| Loving Burnham's visions and promises 14:55 - Sep 29 with 19413 views | NthQldITFC |
To paraphrase: "I may have to pay a political price, but I'm going to do these things that our country needs."
Cue the usual, fossilised cynicism from both sides of the spectrum, but I have a good feeling about this bloke.
It won't be possible to achieve everything, but I'd rather someone took a political risk and gave it a bloody good go - there's no point pissing around with an eye on five years time, we need some fundamental change based on all of us, first of all, providing a solid, social base, and developing responsibly from there where possible. |  |
| |  |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:10 - Oct 3 with 997 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:34 - Oct 3 by J2BLUE |
The public doesn't want your vision of a radical government. |
The public are in favour of nationalisation of utilities to the tune of 75% |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:13 - Oct 3 with 991 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:59 - Oct 3 by J2BLUE |
I don't think he's talking about something as reasonable as better public services. He literally used the word radical. He wants a left wing government that most in the country are not interested in. Some people refuse to accept that. |
I'm talking about public services. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:14 - Oct 3 with 990 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:53 - Oct 3 by Churchman |
Yes, procurement has been a joke, but that’s not a reason for abandoning defence of the people. You just do something about procurement backed by a government that takes defence seriously.
Shame no govt, including this one, has done in decades. Evidence? Well the stunt pulled by our liar of a Chancellor tells you all you need to know.
Challenger 2 tanks, albeit over 25 years old, are some of the best Ukraine has. These are being replaced with Challenger 3. Not many of them, no doubt, but the quality of the Challenger series of tanks has been pretty good.
Now British tanks were not great in WW2 especially in the early / mid years which ironic since we invented the things in WW1. Now they were unreliable and made the crew sick. But only because they were rushed into service on the Western Front and were under developed. |
Agree that we need to fund defence but we don't need to spend billions on trident which isn't even our weapon.
We don't need more bombs. We need to try to look after people. Putin is not about to invade the UK. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:14 - Oct 3 with 990 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:59 - Oct 3 by J2BLUE |
I don't think he's talking about something as reasonable as better public services. He literally used the word radical. He wants a left wing government that most in the country are not interested in. Some people refuse to accept that. |
I perhaps shouldn't speak for him but I'm sure he has mentioned in the past that it is social democracy that he wants. The problem though is that when even someone like Ed Miliband (Red Ed) is portrayed as a radical, it is very difficult to shift the narrative.
And for all the criticism of Jeremy Corbyn, he merely advocated policies that at one time largely reflected the post-war consensus given, for example, that the Tories prior to 1979 didn't reverse any of the nationalisations that the Atlee government put in place.
The problem for me is that Humpty is broken and putting him back together is no easy task, so maybe small steps like Burnham's are at least a start.
Putting it another way, for all my idealism, I am also a pragmatist. [Post edited 3 Oct 17:19]
|  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:17 - Oct 3 with 978 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:14 - Oct 3 by DJR |
I perhaps shouldn't speak for him but I'm sure he has mentioned in the past that it is social democracy that he wants. The problem though is that when even someone like Ed Miliband (Red Ed) is portrayed as a radical, it is very difficult to shift the narrative.
And for all the criticism of Jeremy Corbyn, he merely advocated policies that at one time largely reflected the post-war consensus given, for example, that the Tories prior to 1979 didn't reverse any of the nationalisations that the Atlee government put in place.
The problem for me is that Humpty is broken and putting him back together is no easy task, so maybe small steps like Burnham's are at least a start.
Putting it another way, for all my idealism, I am also a pragmatist. [Post edited 3 Oct 17:19]
|
You're spot on with my position. Couldn't put it better myself. Why can't we live in a decent social democracy?
I don't have any faith in Burnham however. The Labour party is rotten to the core.
Without radical reform the country is going to collapse. No amount of watching The Rest Is Politics is going to protect people from that. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:24 - Oct 3 with 950 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:17 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
You're spot on with my position. Couldn't put it better myself. Why can't we live in a decent social democracy?
I don't have any faith in Burnham however. The Labour party is rotten to the core.
Without radical reform the country is going to collapse. No amount of watching The Rest Is Politics is going to protect people from that. |
I suppose I take some comfort from the fact that Burnham was regarded as a dangerous radical by the Starmer project.
And I am glad that the faction that made me leave the Labour party is no longer in the driving seat..
Whether I will re-join the party is another matter.
And on Burnham, I suppose we will just have to see. But I accept that he may not be as radical as I would like, or even as he tries to portray himself: electoral reform springs to mind.
[Post edited 3 Oct 18:37]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:33 - Oct 3 with 906 views | lowhouseblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:53 - Oct 3 by Churchman |
Yes, procurement has been a joke, but that’s not a reason for abandoning defence of the people. You just do something about procurement backed by a government that takes defence seriously.
Shame no govt, including this one, has done in decades. Evidence? Well the stunt pulled by our liar of a Chancellor tells you all you need to know.
Challenger 2 tanks, albeit over 25 years old, are some of the best Ukraine has. These are being replaced with Challenger 3. Not many of them, no doubt, but the quality of the Challenger series of tanks has been pretty good.
Now British tanks were not great in WW2 especially in the early / mid years which ironic since we invented the things in WW1. Now they were unreliable and made the crew sick. But only because they were rushed into service on the Western Front and were under developed. |
"that’s not a reason for abandoning defence of the people"
but who would possibly think we should abandon the defence of the people?
my point was that we always focus on market failure, but seldom discus state failure. defence procurement is one example, but waste, inefficiency, group think, benefits going to powerful interest groups, ideological capture etc are all real things. we can't discuss how society can be improved if we only acknowledge market failure and assume that state intervention is perfect and costless. yes we need armoured personnel carriers, but our sclerotic bureaucracy means they come at an unnecessarily high price. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:02 - Oct 3 with 884 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:17 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
You're spot on with my position. Couldn't put it better myself. Why can't we live in a decent social democracy?
I don't have any faith in Burnham however. The Labour party is rotten to the core.
Without radical reform the country is going to collapse. No amount of watching The Rest Is Politics is going to protect people from that. |
The only way, frankly, to get anything close to what you seek - is to do it in steps. This country is not about to vote in an outright hard left socialist. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:20 - Oct 3 with 834 views | lowhouseblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:02 - Oct 3 by redrickstuhaart |
The only way, frankly, to get anything close to what you seek - is to do it in steps. This country is not about to vote in an outright hard left socialist. |
gorgeous george is standing in holborn and st pancras so you never know. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:23 - Oct 3 with 845 views | CoachRob |
These economics discussion are becoming a sewer of disinformation. For the millionth time, when the government spends and marks up central bank reserve accounts this is a fiscal event, when the central bank "prints money" or QE this is an asset swap.
From the House of Commons Committee, "There are a variety of views about the desirability of the Bank of England undertaking quantitative tightening (QT), whether it has a good strategic framework for doing so, and whether it is conducting QT at an appropriate pace. Nonetheless, much of the evidence we have received suggests that the Bank’s strategic framework for QT is broadly reasonable. We have also heard that shrinking the Bank’s balance sheet in order to create space for future interventions, should they be needed, and reducing distortions in the gilt market caused by quantitative easing (QE), are potential reasons for going ahead with QT. Since it has some bearing on our later conclusions, we note here that the Bank and Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) have determined: that QT is not being used as an active tool of monetary policy; that they are calibrating QT in order to minimise its economic and financial impacts; and that they are carrying out QT with a view to creating space for future balance sheet expansion, such as quantitative easing (QE), should it be needed. We also note that we have received some concern that the Bank needs a good understanding of the economic and financial impacts of QT in order to calibrate its strategy." Emphasis added.
I often contribute to the climate science posts on here and there are always knowledgeable contributions. This economics stuff is dreadful. It isn't right vs. left, it is just awful. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:48 - Oct 3 with 810 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:14 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
Agree that we need to fund defence but we don't need to spend billions on trident which isn't even our weapon.
We don't need more bombs. We need to try to look after people. Putin is not about to invade the UK. |
It actually is our weapon. It works too and does not require US permission to be deployed. The only problem is Labour will never use it under any circumstances.
How do you know what Putin is going to do? The man signed an agreement to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine. Remember what he did next? Or do you think his actions were rational and correct? Happy to put your trust in him are you? Funnily enough, given what that b’stard has done and is capable of doing I don’t.
Neutrality works do I hear you cry? Well, tell that to the Belgians, Dutch, and Norwegians in 1939/40. Even the Vatican had to pay its dues to the fascists.
You may not be in favour of protecting the people of this country. I disagree. As for looking after people, the welfare and NHS bill was £214bn last year. Defence? £60bn that included the budget for helping out Ukraine (I take it you don’t agree with that) and security services and takes no account of £20bn in kit sales coming in.
Nobody is suggesting shelving social care or NHS for defence. But increasing spending to 5% is not unreasonable and perfectly doable without affecting those things. - but there’s no political will. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 19:00 - Oct 3 with 796 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:23 - Oct 3 by CoachRob |
These economics discussion are becoming a sewer of disinformation. For the millionth time, when the government spends and marks up central bank reserve accounts this is a fiscal event, when the central bank "prints money" or QE this is an asset swap.
From the House of Commons Committee, "There are a variety of views about the desirability of the Bank of England undertaking quantitative tightening (QT), whether it has a good strategic framework for doing so, and whether it is conducting QT at an appropriate pace. Nonetheless, much of the evidence we have received suggests that the Bank’s strategic framework for QT is broadly reasonable. We have also heard that shrinking the Bank’s balance sheet in order to create space for future interventions, should they be needed, and reducing distortions in the gilt market caused by quantitative easing (QE), are potential reasons for going ahead with QT. Since it has some bearing on our later conclusions, we note here that the Bank and Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) have determined: that QT is not being used as an active tool of monetary policy; that they are calibrating QT in order to minimise its economic and financial impacts; and that they are carrying out QT with a view to creating space for future balance sheet expansion, such as quantitative easing (QE), should it be needed. We also note that we have received some concern that the Bank needs a good understanding of the economic and financial impacts of QT in order to calibrate its strategy." Emphasis added.
I often contribute to the climate science posts on here and there are always knowledgeable contributions. This economics stuff is dreadful. It isn't right vs. left, it is just awful. |
https://www.theguardian.com/bu
https://www.reuters.com/busine
Perhaps you should should be working for the ECB if you think they are wrong on QE and printing money having an inflationary effect. Both are forms of stimulus that devalue people’s earnings, that’s not really up for debate since those that conducted the polices have confirmed it. ‘Who needs experts’. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 19:34 - Oct 3 with 760 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:02 - Oct 3 by redrickstuhaart |
The only way, frankly, to get anything close to what you seek - is to do it in steps. This country is not about to vote in an outright hard left socialist. |
Where have I have mentioned the hard left?!
It's literally bonkers that we are now told anything to the left of the Lab party today is hard left. The Labour party today are to the right of previous Tory governments! | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 19:39 - Oct 3 with 757 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:48 - Oct 3 by Churchman |
It actually is our weapon. It works too and does not require US permission to be deployed. The only problem is Labour will never use it under any circumstances.
How do you know what Putin is going to do? The man signed an agreement to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine. Remember what he did next? Or do you think his actions were rational and correct? Happy to put your trust in him are you? Funnily enough, given what that b’stard has done and is capable of doing I don’t.
Neutrality works do I hear you cry? Well, tell that to the Belgians, Dutch, and Norwegians in 1939/40. Even the Vatican had to pay its dues to the fascists.
You may not be in favour of protecting the people of this country. I disagree. As for looking after people, the welfare and NHS bill was £214bn last year. Defence? £60bn that included the budget for helping out Ukraine (I take it you don’t agree with that) and security services and takes no account of £20bn in kit sales coming in.
Nobody is suggesting shelving social care or NHS for defence. But increasing spending to 5% is not unreasonable and perfectly doable without affecting those things. - but there’s no political will. |
Hmmmmmm. I remain very cynical about Trident. How come the French have their own and we don't? They made a choice for a reason.
Fair points otherwise to a degree but frankly what's the point in defending the country if the people are immiserated and it is dysfunctional. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 19:58 - Oct 3 with 743 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:48 - Oct 3 by Churchman |
It actually is our weapon. It works too and does not require US permission to be deployed. The only problem is Labour will never use it under any circumstances.
How do you know what Putin is going to do? The man signed an agreement to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine. Remember what he did next? Or do you think his actions were rational and correct? Happy to put your trust in him are you? Funnily enough, given what that b’stard has done and is capable of doing I don’t.
Neutrality works do I hear you cry? Well, tell that to the Belgians, Dutch, and Norwegians in 1939/40. Even the Vatican had to pay its dues to the fascists.
You may not be in favour of protecting the people of this country. I disagree. As for looking after people, the welfare and NHS bill was £214bn last year. Defence? £60bn that included the budget for helping out Ukraine (I take it you don’t agree with that) and security services and takes no account of £20bn in kit sales coming in.
Nobody is suggesting shelving social care or NHS for defence. But increasing spending to 5% is not unreasonable and perfectly doable without affecting those things. - but there’s no political will. |
You have absolutely no idea if "labour" would use it regardless of circumstances.
That statement is just awash with all sorts of silly prejudices about anyone who doesn't vote conservative! | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 19:59 - Oct 3 with 741 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 19:39 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
Hmmmmmm. I remain very cynical about Trident. How come the French have their own and we don't? They made a choice for a reason.
Fair points otherwise to a degree but frankly what's the point in defending the country if the people are immiserated and it is dysfunctional. |
One of the reasons is our closer relationship with the US. But we should absolutely be re evaluating that, and fast.
Your second sentence makes no sense. Should the Ukranians give up and fall under Putin's oppressive rule because they are miserable already? | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:13 - Oct 3 with 716 views | lowhouseblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 19:00 - Oct 3 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
https://www.theguardian.com/bu
https://www.reuters.com/busine
Perhaps you should should be working for the ECB if you think they are wrong on QE and printing money having an inflationary effect. Both are forms of stimulus that devalue people’s earnings, that’s not really up for debate since those that conducted the polices have confirmed it. ‘Who needs experts’. |
indeed. an approach that has no credible approach to either inflation or the exchange rate. it's just liz truss dressed up in long words. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:21 - Oct 3 with 647 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 19:34 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
Where have I have mentioned the hard left?!
It's literally bonkers that we are now told anything to the left of the Lab party today is hard left. The Labour party today are to the right of previous Tory governments! |
I first became interested in politics in the 70s when I was what would have been called in those days a Labour centrist.
My views (which I would regard as social democratic) haven't changed since then but the political centre has moved very much to the right, leaving me as some sort of raving hard-left lunatic.
It's all rather bizarre, and to misquote a phrase sometimes used in the breakup of a relationship, "It's not me, it's you".  | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 22:01 - Oct 3 with 610 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:21 - Oct 3 by DJR |
I first became interested in politics in the 70s when I was what would have been called in those days a Labour centrist.
My views (which I would regard as social democratic) haven't changed since then but the political centre has moved very much to the right, leaving me as some sort of raving hard-left lunatic.
It's all rather bizarre, and to misquote a phrase sometimes used in the breakup of a relationship, "It's not me, it's you". |
It's such a huge shift isn't it. As you say, mild democratic socialism is now viewed as some kind of McCarthy esque red scare. Bonkers.
Can imagine you must have complicated feelings about the party having been on that journey.
Thatcher teally did change the soul as she said she wanted. People are now programmed to see the self as the most important thing.
But there's still a huge desire for change. The one thing I have that makes me hope s that present day centrism doesn't have any answers to the world as it is now. It can't deal with it. So I think something will replace it. It just depends what... | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 23:57 - Oct 3 with 540 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:13 - Oct 3 by lowhouseblue |
indeed. an approach that has no credible approach to either inflation or the exchange rate. it's just liz truss dressed up in long words. |
I think my favourite bit was ‘sewer of disinformation’, before pretty much getting everything wrong. A fiscal event is typically regarded as a fiscal policy announcement, budget event, or new policy, NOT operational events like marking up central bank reserves.
The rest was just a ‘QT’ may or may not be the right course of action. Said poster is a proponent of MMT so desperately looking for something to suggest QE and printing money is not inflationary. It’s already been rubbished by the ECB, but what do they know compared to a guy armed with ChapGPT.
Staggering arrogance. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 00:18 - Oct 4 with 531 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 19:58 - Oct 3 by redrickstuhaart |
You have absolutely no idea if "labour" would use it regardless of circumstances.
That statement is just awash with all sorts of silly prejudices about anyone who doesn't vote conservative! |
Oh i do and so do you. Of course they wouldn’t.
And what on earth has voting conservative got to do with it? You don’t know me and clearly have no idea who I’ve voted for or support.
As it goes, I do not believe party politics and prejudices come into this. If you do not feel that the first duty of any government is to protect its people from external and internal threat, that’s fine. Your opinion and you will not be alone.
I disagree and it has nothing to do with any form prejudice. It has everything to do with what I see as the role of government. Sadly, my cynicism of them stems from seeing them ‘in action’ far too close since 2006. [Post edited 4 Oct 0:23]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:22 - Oct 4 with 374 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 22:01 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
It's such a huge shift isn't it. As you say, mild democratic socialism is now viewed as some kind of McCarthy esque red scare. Bonkers.
Can imagine you must have complicated feelings about the party having been on that journey.
Thatcher teally did change the soul as she said she wanted. People are now programmed to see the self as the most important thing.
But there's still a huge desire for change. The one thing I have that makes me hope s that present day centrism doesn't have any answers to the world as it is now. It can't deal with it. So I think something will replace it. It just depends what... |
Yes, my resignation due to the direction of the party under Starmer is not my only resignation.
I resigned under Blair because of the direction of travel, and not because of the Iraq war.
As I posted earlier.
"In 2002, twelve years after Margaret Thatcher left office, she was asked, at a dinner for a Conservative politician Conor Burns, what her greatest achievement was. Thatcher replied: “Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds.”
But I came back since I had an emotional attachment to the party but I no longer feel the same way. And I do realise the best we can probably hope for is small movements in the right direction. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:27 - Oct 4 with 354 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 00:18 - Oct 4 by Churchman |
Oh i do and so do you. Of course they wouldn’t.
And what on earth has voting conservative got to do with it? You don’t know me and clearly have no idea who I’ve voted for or support.
As it goes, I do not believe party politics and prejudices come into this. If you do not feel that the first duty of any government is to protect its people from external and internal threat, that’s fine. Your opinion and you will not be alone.
I disagree and it has nothing to do with any form prejudice. It has everything to do with what I see as the role of government. Sadly, my cynicism of them stems from seeing them ‘in action’ far too close since 2006. [Post edited 4 Oct 0:23]
|
Party politics and prejudice don't come into it
No one in labour would ever use the nuclear deterrent regardless of situation.
Righto. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:46 - Oct 4 with 325 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 19:39 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
Hmmmmmm. I remain very cynical about Trident. How come the French have their own and we don't? They made a choice for a reason.
Fair points otherwise to a degree but frankly what's the point in defending the country if the people are immiserated and it is dysfunctional. |
France made decisions after Suez based on distrust in NATO (which it withdrew from in 1966) and De Gaulle’s hatred of most things including Britain and France. Post war it felt the need to exercise independent power/defence.
For Britain, its military was heavily embedded with the US military from WW2 on. Since interested were aligned, it was not worthwhile seeking an independent nuclear defence, primarily on the grounds of cost. My understanding is that cost was also the determining factor in disbanding air launched weapons, especially since aircraft such as Tornado and Jaguar went to the scrap heap.
Whilst there are weapons out there the great British public know nothing about, I believe Britain has been proven wrong to not go down France’s route and particularly to abandon air launched weapons capability.
Trump has changed absolutely everything yet people still think we are in the age of international order etc. The denial phase of change, I guess. It is the very move of the US to an untrustworthy authoritarian state that for me means this country needs sufficient deterrence to be left alone. ‘Capability holidays’ (see the Nimrod shambles) are no longer acceptable.
But given this country’s continuing policy of disarmament backed by the Chancellor and presumably PM, I cannot see that situation being reversed. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:07 - Oct 4 with 276 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:46 - Oct 4 by Churchman |
France made decisions after Suez based on distrust in NATO (which it withdrew from in 1966) and De Gaulle’s hatred of most things including Britain and France. Post war it felt the need to exercise independent power/defence.
For Britain, its military was heavily embedded with the US military from WW2 on. Since interested were aligned, it was not worthwhile seeking an independent nuclear defence, primarily on the grounds of cost. My understanding is that cost was also the determining factor in disbanding air launched weapons, especially since aircraft such as Tornado and Jaguar went to the scrap heap.
Whilst there are weapons out there the great British public know nothing about, I believe Britain has been proven wrong to not go down France’s route and particularly to abandon air launched weapons capability.
Trump has changed absolutely everything yet people still think we are in the age of international order etc. The denial phase of change, I guess. It is the very move of the US to an untrustworthy authoritarian state that for me means this country needs sufficient deterrence to be left alone. ‘Capability holidays’ (see the Nimrod shambles) are no longer acceptable.
But given this country’s continuing policy of disarmament backed by the Chancellor and presumably PM, I cannot see that situation being reversed. |
I think things aren't quite as you state in your first paragraph. Indeed, this suggests foresight of how things have turned out under Trump.
This from Wikipedia.
"The decision to arm France with nuclear weapons was made in 1954 by the administration of Prime Minister Pierre Mendès France under the Fourth Republic.[9] President Charles de Gaulle, upon his return to power in 1958, solidified the initial vision into the well-defined concept of a fully independent Force de frappe that would be capable of protecting France from a Soviet or other foreign attack and independent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which de Gaulle considered to be too dominated by the United States. In particular, France was concerned that in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, the U.S., already bogged down in the Korean War and afraid of Soviet retaliation against the United States, would not come to the aid of its allies in Western Europe. De Gaulle felt that France should never entrust its defense and therefore its very existence to a foreign and thus unreliable protector." [Post edited 4 Oct 10:08]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
