Keir Starmer says he would use nuclear weapons if needed

32 comments

1. There’s literally no difference between saying you will or you won’t. 

2. Great, he’s saying the exact same thing every prime minister since we got the things has said, as he should. Why is this news?

3. Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would!

4. Needed? I want a PM who will use them if things start looking a bit iffy.

5. Tomorrow – “Keir Starmer says he would never use nuclear weapons if needed”

6. I really hate how much of our election cycle revolves around nuclear war, a situation that has never occurred and is 99% likely to never occur. May as well ask what they plan to do in the event of an alien invasion.

7. Well… yeah, that’s kinda the point of Mutually Assured Destruction, if we need to use them, it’s because someone fired at us.

8. I love this bi-annual slapping the cocks on the table where everyone gets stoked someone’s willing to help bring about a nuclear holocaust.

   Edit… for anyone who disagrees I strongly recommend the documentary ‘Countdown to Zero’ and maybe a viewing of the fantastic yet horrifying ‘Threads’

9. Oooh a normal answer inline with previous PM’s, let’s hope he can succeed where Miliband failed and eat a Bacon sandwich normally.

10. The only sane response you can give. It’s the entire point of MAD. This wouldn’t be anywhere near as hot a topic if it wasn’t for the last time this came up during an election run and the main opponent gave a wet blanket response because he was and is dogshit at geopolitics.

11. If having nuclear weapons is such a deterent, why haven’t the west armed Ukraine with them?

12. I see we are at the most pointless part of the election cycle..

13. Well… That’s a step up from the last Labour leader at least.

14. God do I hate these weapons. So many people wank themselves silly over us nuking someone (I remember the crowd at Corbyn’s QT in 2019), but fucking watch Threads, you’ll change your minds after that.

15. Another of term of letting nuclear weapons take over our defence policy is probably fatal, so it would be awfully nice for there be a plan for the rest of the armed forces before they’re completely useless.

16. I do solely swear to you, the British public, that one day I may, God willing, reduce as many as several hundred thousand people at a time to nothing more than bleached shadows on walls, in your name, if it’s already being done to us and we’re all dead anyway.

    What an absurd fucking island we are.

17. Why do we bother with these things? It’s not like they recognise borders! We would be better off developing anti nuke warhead tech.

18. I really wish we could have a frank conversation about nuclear weapons and implement launch codes to prevent a rogue launch. Every other country has this, it’s terrifying and negligent that the UK doesn’t have any system in place.

19. Don’t think you need to nuke the tories to get elected mate

20. Well he wouldn’t use them would he?
    Bloody weapon that he is with his tank photo op playing dress up. He couldn’t use a suicidal Tory government to his advantage let alone a nuke.
    He’d authorise them, and the professionals would thankfully take over from him at that point before he clarified the target twelve times. 
    ‘let me be clear, it is very important to listen to this point. These nuclear weapons are the subject of much misreporting about my views and capabilities. So I would like to set the record straight and clearly state for the whole audience that we have some very clearly defined definitions of them which will be made publicly available as soon as my team has released them’

    Bloody farce. Let’s see Sir Kier threatening to joist Putin and that’s something I’d like to see 

21. That’s fine and all, but will he release a bioweapon if Russia launch a bioweapon against us?

22. What he says on TV and what he writes on the Letters of Last Resort might be very different things. The important thing is that Russia/China have to believe him.

23. Imagine if he’d gotten giddy and said “I can’t wait!”

24. Great is he going to get us out of this proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that has nothing to do with us.

25. Typical labour war monger. We need to be encouraging denuclearisation not silly statements like this.

26. Let’s be honest and Frank here. Prime Minister’s don’t get a choice on this. Anyone who walks into No.10 knows that this is part of the job and regardless of morals or personal views you don’t get to be prime minister of this country and have an antinuclear stance. It’s just not happening.

27. All heads of state “would” use them. That’s the basis of nuclear deterrents.

    What is he meant to say, “Oh actually, Britain wouldn’t defend itself” ?

28. Say a hostile state were to take out the man, would Angela Rayner push the button in his place?

29. Yes. That’s how a Deterrent works.

    If you say you will never use it, it’s not a deterrent.

30. I know alot of you are getting chubbys over this, and we can debate whether his stance on using Nukes is good or bad, but the thing he said right at the start of the address:

    “National Security is ***the most important issue of our time -*** With my changed labour party, national security will always come first”

    …

    Right. Not drinking clean parasite and shit free water. Not Eating. Not having a house to live in. Not trying to move away from fossil fuels. Not rising inequality. Not trying to cure diseases. Not education. Nope, national security is THE most important issue… And how does he intended to make us all nice and secure?

    “We must facedown malign actors that try to attack and weaken our nation – and not just through traditional warfare over air land and sea, but with hybrid (mumbles), to our energy supply, cyber security, information warfare” Way the modern cold war is here. Fantastic /s

31. It would be a disaster if the leader of a country that has invested billions into it’s nuclear deterrence programme came out and said they would never use them under any circumstances. Mutually Assured Destruction is literally the whole point of the doctrine.

32. Obviously. That’s the whole point of a nuclear deterrent.

    I’d be more concerned if he said he’d use them even if they weren’t needed.