UK Liz Truss - Shortest serving UK PM in history

[Johnny Bananas]

The saga of Liz Truss:

Week 0 - Liz is ready for global annihilation

Cheers as Liz Truss says she's ready to press nuclear button and unleash 'global annihilation'

Liz Truss said the duty was an 'important duty of the prime minister' and received a round of applause after saying she would order the use of the UK's arsenal.

au.news.yahoo.com

Week 1 - Liz kills the Queen

TikTok - Make Your Day

Week 2 - Liz crashes the economy

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Week 3 - Liz goes into hiding

Voices: Where is Liz Truss? Our prime minister has gone missing

The prime minister hasn’t spoken in public for a week as the financial market crisis deepens

news.yahoo.com

Week 4 - Liz gets destroyed on local radio

‘Brutal’: media deride Liz Truss’s local radio interviews

Media commentators across political spectrum deride PM’s appearance on local radio to defend economic policy

www.theguardian.com

Week 5 - Liz is forced to U-turn

Tories ‘completely lost’ after Truss tax U-turn, says Alexander Downer

Alexander Downer said he could see no path to victory for Liz Truss and that she had blown her popularity and upended Conservative credentials by announcing unfunded tax cuts.

www.smh.com.au

Week 7 - Goodbye Liz!

 

[spinynorman]

Anyway, after this statement, I'm wondering who is more demented: Truss or her supporters?

Cheers as Liz Truss says she's ready to press nuclear button and unleash 'global annihilation'

Liz Truss said the duty was an 'important duty of the prime minister' and received a round of applause after saying she would order the use of the UK's arsenal.

au.news.yahoo.com

Revisiting the weird twist in the 2017 election and one of the stranger attacks on Corbyn. This episode where the guy fired up at Corbyn that he needed to nuke an unspecified country because otherwise they would nuke the UK first.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well then that settles it, Truss will push the buttion.................

Seriously, the article is glaringly obvious that she is chest beating in bluff play.

I'd imagine the likes of mad Vlad and Xi would be licking their lips if she said something along the lines of..........

"Push the button?! No , no no no, we ain't pushin the button - might mean global annihilation"

Don't think there's too much to read into this.

We've seen the baiting rhetoric of russia around usin the nuke and they've never pushed the button - if mad vlad really wanted his war over quick smart he would've already done so, but signed his own death warrant at the same time.

All just baiting bluff, I'm sure ol Trussy ain't gonna push it either. IF she does it'll be in retaliation, not as an aggressor. Doubt she'd need to anyways.

 

[Fire]

Theres no point in having nukes if you would never use them. And even if you wouldnt, then saying so instantly removes the deterrant factor, which is literally the only thing they are good for.

Any other answer means you're unfit to lead. Like Corbyn.

This does NOT mean she wants to use them. Or would use them for anything less than the gravest situation.

Please never cause me to defend a Tory again.

On SM-G955U1 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Theres no point in having nukes if you would never use them. And even if you wouldnt, then saying so instantly removes the deterrant factor, which is literally the only thing they are good for.

Any other answer means you're unfit to lead. Like Corbyn.

I think you've missed the point, which is how willing one is to give the order of a nuclear strike knowing that it will result in global destruction, and under what circumstances. Corbyn didn't say he would never use a nuclear weapon. He said that he wanted to try all diplomatic solutions first, because the consequences of beginning a nuclear war are so dire. I feel he showed a healthy level of caution and reluctance for the prospect.

This has the important effect of not encouraging bloodthirstiness amongst the people, something that the Republican Party in particular have stoked for decades. If you do that, you get more people like the pillock asking the question in the Corbyn video, who was concerned that Corbyn didn't want to rush headlong into a nuclear war.

A mature and responsible nation is one that implies a deterrent but doesn't feel the need to wave its dick around. Essentially, Theodore Roosevelt's doctrine of "speak softly and carry a big stick". India follows that by having nuclear weapons but also a policy of no first use of nukes in a conflict. Is that a sufficient deterrent for you, or would you be happy to go bombs away on India? Because they essentially have the same policy as Corbyn did.

This does NOT mean she wants to use them. Or would use them for anything less than the gravest situation.

Did she say she would only use them in the gravest situation? She did not. In fact, she said nothing about the situation that she would be prepared to use it in, only "I am ready to do it". It made her sound almost eager.



Truss is clearly trying to invoke Margaret Thatcher's "Iron Lady" image and present herself as tough. But she's trying too hard and not being judicious about it, causing her to make reckless moves like openly giving China the middle finger while simultaneously worsening relations with the US and France. In that context, I'm not willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on her nuclear weapons rhetoric.

Please never cause me to defend a Tory again.

That's a choice you made.

 

[Seeds]

Truss is paying $1.03 on Sportsbet to be the next PM, with her only remaining competitor, Rishi Sunak at $12, so it's pretty safe to call it here, she will be the next PM.

Anyway, after this statement, I'm wondering who is more demented: Truss or her supporters?

Cheers as Liz Truss says she's ready to press nuclear button and unleash 'global annihilation'

Liz Truss said the duty was an 'important duty of the prime minister' and received a round of applause after saying she would order the use of the UK's arsenal.

au.news.yahoo.com

Its how MAD works. You say you will press the button to try and stop the other side from pressing the button. Doesnt mean you will actually do it. But given the nutters in charge of russia and the fact that they have threatened to nuke the uk a number of times recently she is not only entitled to say what she did but she must say if for the sake of minimising the risk to her country.

i would say i would press the button to. But if the bombs were launched at us, then i actually wouldnt press the button to hope that some of humanity would be saved.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Its how MAD works. You say you will press the button to try and stop the other side from pressing the button. Doesnt mean you will actually do it.

I disagree. It's not just a matter of saying you will press the button, it's also a matter of the circumstances in which this would happen.

Mutually assured destruction works on the basis of one side saying (or implying) "if you strike me, I will strike you back just as hard and we'll both be dead", the point being to dissuade the other side from making that initial strike.

If instead, one side declares "I will strike you and you will be dead", that can cause the other side to launch a pre-emptive strike if they think they're going be hit anyway. This is why pains have to be taken to suggest that you don't want a nuclear war, unless you've been hit with a nuke first.

Truss said nothing about using a weapon only in response to someone else using a weapon against Britain. She didn't rule out being the first to strike, and that's concerning when we're talking about something as destructive as nuclear weapons. When you consider how many other foreign policy missteps she's made, I'm not filled with hope that she'd de-escalate rising tensions with another nuclear-armed state.

And as I said above, another problem with this is whipping your people (and in America's case, the people of its core allies too) up into being bloodthirsty and wanting invasions and nukes left and right. This happened for decades in the US and it helps explain why the American public was all for invading Iraq until it started going badly.

 

[spinynorman]

In 1962, two leaders who, irrespective of your views of each of their personal politics, were rational and intelligent players who grasped the consequences of their actions, almost caused a world ending nuclear war. The leaders of today’s nuclear powers are, on the whole, less rational, less intelligent, more ignorant of the catastrophic consequences of their potential actions, while holding even more dangerous weapons.

And at least 60 years ago it was part of a great ideological stand off between two competing visions for what the future would look like. Today it isn’t that at all, just individual nations acting in their own self-interest, and with those declaring their willingness to end the world if they don’t get their way seeming to be get their way. Something needs to change.

 

[mellowyellow]

Id be more concerned with her annihilation of the already beleaguered UK economy and the current crisis imposed on the public by 12 years of Tory rule then ridiculous headline grabbing moments pandering to her pathetic base

 

[Seeds]

In 1962, two leaders who, irrespective of your views of each of their personal politics, were rational and intelligent players who grasped the consequences of their actions, almost caused a world ending nuclear war. The leaders of today’s nuclear powers are, on the whole, less rational, less intelligent, more ignorant of the catastrophic consequences of their potential actions, while holding even more dangerous weapons.

And at least 60 years ago it was part of a great ideological stand off between two competing visions for what the future would look like. Today it isn’t that at all, just individual nations acting in their own self-interest, and with those declaring their willingness to end the world if they don’t get their way seeming to be get their way. Something needs to change.

Global order is the only way we fix the nuclear problem.

 

[Seeds]

I disagree. It's not just a matter of saying you will press the button, it's also a matter of the circumstances in which this would happen.

Mutually assured destruction works on the basis of one side saying (or implying) "if you strike me, I will strike you back just as hard and we'll both be dead", the point being to dissuade the other side from making that initial strike.

If instead, one side declares "I will strike you and you will be dead", that can cause the other side to launch a pre-emptive strike if they think they're going be hit anyway. This is why pains have to be taken to suggest that you don't want a nuclear war, unless you've been hit with a nuke first.

Truss said nothing about using a weapon only in response to someone else using a weapon against Britain. She didn't rule out being the first to strike, and that's concerning when we're talking about something as destructive as nuclear weapons. When you consider how many other foreign policy missteps she's made, I'm not filled with hope that she'd de-escalate rising tensions with another nuclear-armed state.

And as I said above, another problem with this is whipping your people (and in America's case, the people of its core allies too) up into being bloodthirsty and wanting invasions and nukes left and right. This happened for decades in the US and it helps explain why the American public was all for invading Iraq until it started going badly.

I just assumed it was meant to be in response to a first strike. Would anyone seriously ask her if she would strike with a nuclear weopan first?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I just assumed it was meant to be in response to a first strike. Would anyone seriously ask her if she would strike with a nuclear weopan first?

Nowhere did anyone say it was in that situation. Why wouldn't you ask that question if you wanted to know?

 

[Seeds]

Nowhere did anyone say it was in that situation. Why wouldn't you ask that question if you wanted to know?

Because no one would assume anyone would would do it. They would instantly be considered unfit for office. Including in the Tories.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Because no one would assume anyone would would do it. They would instantly be considered unfit for office. Including in the Tories.

I don't think you appreciate how belligerent a lot of people are, especially on the right. This is more common in the US, due to the proximity of Republican politicians who want to solve half of their foreign policy problems with bombs, but the people impressed by that exist all over. For example, the questioner in the Jeremy Corbyn video above, who is unhappy with a politician having a no first use policy on nuclear weapons.

 

[darth_timon]

Truss is, like pretty much all Tory MPs, too wedded to Johnson's ideals to be a good PM. There are so many problems in the UK, and the Tories aren't equipped to deal with them, for they collectively (and as individuals) lack compassion, common sense, and a heart.

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Officially declared with 57.4% of the members' vote.

(Blessed are the cheesemakers at least, but RIP (again) the rest of the country)

 

[NSWCROW]

Iz it coz Rishi iz blak ?

 

[Stokey]

I would have preferred Rishi but I think the party chose the best two to go head to head.

Will be interesting to see if Truss can unite the party.

 

[spinynorman]

And I thought Ralph Milliband ****ed up!

 

[Gough]

A pound shop Thatcher brought to you by the people who thought Brexit was a good idea alongside a dying monarch with an idiot son as an heir. Next few years are going to be a barrel of laughs in Britain.

 

[Stokey]

A pound shop Thatcher brought to you by the people who thought Brexit was a good idea alongside a dying monarch with an idiot son as an heir. Next few years are going to be a barrel of laughs in Britain.

Like an intravenous shot of hatred directly into your veins.

 

[Gough]

Like an intravenous shot of hatred directly into your veins.

Which one of Truss' policies appeals particularly to you?

 

[Stokey]

Im not currently in the country so haven't really been following it.

I just notice that every time a woman is elected by the Tories she is immediately hated on as the next Thatcher. Same thing happened with May.

At we have the diversity party in Labour to elect leaders like Corbyn and Sir Starmer

 

[FurTheWin]

Iz it coz Rishi iz blak ?

For a certain percentage of the 160,000 Tory faithful who voted, yes it is.
They're prepared to accept non-white faces in certain Cabinet posts and rationalize that with a "Haven't they done well with the gifts we've given them" attitude, the way they would with, say, athletics medallists or their best Rugby player, but the job of Big Dog is just a step too far.

 

[FurTheWin]

Im not currently in the country so haven't really been following it.

I just notice that every time a woman is elected by the Tories she is immediately hated on as the next Thatcher. Same thing happened with May.

At we have the diversity party in Labour to elect leaders like Corbyn and Sir Starmer

Truss vs Starmer at PMQs should be good.
Do you think she'll be able to answer a straight question?