/15-times-jeremy-corbyn-was-on-the-right-side-of-history/
...maybe as a nice eccentric uncle.... but prime minister...??
Yes believe the biased media. Well done.
Hachipoo Katsu most of the media was biased against him
+Kskd Asas most if his party was !😉😉
"If another country ended the world would you join in too?"
whowantsabighug The answer to that must be yes so ‘another country’ wouldn’t do it in the first place. Not the cheapest strategy but it has worked for 70 years. I agree that one day the world should slowly but surely progress to nuclear zero.
You do realise the only reason the UK and western Europe arnt under the control of Russia is because we have had nuclear weapons for the past 50 years.
@@mrfrisky2997 We’re controlled by America instead. Brilliant, how much better,
@@Esafc-lb2sg Far better kid - that's why you're allowed to post that comment.
@@mrfrisky2997 Because America controls the world? Yes. I couldn't say America controlled the world if Russia controlled the world. Kid
The woman at the end is the first person with any intelligence. Pity they cut it off before we could hear her question.
Yep, her and Jeremy were obviously the only ppl with intelligence
@@CE-tq3mg yep and those who clapped for her
What a nutty audience.
Except the last lady, who summed it up very nicely indeed.
Too many Daily Mail readers
Joseph J didn't realise caring about your country being decimated by nuclear bombs was nutty.
I think the audience is typical of most English citizens, they're bonkers about nukes.
I'm applauding the young lady in the end, why the fuck does everybody want a nuclear war? Has half Brittain turned Posadist??
The pressure for binary answers on a hypothetical question about the decimation of thousands of people to shadows on the ground is a toxic stain on the way we engage with politics.
A necessary discussion on a hypothetical matter which is slowly becoming a reality is much better answered with a binary question. If he said no, then it shows our enemies that we are vulnerable to be attacked.
@@jed123e If he says yes, our nuclear armed enemies are more on edge and therefore more likely to attack first in the event of a spike in tensions or a false alarm
This almost happened in fact. Stanislav Petrov disobeyed orders when he didn't "retaliate" with a nuclear strike. A lesser man would've started world war 3 had he followed your logic
@@jed123e The point is - we lost if we already got to that point. It's like saying what will you do if you are already soaked in petroleum waist high and having a staring contest against an opponent who holds 3 matches instead of your 5? Do I be the big man and fire first?
Nobody is a winner in this scenario. No matter if you're realist, liberal, conservative, marxist, anyone with a brain will tell you that there is no winner in that scenario. Clearly you either don't value survival or don't have a brain.
@@PristianoPenaldoSUIIII not once but 3 times it happend were the USSR/Russia (1962, 1983, 1995) recieved false alarms about strikes and someone *refused* to retaliate, avoiding that way a full nuclear war. These morons with "it's a simple yes/no type of question" have zero idea what a decision like that implicates on the real world. They should stick to their videogames and leave politics to level headed grown ups.
@@MikaelLima2210 Indeed. Stanislav Petrov is probably the most famous officer to defy retaliation orders. I just still can't believe that people are so childish and cavalier about what would amount to an apocalypse event. It's like they're so entrenched in their way of life that they're detached from what it would actually be like to go through, the billions of individual tragedies, the suffering of the unlucky few who live on only for most to die slowly and painfully to radiation poisoning or starve to death once their supply of jarred honey and tinned apricots are exhausted.
I genuinely believe that attitude should automatically exclude a person from any position of leadership. The stakes are too high.
Did they just bring a bunch of doomsayers into the audience?
Left party weak knowheads
Do people really think TM would have answered a straight yes to that question either? He's consistently performed well and would make a far more stable leader, domestically and globally. #VoteLabour.
Ein Sof Actually, she already has answered a straight "yes" to that question.
#fucklabour
I think we should ditch them so I have no affinity for her but May has directly said she'd use them before, she probably would've just said yes here
Ein Sof Actually she did in one of her first PMQs last year just look it up... an MP stood up and said "Would you use Nuclear weapons?" she said a straight yes
He didn't say "Would you use Nuclear weapons" he asked "Would you kill 100,000 innocent civilizans?" (phrased exactly like that) and she said "yes". Typical heartless tory.
PEACE AND GOD FIRST.
One of the most surreal moments in any British political debate with a party leader, that I have ever witnessed.
Possibly overtaken by Keir Starmer "You shouldn't say that only women can have a cervix".
@@lewisner No I think a psychopathic audience outraged at not shooting nukes at countries takes the biscuit
Not really. Some people who identify as men have a cervix. Buck Angel has a cervix, is Buck Angel a woman?@@lewisner
Some people here say spineless. I see a man with morals and a sense of Duty that transcends beyond our shores.
Not nuking half the planet doesn't count as putting others before us. It's called moving towards a system of global government to insure peace so we never have to use nuclear weapons.
KnIf0rTITAN you uneducated idiot. You're an absolute tosser and there's nothing you can do about it. Plonker.
***** I echo that
***** some are fully grown men*(who I guess have no right to escape conflict because they were born with an xy chromosome pattern) according to pew less than 3% from africa*.
And we have an obligation to accept them. We the UK, carry out airstrikes in Syria, and have succeeded not only in pushing back isis, but also on killing thousands of innocent people. If their lives are at risk courtesy of our foreign policy, we must owe up and admit that we need to take them in. This obligation would not be upon us if it wasn't for our foreign policy
***** the countries in the middle east don't bomb them. We do. If we are killing them albeit unintentionally, they have every right to seek refuge here
The greatest PM we were deprived of. The electorate chose a serial liar instead.
This is why he's not Prime Minister: he won't be a tool for the military-industrial complex like Starmer.
The guy who asked the question thinking letting off a nuke was somehow going to help his safety. The presenter then went in on him. Corbyn should have told him to keep quiet as for the fool with the glasses. Who lets people like him in? The girl at the end was the only one with a bit of sense.
Strikes me as weird that people would vote for someone with an itchy trigger finger over Armageddon.
Corbyn's right not to trivialise thermonuclear war.
Even if you wouldn’t, and that is a valid option to PM’s in the Letter’s of Last Resort, you don’t say you wouldn’t as that strips all the Bluff out of Mutually Assured Destruction.
The question isn’t really about nukes, I personally wouldn’t fire back, but it’s a litmus test on if Corbyn has what it takes to play the game Geo-Politics, and he got it wrong.
@@joshuadawson8202
So if a criteria for office is for the person to show willing to commit genocide, we shouldn't be too shocked if that person actually wants to and finds a way to pp it blood on all of our hands.
@@joshuadawson8202
As a side note, I recall that this debate was originally about committing a nuclear first strike.
Various Tories and far right elements with Labour expressed willing to launch 1st and not as a measure of last resort.
Corbyn stated that he would do everything possible to avoid a nuclear war.
Shows how toxic the UKs media landscape is, doesn't it?
@UCHe4kmcE8IR0T1XYaL6lSfA You moron, learn what MAD is and why there hasn't been a conflict like WWII since nukes were developed
1 question, do you know the definition of a deterrent
I want these nuke questions to come from soldiers and victims of war who have experienced what war is
He was explaining to people how he would encourage other countries not to use nuclear weapons in order to protect his people and others and therefore would not have to use it.. and the people where APPALLED by that... 😂 how stupid is that audience
except that wasn't the question.
OBVIOUSLY everyone would use diplomacy to try to avoid conflict.
This is how week Jeremy Corbyn was and is he coanot try to bargain with noth Korea or China or Russia as thay will not listen towards the west which he doesn't understand.
He insisted on talks even AFTER we'd been nuked. Did you miss that part? Smh
I loved what that girl said at the end
*Jeremy Corbyn handled that far better than Theresa May. He has clear leadership qualities.*
Clear leadership qualities??? The Old nutter spilled some shit and you evaluate him with a good leader.
"will you kill millions jeremy will you kill millions jeremy"
Was trying to find this!
@@Xiphactinus i got some taste 😅
This was one of those lose, lose questions, no matter what he said, it would have been the wrong answer.
Not true at all, the answer should always be yes. Otherwise you are essentially saying that someone can attack us but we don't want to attack them back because we care about the people of our enemy, what about our people?
@@jed123e so if a given military strikes your country, you have the right to start what could essentially be a world apocalypse and kill millions of innocent people because you got attacked? You literally have cottage cheese for brains and no human empathy lmao
@@Ben-rc9ce Mutually assured destruction prevents war by letting other nations know that you will retaliate if they decide to attack you. If you want someone to blame, blame the nation that decided nuking our country was an option to begin with. I would never nuke someone who hasn't attempted/or got away with nuking my country first, it is simply a counter measure. I have empathy for the people of my country, which is why I want them to feel safe knowing that we have the power to destroy any nation that would attempt to destroy us.
@@jed123e that’s deeply troubling and racist to say that you have empathy for people of your your country, implying you do not have empathy for others outside of it. You can be armed without arming yourself with a weapon that will end humanity if on a wide level of use. That’s basically like saying “I’d like to at least nuke them back before the entire world ends”, like what is that going to solve? The rigid tension that exists between countries right now in terms of war is massively influenced by the possibility of nuclear weapons. There is a reason there has not been a major war in almost 80 years now. The solution is to get rid of nuclear weapons globally otherwise it will inevitably destroy us.
@@Ben-rc9ce If putting my country first makes me a racist then I will accept that title. I am not saying that I do not care about other countries, I do care, I just care about my own people more. My country and sequentially its people have provided me a system I can survive and even thrive under, I want to keep that and so therefore I will stand up for my country against countries that have not done this for me. I'm also not saying we should just nuke anyone who opposes us, I'm specifically saying, we should nuke anyone that attempts or wishes to nuke us. Once again, this is to warn other countries that they will not just get away with attacking our people. I think there should be nuclear disarment, on that we agree. However, I am aware of the very real threat of bigger, more dangerous countries out there who will not do the same. I will not encourage nuclear disarment of my own country if other, more dangerous countries like China aren't willing to do the same. I think if a country like China is willing to nuke us in the first place, then we should be allowed to nuke them back, not because like you put it "I'd like to at least nuke them back before the entire world ends" but because I would like to destroy a system/country like that who thinks nuking another country is even acceptable. If we are going to die, we might as well stop them from harming anyone else via nukes.
Those donkeys in the crowd seem very flustered over an extremely unlikely hypothetical situation, rather than relevant, current issues.
Yes I must admit there were some silly questions but there are stupid people on both sides let's face it.
JC seems even more flustered.
It's a simple question with a straightforward answer. Let me know if you are struggling and I'll provide the answer.
No, JC was right.
The way that guy asking the question is way scarier than any nuclear threat from North Korea.
Strange comment, do you keep a gun under your pillow to keep you 'safe' at night?
This is one of Corbyn's finest moments. Not giving the easy answer. Not placating the loudest voices in the room. And Dimbleby who decides to intervene half way through to keep on the topic of nuclear weapons even after the person who'd initially asked the question declined to follow up.
Dimbleby tries to keep it going when he picks out a women with her hand up. Quite by accident he stumbles upon someone with a different view to those laughing and jeering at Corbyn's reponse. Her comment receives rapturous applause and suddenly the atmosphere in the room seems very different.
The UK's nuclear policy is not universally agreed upon by the public, and is a fair thing to debate. A more reasonable question would be what had Theresa May done during her time in office to deliver on the unilateral disarmament agreement. The question we got of course was not this and not directed at May but Corbyn answered seriously and honestly. The laughs he encountered sounded very much like the laughter of the dammed.
We need to fight to have more politicians like this. We need to change the way politics is done in this country and change the way Labour is run so that politicians like Corbyn win elections, rather than change our politicians so that Labour wins elections.
Putin is counting on it, free land in sight.
@@Tommysimonsen he is counting on western leaders’ dishonesty, no doubt
you are a deluded fool
I love the woman at the end.
she is obviously misrepresenting the point. The fact that isn't obvious to her or you speaks volumes and worries me to the extent of people like her who exist.
craigk621, not everyone is as bloodthirsty as you.
Jono is another nuker
Starts at 7:12
We would kill millions of people if we had to. It’s called retaliation.
@@mineguitarerer we all be dead if we launch a nuke that's reality.
This will be my 1st time voting and i am Voting for Labour. Never seen a man of principles who is a politician like Jeremy. He will always have my vote. All those that wanna Nuke pple.....get the hate out of you pliz
yes Jezza you legend. I know who I'm voting for. Far too many plebs obsessed with utter shite - nukes, the IRA etc. I despair.
To be honest, I would vote for anyone who is against the use of Nuclear weapon.
Because many don't understand how close we are to a full scale nuclear war on the world stage.
Do you now understand how close we are coz of left wing views ?
But that would be poor leadership once you tell the world you won’t use them you might as well not have them
@@Collabcreatemarketing you can act like your gonna use them as a deterrent if you actually use them your mental and should be deposed
Congratulations, you are a complete idiot
You cannot vote for anyone who is against using nuclear weapons.
The only circumstances whereby this country will deploy them is if we are attacked ourselves.
Like so many others, you fail to understand the entire purpose of deterrence.
That eye brow raise guy wants the nuclear apocalypse 😂
He was 27 but he looked closer to 40.
The idea of not wanting to use a nuclear weapon is called being a decent human being.
Even if there are other countries who would? Do you understand the concept of a deterrent?
Not many people 'want' to use a nuclear weapon. You have to at least SAY you will in response to another country launching them at you or conquering your country. That's the whole point of having them - to deter the aggression of other countries.
@jcorb go on then, enlighten me on your understanding of how secretly everyone except people you like want to use nuclear weapons
The lady at the end of this clip pretty well sumed the blind attitude of the other speakers over nuclear weapons.
She’s a lying idealist hippy detached fro reality who chose to dishonestly strawman. No one is “keen” on killing anyone. We must defend our nation from reality. China and Russia are growing their nuclear weapons. We’re not keen on anything, other than not dying by them... they’re not disarming, so why should we.
@@logicpolice2451 Absolutely spot on, an argument ending reply.
@@logicpolice2451 Incorrect. Neither China nor Russia are increasing their arsenals. So who's the "liar detached from reality" now? Nuclear weapons have continued to decrease in number as states are not replacing them at end of life - they already have way too many for any rational deterrent. However, it is the case that more weapons have been put into operational deployment, for instance aboard submarines.
She made them look like complete morons.
This feels like one of those news reels from Robocop. People cheering for their own obliteration.
Vote labour
Are country needs to grow a pair. We have become soft and scared. Nuclear weapons should be a last resort
Hand picked audience, hand picked questions... biased in favour of Theresa May...
to be fair May had a lot of tough questions as well
"Some idiot in Iran." This is why we have wars. This is what we need to get past. We have a lack of understanding of one another's cultural differences. Let's talk instead of fight.
Not long ago some idiot in Iraq started a war, that is why we had one and that is how they start, it has nothing to do with cultural differences.
Talking is all well and good and preferable to war but must be backed up by a strong resolve and the means to enforce it is essential.
Id feel worse knowing a load of innocent people and kids would be dying in revenge in my last moments.
I am sure that a majority of the public are not in support of nuclear weapons. It is war mongering political leaders who like nuclear weapons, and it is the public who suffer as a result.
@@JD-wi2kgThe majority of the public understand the importance of deterrence.
Bravo! BBC News- demoralising a person just by compartmentalising the true agenda of the debate by honing in on their view of Nuclear weapons and presenting that as a forefront.
Why are people in the UK so terribly afraid of being under attack of nuclear weapons as if this were a realistic thing to happen? :D
I'm in the UK. We're not all that neurotic and bloodthirsty, don't worry. ;-) I think some people are just addicted to fear and negativity and catastrophizing. X
I thought we could shoot down nuclear weapons anyway, as America have said about North Korean missiles. Surly we have such an ability in the UK, and thus just saying we'd use them in retaliation is dangerous as we could be the second ones to fire but the first to have a successful detonation.
It’s very realistic, a lot of potential enemies have them. A lot of Middle East countries could turn on us at a moments notice and Russia along with North Korea have the capabilities
@@Horizon301. a lot of potential ememies have them? Only Russia, China and North Korea that I know of (and that last one isn't even close to having the capability to nuke the UK, even if it was a priority for them, which not), and the only country with nuclear armament in the middle east is Israel.
@der mastercheif. Look at the news now. Russia has threatened to nuke us. The only reason they haven’t yet is because we also have nuclear weapons as well. I’m so glad this hard left socialist lunatic didn’t become PM. We would be sitting ducks. What would he do? Write letters to vladmir putin saying how “deeply concerned he is”. Putin would public make a mockery out of his stupid neive old arse and say this man is in charge of GREAT BRITAIN! I’m glad the left have lost the plot because nobody uses logic or common sense on that side!
"That's the ideal, but what about the reality?" Followed by applause by people who can't realize they're living in a nightmare.
Can you explain what this “nightmare” where are supposedly living in is please?
Interesting audience members there. Well, for me, this does it. This is the final straw with Corbyn, that's it.. I'm voting for the incredibly strong, stable, sane and highly intelligent man who does not wish to be party to nuclear holocaust, but instead understands the complex needs for real relationships with other nations and to be as diplomatic as humanly possible with troublesome nations.
In another interview he stated clearly that he would use military action if absolutely necessary, but nuclear weapons are something completely different, especially now (the average warhead now is many thousands of times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki..). He can't scrap Trident because that's a Parliamentary decision, and he did say he'd simply have to deal with such an atrocious decision at the time, if it were to arise. Pretty vile questioning to be honest, his answers on economics and business were very good, where are the clips of all that?
Austin Dyer Honestly after reading your reply, I get a lot of comfort knowing that genuine, honest and decent people who see things for what they are would back this man.
He is such an inspiring leader and I too would trust him whole heartedly in taking our country forward in the best possible manner.
It just worries me that the rich and powerful establishment would do whatever they can to smear this man if he were to win.
But let's get him in! Please make sure you tell all your family and friends to vote fot this honourable and trustworthy man. 🌹
Except, that Corbyn was having dinner with Martin McGuinness on a regular basis as friends, whilst the IRA were bombing schools and restaurants.
He's a 2-faced charlatan.
It's a philosophical debate that can't be answered on a TV show. A B52 crew, carrying a load of nukes on their way to their targets can answer that question. Is there any point in vapourising 1 million Russian civilians, if they vaporised yours first? Is revenge in mankinds interest?
It's one hell of a question with only two answers.
Emotional human answer: Vape them all.
Logical answer: Stand down, take the losses, even lose your country, family and everything you know, for the longterm good of the human race, the planet, and everything alive on it
The film: By Dawns Early Light, tackles the same question to some degree.
WHY FOCUS ON THIS BBC?! ALMOST TEN MINUTES ON A HYPOTHETICAL NUCLEAR WAR SCENARIO AND WHAT HE'D DO!?
What about the *NAYLOR REPORT*? otherwise known as the Privatising the NHS report?
What about Education?
What about the disabled?
THIS WAS A WASTE OF TIME!!
I don't know if you can tell but I'm quite annoyed lol
No politician with that kind of deterrent is going admit on television that he wouldn't use that deterrent. It defeats the purpose of having it. He stood his ground. Corbyn's strong, a man of good principle.
...I didn't hear him commit that he would use it rather than not commit that he wouldn't. Two different things with different messages.
Wrong. Actually, he said he would get rid of them and in a different interview said he wouldn't use, which actually defeats the object. Hence why he wasn't elected among a whole list of other issues.
Your wrong he is a traitor he would sell us down the river the first chance he gets he will not defend us
@@czhaok Where did he say he wouldn't use it? I want to see this
Terrorism and Cyber Security are the most important challenges Britain faces not nuclear war. The audience is clueless and deluded about the real challenges we face.
And that can all change in a matter of years, which it has.
respect to Corbyn and most the people in these comments! this is what it's about, standing up against what's wrong and coming together as one.. love you all!
should’ve been prime minster corbyn :(
what couldve been :(
People miss the point of the question. You have to at least say you'd be prepared to use nuclear weapons in a retaliatory strike to make the use of a deterrence effective.
he put in a really good performance on the show. people are so stupid when it comes to nuclear weapons. a preemptive strike is morally wrong and even second use would probably cause whoever attacked us to send more nukes. its so stupid to put him on the spot with these hypothetical questions about killing millions of people.
Ridiculous line of questioning.
7:12 a sane voice at last
It's called a nuclear deterrent for a reason.
If nobody thought we would use them, it wouldn't --->DETER
What's wrong with these people?.They never watched "Threads" or " The day after"?. Bunch of nitwits.
its a ridiculous question to begin with.....whats next? Jeremy can you tell us what you would do in case of alien invasion?
Mutually Assured Destruction is the best thing for world peace currently.
As long as nuclear weapons exist, one cannot say that we are living in less violent times, especially since it is inevitable that they will be used at some time in the future.
Well until a flock of birds is mistaken for an incoming strike.
@Alex Goldhill That is especially true, miscommunications and mistakes can jeopardise the safety of the world
@jhnsnow421 MAD is not inherently going to happen.
7:08 RIGHT ON
If you're wondering who the bloodthirsty prick with the strange stare was, who wanted to nuke Planet Earth, at the beginning of this video, then the answer is a man called Adam Murgatroyd who worked for BAE Systems for five years - the arms company that is supplying the government's new Successor nuclear missile-carrying submarines :D
I don't know why everyone is so obsessed with trident. Do you know how many countries in the world have nuclear weapons? Nine. There are nearly 200 countries in world. Do you know which countries have nuclear weapons except us in Europe? Just France (I'm not counting Russia because that stretches across Asia too).
We are not a superpower anymore and we don't have an empire. That money could be used to improve society. What difference does it make if we have one or not? Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, Japan - they all get by without any nukes. It's all ego. We need to get over ourselves.
Wow ! At last, someone who actually wants to try and avoid a nuclear strike that would kill millions and probably escalate into world war three and the end of us all. But then I suppose that if the worst comes to the worst an intelligent species may evolve from the ashes.....one worthy of it's inheritance and only home......the planet Earth. Peace.
In my opinion why not have a shield from nuclear bombs some kind of idea to get rid of them while they are in their way?
That girls comment at the end hit the nail on the head!
No it didn't. We live in the real world, and we might be faced with an adversary which wants to and given the chance would try and bomb us back to the stone ages. What then? We get a nuclear bomb dropped on us and we do not retaliate?
Where in this video did you hear Corbyn say he would not order a retaliation? Do tell
He got asked a zillion times about second use and corbyn simply evaded. He was happy to say no first use. But when pressed on second use, crickets. Tells me everything I need to know.
Exactly no first use and no first use. He responded to retaliatory response,you did not hear it but you were already told everything you need to know.
Which part of the video did he says I am for second/retaliatory use?
Mutually Assured Destruction is basically used car salesman psychology. The Nukes we have increases the chances of other countries also acquiring weapons for the same reason (under the guise of protection), which in turn increases the chances of rogue states and terrorists acquiring them. Terrorists have posed the biggest threat to UK soil in the last 20 years, much of it committed by suicide bombers. If ISIS got hold of a nuke, they'd be no country to retaliate against. Nukes did not stop the attack on the twin towers (the biggest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbour) or 7/7 or the recent terrorist attacks.
Also, if Russia attacked us (with their 7000 warheads) there'd be no one left to retaliate with our 215 warheads. Nukes are not Acme bombs, they are city killers, some are as much as 3,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima weapon.
Who the hell is this host??? Why is he goading the audience for a nuclear war? What reality is he talking about? Nuclear Warfare !! The host should be imprisoned for civic nuisance!!!!
What the hell is the guy at 6:45 even trying to say? No wonder Jeremy ignored him
He was talking about nuclear deterrence. A country with nuclear weapons has less chances of being hit with nuclear weapons because it can hit back.
The Japanese in WW2 were nuked twice but couldn't do anything in response. But if they had nuclear weapons, America would've thought twice before nuking them even once.
Now imagine if the UK didn't have nuclear weapons, it'd be in the same position as Japan.
"you're asking a massive wish when you've got one of the biggest arsenals by your side" still doesn't make sense to me 6 years later, what does it mean?@@abhishekmhatre1554
As an American, I thought our political discourse was the worst and here you have the British public salivating for a nuclear holocaust?!
This not a general consensus of the British publics view, over here we generally call them Tories. They are super desperate to discredit Jeremy Corbyn in anyway they can, even if they are fully aware that what they're saying is insane, mainly because he wants them to pay their fair share and won't let them participate in blood sports. There are those though that won't identify as Tories but these are the most dangerous because they're the ones who wholly believe their lies without question, they're basically their slaves.
If there has ever been an argument against democracy, it is a conversation with the average voter.
The event of an absolutely random nuclear threat is so unlikely. That just isn't how it works. You make preparations beforehand, that's what Corbyn is reminding people with this reoccurring shitty question. Of course if it were random then yes he would consider it.
The media is going to hype on the nuclear weapons question tomorrow A LOT! Let's keep the sanity and not get on a frenzy over killing millions of people - anywhere in the world. Nuclear disarmament can be a reality. You have to vote a govt. which will work on this pathway and process.
Would love to see a debate between Jeremy C and Tony B...
I used to used to like Tony (but deplore some of the things he's done), JC appears to be the most compassionate person I know of..
Thank God for that lady at the end pretty much opening the eyes of those dreadful people, I understand the will power of defense for each country, but sending quite possibly thousands of people no matter enemy or not to their immediate doom just seems like the most evil shit one leader can do. Yet i say this, not everyone thinks that way, im sure somewhere in the world there are people who really dont give a shit and wouldnt find it a problem to nuke a country.
Really good point made by the last audience member.
What Comrade Corbynovitch is really saying (in his usual roundabout way) is that he'll wave the 'white flag' long before he could even find the buttion . He is the ultimate appeaser.
On top of changing Labours core policies having a leader who clearly won't use the weapons whatever the circumstance means their deterrence is lost. P.S. you can spot a true biased commenting because people use the term 'Jeremy' or 'Theresa' lol
What is wrong with people.
"I don't want millions of people to die for no reason and I believe in bringing world peace" *audience gets pissed off* , you see what's wrong here?
You are incredibly stupid
He’s right though. What’s wrong with what Jeremy said?
@@georged4578 Because without a nuclear deterrent the West is fucked, especially with the recent tensions relating to China and Iran.
@@brumav9779 Cornyn and the Labour mob aren't all that fond of the West, so you can see why.
Watching this again now, while tensions are high, globally, in the face of the Russia-Ukraine situation, and I’m frankly relieved that none of these audience members are the incumbent PM, or we’d all be charred silhouettes on the desolate wasteland that was formerly the UK.
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON
5:35 If you're faced with the prospect of "having to use (nuclear weapons)", you have lost the world you knew. End of story. 'Retaliation' is no longer the word appropriate. That is the reality, not an unimagining of the unimaginable. To make pretence to believing that 'the ideal' is not to use nuclear weapons, but the reality is that one does so, is to ignore the reality: nobody wants to use them, and, if they do so, they, as much as anyone, everyone, else have lost whatever conflict of interest they were seeking to resolve, and acquired a greater conflict of interest than they could ever resolve.
Would you use your defensive weapons in a retaliatory way...?
It's not defensive then, is it?
Night will fall and the dark will rise when a good man goes to war. Demons run but count the cost; the battle's won but a child is lost.
omg thank god for that last woman I was getting depressed. she's my hero for the day.
God forbid the day ever arrives when these weapons are used. But these comments completely misunderstand the nuclear weapons debate. The question being asked is, if under the most severe and nightmarish scenarios would you be able to make the most difficult decision of your life to protect your country and its people? And I'm afraid his answer was no.
Not sure why all them questions, even if Corbyn wont push the red button in retaliation, the USA and France would use their nukes to defend a NATO partner. And other countries that would want to send nukes first know that .
7:10 YES
SOME in that audience represent exactly what our society is up against. Thats the biggest threat we face here, really. Its absolutely worrying that even one person from the public in that audience would push the button without hesitation or a care in the world about doing it. First strike or in retaliation. Crazy. Nevermind two, three, or four+ people in there all thinking it or airing it. That's the definition of insane and inhumane. Its so blatantly simple, yet we make it so difficult.... this is the only race we got, the human race. One Earth. The only home we know, for now.... If Corbyn is anything at all, he is humane. How could anyone, in their right mind, especially from the street, vote against that? The world is in trouble. Incredible.
crazy ... ??? if we don't retaliate then that leaves the agressor unencumbered and able to use other nukes on other innocent people in other countries who may not even have nuclear capabilities.
INO one WANTS to use nukes but without detering people from self annihilation, then what would stop THEM from first use ?
I would trust this man OVER AND OVER in a nuclear war situation compared to Theresa Mayhem!
Lets waste money on weapons we don't need just for the sake of it, instead of spending on healthcare, education, building houses. Why bother wasting money on bettering our future when we can waste money on developing weapons to annihilate our future instead. The logic of these people are mind boggling.
i dont know how he has the patience to deal with all this shit ahah genuinely
holy shit man, nah, fuck this crowd.