On Friday night the nation watched BBC’s Question Time, and looked on in amazement at the troupe of angry old men who felt that Jeremy Corbyn’s reluctance to commit nuclear holocaust disbarred him from being Prime Minister. Rather than focusing on our very real social issues affecting our country, these embarrassing uncles just could not tolerate the idea that our national leader thinks burning millions of people in a nuclear fire is something best avoided.
Let’s just walk them through it, shall we? Imagine that the unthinkable has happened and the UK has been hit with nuclear weapons. A third of the population is dead. Another third is dying. The rest, out in the country far from cities, suddenly find themselves with no food chains, little water, no petrol for transport, and no communications.
A group of the Question Time angry uncles were on a UKIP retreat at the time, and miraculously avoided the nuclear blasts. It’s in this situation that the troupe decides the most pressing need for the nation’s government is not to save the dying, reach out to the living, and begin the arduous journey of rebuilding the country. What this lot would have the government do is launch a massive nuclear strike on the civilian population of the offending country. Having seen the misery that their callous politicians have unleashed on us, UKIP’s version of Momentum feel the right response is to murder as many of their innocent civilians too.
After all, two wrongs do make a right, right?
Personally, I don’t see the appeal. If the unthinkable were to happen, I’d far prefer Britain to hold on to its moral integrity after it has lost everything else. Launch a retaliatory war against the country of course, but don’t burn their women and children while you’re at it.
Now I know what you’re thinking. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. We have to say we’ll use them, so they never do. Well, if that’s the case, then stop asking Corbyn repeatedly what he’d do—you’re supposed to leave uncertainty! And while you’re at it, please realise that Russia and her allies would not decide to randomly nuke Britain except as part of a nuclear strike against the USA. If that happened, nuclear war on both sides is basically guaranteed, and it’s game over.
Here’s what gets me: why don’t those people who are really worried about Britain being nuked vote for a leader who will actively try and prevent that situation arising in the first place? If this country is bombed, it’s too late—you’ve already lost! (your life, that is). What you need to think about how we can avoid such a situation ever arising in the first place.
This isn’t an academic discussion. US-Russian tensions are nearing an all-time high. After years of funding and arming rebels in Syria, the US’ hope for toppling Assad and pleasing their Saudi/UAE/Israeli friends has collapsed. Russia called their bluff, and with a brutal military intervention has come close to destroying Daesh and the rebel insurgency. The US’ gambit is failing before their eyes. They will not take this lying down. They have invested far too much in defeating the Russian-aligned Shia powers in the Middle East, and once and for all have complete ascendance in the region. As such, there are constant rumours that the USA is gearing up for greater military intervention. At the same time, Russia has dug her heels in. It’s not going anywhere. If USA wants to defeat Assad, it would have to go through Russia.
These are historical dangers. When the Trump administration inevitably calls for increased involvement in Syria, you can count on May and Boris to immediately follow suit. Except this won’t be Libya, or even Iraq. We wouldn’t be fighting a rag-tag desert army, we would be fighting a nuclear superpower. It would be, by definition, a third world war.
For me, there is no better reason to vote for Corbyn. Right now, we need peace-makers, and his voting record on Iraq, Libya and Syria proves that he does everything he can to avoid needless war. As Prime Minister, he could gather support from other concerned nations, and perhaps provide a platform for dialogue between Russia and the USA if/when it’s needed. Whether he could really make a difference is difficult to say. It’s unlikely, but then again, he’s no stranger to bad odds. And if all else fails, we can be optimistic that the UK under Corbyn will be less involved in such a dangerous war, and suffer less of the inevitable fall-out, than it would be under Theresa May.
The choice is clear: the war-loving, arms-selling Vicar’s Daughter, or the peace-loving, jam-giving Jeremy Corbyn.
Is this really a debate?