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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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?

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.

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.

Yep, her and Jeremy were obviously the only ppl with intelligence

@@CE-tq3mg yep and those who clapped for her

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....

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Clear leadership qualities??? The Old nutter spilled some shit and you evaluate him with a good leader.

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 !😉😉

...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

Putin is counting on it, free land in sight.

@@Tommysimonsen he is counting on western leaders’ dishonesty, no doubt

you are a deluded fool

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

@@Predatorsnightmare 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.

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

Can you explain what this “nightmare” where are supposedly living in is please?

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.

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.

Left party weak knowheads

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.

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!

He was 27 but he looked closer to 40.

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.

It’s actually from his election video made a year later

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.

Was trying to find this!

@@Xiphactinus i got some taste 😅

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.

And that can all change in a matter of years, which it has.

to be fair May had a lot of tough questions as well

nuclear weapons are used every day. their continued deterance is them being used. if they are ever fired then they have failed in their purpose. any politician who would state they would not use our nuclear arsenal would completely undermine the effectiveness of the deterence and as such would be unfit to hold office. a detterant only works if the other side believes you would be willing to use it. Russian military doctraine allows for the use of Tactical nuclear weapons in a "first strike" capacity, the reason they have not done so in their invasion of ukraine is likely down to the threat of nuclear retaliation the US, UK and france. in short a deterant only works if the enemy thinks you might use it as such no one with any real desire to be Prime Minister could ever state they would not use them.

@@FoxDren All he is saying is its not the first action which he is right. If he said he would use it as a first action or open to kill millions just because of scenarios which can be avoided thatll be even more problematic in my eyes. He didnt address in retaliation properly though. I prefer a honest kind man as a leader.

Sorry Shane but Corbyn’s response was lame and delusional, not to mention wholly wrong in the context of the use of nuclear weapons by this country. Luckily for us, Corbyn was rejected by the British electorate, hardly surprising when he openly demonstrates abject incompetency like this on the, this most important issue that any PM could face.

@@craigsimons817 bruh this was like 5 years ago

@@craigsimons817fantastic argument but i missed any actual substance/point besides corbyn being “wrong”. do you have a reason for your beliefs, or are you just a mindless zealot who reads the torygraph? if you ask delusional questions, with no mention of any circumstance you get vague answers… “would you use them as a 2nd use”… in what situation?! if everyone is dead i think there’s little point using nukes as a form of defence lmao.

@@cherylno583 They literally state the situation in the question multiple times. The question was if there was a nuclear war imminent would he commit to 2nd use as a policy and he dodged the question every single time. What he answers with is alright but he didn't answer the question that was asked at all.

? he said he'd use second use, so yes. why does this need a supplementary question? this question was designed to fearmonger and paint Corbyn as some lunatic, unsafe leader. we should be having conversations about things that are actually going to happen not this rubbish.@@smallfox8623

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.

Great. He's gone now BTW

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.

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 ?

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

Ma'Gregor I know, right?! Quite sad, but expect nothing else from the BBC. scraping the barrell with this question. I'd have rather moved it on to another more important question about Education, the NHS....absolute waste of time and purposefully done.

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.

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