SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Just prior to retiring, the UK's former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron arranged for a parliamentary vote on whether the Trident nuclear-armed submarine programme should be renewed.
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn is opposed to nuclear weapons, having said "I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to go about international relations." However, some Labour MPs support Trident; Corbyn has made this a free vote.
The submarines operate out of a base at Faslane in Scotland. All the MPs belonging to the Scottish National Party, which advocates Scottish independence, are opposed to Trident. One asked the prime minister: "Is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that can kill a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children?” and her answer was:
Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike some suggestions that we could have a deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seem to come from the Labour party frontbench.
One Conservative MP who is opposed to Trident criticised his own party when he said "This is a political weapon aimed rather effectively at the Labour party."
The Guardian has a page with updates on the vote. It has the text of the motion and lists the number of parliamentary seats held by each party (links added by submitter):
The motion passed by 472 votes to 117. It seems likely that it had the support of nearly all Conservative MPs and a sizable fraction of Labour.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:53AM
Since Japan was bombed, there hasn't been another nuclear attack. That looks to me like something short of impunity.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:05PM
Since Japan was bombed, there hasn't been another nuclear attack.
Genocide strategies have changed with the times. Nobody is interested in old fashioned nuclear weapons anymore. Its all about the open borders.
Lets say we had open borders 70 years ago. Young Japanese men swarm into new england and Wash DC area because "we must help all migrant displaced by WWII". Sure they occasionally act like the invading army that they are; beheading the natives, raping their women. But western governments don't represent or protect western citizens, only the rich and corporations. So... you seriously think they nuke Hiroshima when there's millions of migrants already killing the natives? Lets continue the analogy and millions of blonde hair blue eyed young German men swarm across the border into London... if Dresden were firebombed, how many minutes until London would go up in flames?
Wiping out western civilization looks a lot more like Sweden than like Nagasaki. And its in progress right now.
What good is a nuke if every possible target is a protected locally politically active group with higher social status than your own people?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:00PM
We can still nuke Muslims though right? We can be racist about them cause they're terrorists.
How about Blacks?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @04:02PM
If the US decides to nuke them again, what's to stop them? The UN?
With their own nukes it would be a little trickier.