Green Party leader compares nuclear deterrent to teenagers carrying knives | LBC
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- The Green Party once advocated for leaving NATO. But now Carla Denyer's Green Party advocate for reform within NATO and a no-first-use policy in regards to its nuclear weapons. Specific to the UK, they want us to give up our nukes entirely, arguing that they make us 'a target.'
Lewis Goodall tackles the Green Party leader on the issue, in quite an uncomfortable interview that also touches on a number of controversial remarks by her party's candidates.
Listen to the full show on Global Player: app.af.globalp...
#lewisgoodall #trident #ukelection #LBC
LBC is the home of live debate around news and current affairs in the UK.
Join in the conversation and listen at www.lbc.co.uk/
Sign up to LBC’s weekly newsletter here: l-bc.co/signup
Whatever you think about her and her parties politics, it aint half refreshing to hear a politician actually answer the question being asked to them, rather than ignoring it and just repeating rehearsed party HQ lines and slogans
Did Lewis just say Ukraine wishes it could have kept its nuclear weapons to prevent Russia's invasion, then 10 seconds later say the UK is still a target whether it has its own nuclear weapons or not?
You can be a target, but at least you have a deterrent.
Think of it like, would you rather be an easy target or a hard target
@@AndreMonthy the main deterrent the UK has is the amount of property owned by the Russians
yes which makes perfect sense. You may still be a target with a nuclear deterrent but not one which it is worth to invade or attack because of the risk
Interesting how the LBC can use editorial language of ridicule for segments about people to the left, but segments with right wingers get civil video titles
Just today they’ve published videos calling Sunak’s recent gaffe a career ender, and described right wing guests as “hammering” Sunak and the government.
Doesn’t that somewhat undermine your point, like we can all see the content LBC puts out on UA-cam…
@@GG-xd9vc No, it was presented as a question, and it was also a commentary by a host. My comment is about the video titles themselves- editorial commentary going into the titles and it’s more often than not punching left.
Fundamentally disagree. I'm a centrist and I feel LBC are punching the right much more, but that's natural given they're the incumbent government. This is the first time I've seen the left wing (not counting Labour here) being bashed at rightly so given the absurdity
Yes, this is disgusting.
Uh, what? I'm on the left and plenty of LBC posts are endlessly dunking on conservatives. Did you miss Nick Ferrari's interview with the Conservative Minister for Children who didn't know how much child benefits were? They plastered that everywhere utterly rinsing the Minister
If all countries get rid of nuclear weapons at the same time then fair enough but I'm not convinced that just the UK giving them up is going to do anything.
even if they did the knowledge is out there, theres nothing stopping any nation from producing nuclear weapons other than the resources necessary.
@@mikeclifford7740 lets work towards removing all weapons from the world by disarming ourselves. What could go wrong.
@@mikeclifford7740 She's living in dreamland it will never happen and it should be worrying that people like her are trying to get into parliament.
"if everyone else stopped carrying knives around london then i'll stop carrying knives around london" this is what u sound like and we all know that makes things more dangerous for everyone
@disasterarea9341 People carrying knives would generally be predisposed to being victims of knife crime, whether they carry a knife or not. The studies often cited display strong correlation, but the question of causation is more ambiguous. Undoubtedly some people carrying knives will become victims of knife crime because of carrying a knife themselves; however, the majority of knife holders live in economically deprived areas in which gangs already operate. The knife is a response to the world around them, so the focus should be on fixing that environment because simply removing knives would just lead to them being replaced by a different weapon.
With nuclear weapons, although they actually fulfill the stated purpose of deterring conventional attacks from other nations, they don't prevent the creation of conditions which lead to conflict. However, to remove our own nuclear weapons would absolutely make our country less safe, as well as the other NATO allies who rely on the nuclear powers within that alliance for protection.
There's also little validity to the claim that nuclear weapons make us a target given no nuclear nation has ever been conventionally attacked. Obviously the fallout from nuclear war is catastrophic, but the odds of nuclear war happening are far far less than the chances of catastrophic traditional conflict if we were to give them up. Ukraine being a perfect illustration of that.
Is there a second place in a nuclear war ? Certainly no winners😢
how about a nice game of chess?
@@happyapple4269lol I understood that reference
Omfg, that's exactly the argument for retaining nuclear weapons.
The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has staved off ww3 and war between great powers for over 70 years
What you don't realise is 2,000 have been tested since 1945 and there the ones we know about
A nuclear deterrent only works if your opponent believes that you're crazy enough to use it, and if you're crazy enough to use it , then you shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
Are you pointing to Putin as the crazy one .
He's been threatening every Capital City with Nuclear annihilation.
Maybe YOU Missed that part .🤔😵💫🤭
That's not how the nuclear deterrent works. It works because one side is not willing to commit suicide as they know the consequences of firing nukes are their death.
Your last point is exactly why deterrents exist.
Stop being a lefty, use your brain.
Like the way you and your kind try and fail to apply logic is infuriating.
This. Basically Nuclear deterrents are pointless. Lewis Goodall is naive. He needs to wake up, the biggest threat to humanity IS CLIMATE CHANGE
The point of a nuclear deterrent is to prevent being attacked in the first place! The only time they would be used is if we were attacked ourselves - totally naive argument in this geopolitical climate.
I suspect she's never heard of Mutually Assured Destruction, the only thing that kept the stalemate in check for decades
Yes because no nuclear power has ever been attacked. Ever.
The UK wouldn’t survive a nuclear attack
I guess you are a military expert are you? Tell that to the people of Hiroshima. 😂😂
“I suspect she has never heard of MAD” - cop on to yourself, such condescension.
And she’s talking about NATO’s policy of wanting to press the button first so also not “only if we are attacked ourselves”
Giving up our nuclear deterrent is an absurd idea.
its not, the reasons for not having them are valid, the reasons for having them are just better. I think
@@Harry._.Thompson If we don't have a nuclear deterrent, we are extremely vulnerable.
@@Harry._.Thompson I agree no nukes is a nice idea but this is where a nice idea and reality come into conflict. We know there are countries in the world who are hostile to the UK and have nukes. UK giving up nukes will not change that and just give them power over us
Why? Please so your working out.
the idea of ever using nukes is an absurd idea
UK Trident is primarily assigned to the defence of NATO. Giving it up would make the UK and NATO more dependent on the USA. And the UK is getting a new Trident warhead (the W93) and the US is paying for it.
@aleph So the other NATO countries are helping us pay for it?
@@chatham43Every country in NATO has to spend an agreed percentage on the alliance so yes.
We are already completely dependent on US
Japan said never again and that means never again. I really like Carla, she’d make a great PM.
Japan could develop nuclear weapons within six months. The current government is actively working to make this fact a real potentiality due to China’s aggression.
When did Owen Jones become co-leader of the Greens? Well done Owen 🏳🌈🔥
I know for a fact that America almost nuked itself at least three times.
Prove it
the aliens dont like the nukes
That's incorrect. Just because a nuke falls from an aircraft doesn't mean it nearly went off. They have to be armed to explode.
and lost 2 nukes on US soil but they don't know exactly where it was
@@shaneedwards596 prove it
Car crash interview. An electric car crash interview.
Self-driving level of wreckage.
in ur opinion
@@phreshkandy478 Empirically true. True in a rationalist materialist objective sense.
@@merg-vh5sx well shes convinced me to vote green
@@phreshkandy478 Some people slow down to watch when there's an accident?
She's right about nukes being bad
It’s bad yes, bad that’s the only way to prevent you being invaded
@@kavandagoncalves1235 hasanabi agrees with you. But we need a different way
@@hustler3of4culture3 As long as nuclear weapons exist anywhere, there is no other way
Everyone thinks they’re bad. Well, every sane person.
@@jujutrini8412 They are, but keeping our own is the only way to ensure nobody else uses them.
Given Brexit it's hard to rule out any self harm scenario the UK might undergo.
Some points to note - she's not saying we need to get rid of them - as long as we have them, the bluff always exists.
She is also saying that the UK has not ruled out using nuclear weapons first - this is not a deterrent.
In any case, using nuclear retaliation will always result in the mass death of civilians for the acts of a government - an effective military would find a way to take out military and government targets.
She is also pointing out that the real threats facing the UK are not sorted by nukes. The threats facing the UK are cyber threats, and spillovers from wars over resources.
We would definitely be less of a target with less weapons. Less weapons = less threat. If you look at a battle plan, militaries always target the military installations first
Definitely not a terrible interview - hope Carla doesn’t get put off by media using titles like that to undermine her party. Although I do think they need to rethink nuclear deterrent policy. If there is one policy which will guarantee lose you any credibility it’s that. And I like the Green Party.
yes exactly , I quite like most of their policies and Carla comes off very well. however I don't think I could vote for a party who doesn't believe in keeping our nuclear weapons
@@Harry._.Thompson She has said multiple times that we don't need to get rid of our nuclear weapons.
@@samuelmelton8353 but she didn't say she will build the new nuclear subs, she didn't say she's committed to increasing NATO spending to 2.5%.
Interesting how LBC changed the title once they realised their youtube viewers (mostly) aren't daily mail readers 🤣
How is this interview painful? She handled it really well. The defence response is questionable as it was in the live debate, but it has definitely got me thinking about this nuclear deterrent. That aside, everything else was answered.
Honestly, the headline is disgusting and sinking to Daily Mail levels of journalism as most people will not what this whole 13 minute interview.
She answered the questions. You never put video titles like this from either of the main 2 parties stating something which is just objectively not true when they skirt around every question with a non-response, funny that.
LBC is right wing that’s why. It will support its own corporate interests and align itself with the political party that serves it best. It’s not about fair/balanced and honest journalism.
Its painful cuz she's clearly clueless on this subject.
Just cuz something was answered doesn't mean it was answered _well_
@@Khalkara Oh would you look at that, they’ve changed the video title 🤡
It's painful because comparing the military having nukes to kids having knives is a ridiculous argument and having candidates willing UK armed forces to be killed is awful. Not to mention comparing Hamas to the French resistance. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@xaif4888 What was it before?
She is so sensible but obviously in a country where most people think Russia is the biggest threat to the world she would get slammed. Too many warmongers, just look at the interviewer line of questioning.
She isn't sensible at all.
Russia is not our enemy. No more NeoCon wars
Do you oppose what Putin is doing? If yes then you are a threat to him. Having nukes just determines whether you are a threat he can afford to squash or not.
no? Russia is right now a huge threat to us
Absurd for a little country like us to pretend we're a big power. Grow up
Basically the only reason Russia hasn’t invaded or attacked a NATO country is because of the risk of nuclear escalation. Take that away and I don’t think they’d think twice about trying their luck in Estonia, for example
Well since their army has almost been destroyed by Ukraine I don't think a non nuclear Russia poses much of a threat to anyone.
Doesn't that support the Green position of nuclear disarmament with Nato membership? Estonia hasn't been attacked despite its lack of nuclear weapons
@@jameskeaton1777 you are cherry picking bits of the argument while ignoring the full picture. NATO has nukes. Every country in it is part of the nuclear umbrella. Nukes are one of the biggest deterrents against attacking NATO members. If your argument is to give up nukes then it must also be to leave NATO otherwise you are basically a hypocrite. You don't want nukes yourself but are happy to be part of an alliance whose main deterrent is nukes provided by other countries. This is also an extremely risky strategy considering if Trump gets relected and pursues isolationist policy as he is threatening to do and the rise of the far right in France.
@@jameskeaton1777 But your relying on other nations for your defence which is an inherent risk. Europe basically relies on USA for defence and look how badly that goes, we are at the whim of their politics.
You think US cares about Estonia?
Eastern Europe is closer to Russia than the UK. That's why Poland and the Ukraine would be targets before the UK.
Okay to be fair she did struggle to get her point across. A nuke attack is the end of the conversation, and is potentially also an act of great self harm. This is due to the fact that you could hit a target on the other side of the planet be simultaneously create a nuclear winter that would decimate the human race as we know it. So it's reasonable to argue that nobody in their right mind would actually use one, unless they wanted to end life on the planet like some kind of Bond villain. So are we better putting the defence budget into areas where volatile nations would attack us, for example cyber attacks.
Putin has to know that there would be a massive risk and cost to him if he used nuclear weapons. If there is no risk because no one else them but him, how does that make us safer?
I wish the mainstream media would leave politicians alone and stop bullying them and stop bugging celebrities houses and stalking people
Every1 every country should give up their nuclear power bcoz nuclear weapons give us nothing but pain n stress
We need press reform in the UK so we can get rid of journalists like piers Morgan Jeremy Vine and Lewis Goodall Britain has a problem with bad journalists
She is in la la land
Why does UK need them Germany doesn't or Spain or Italy.
Maybe because of their immediate recent history?
@@eddiecalderone What? The Euros 2021?
This is why apart from Caroline Lucas the only green thing in the House of Commons is the seats.
To be completely fair to Carla i do understand her position about just having Nukes making you more of a target for other nuclear nations to target you which is true. As well as her point about nuclear weapons being dangerous enough that just having them can cause a nuclear explosion by accident. Yet i disagree with disarmament of the UK while also accepting her view that having to use them ever is an example of them having failed as a deterrent anyway.
This gets you into complex moral philosophy though.
For example, suppose Iran fully develops nuclear capabilties and they started openly threatening other countries that they would use nuclear weapons soon and you had reliable intel that it is a serious threat. Why shouldn't you have a first strike policy in that scenario?
I think it would be irresponsible to categorically say no to a first strike policy as such, yes the scenario I described is highly unlikely and extreme, but no NATO country is casually nuking other countries as it is anyway.
@LonexX18
Reminds me of Corbyn. If we could have a Corbyn or a Green party running just UK domestic affairs that would be perfect lol.
The nukes cannot explode by accident, they don't work like that.
It really isn't true though. It factually makes you a de facto non-target, because of MAD.
Any weapon is potentially dangerous, this is a property of probability existing not of nuclear weapons specifically. This renders her point moot.
Surely the presence of nukes as a deterrent has proved itself over the past 70 years? Last time I checked there hasn't been a nuclear war?
Lewis Goodall is toxic and argumentative
"A no first use" policy seems a remarkably naive strategy when you're faced with an aggressor who will therefore simply push and push and push knowing you won't use them at any cost for any reason first. Totally negates the whole point.
A nuclear deterrent also really lowers, if not removes, the need for conventional warfare like we see in Ukraine, which we should aim never to go back to, that type of warfare where people die in trenches. There's no point in having your army storm a foreign land if that foreign land has the capability to wipe you off the map. Another thing really misunderstood is how clean modern nuclear weapons are.
Reminds me of a Corbyn interview in 2019 unable to accept the level of Antisemitism infecting their party
Have you read the Forde report, or watched the Labour files, or the big lie?
Corbyn was right that the level of antisemitism in the Labour party was exaggerated for political purposes. There was some, as in all parties, as within the general public - the percentage in Corbyn's Labour party was very low.
This was mainly a political attack. Corbyn would have made a better PM than BJ and Lizz Truss
I don't think this was painful tbh. She wasn't great yeah but she handled herself ok.
Lol. It was painful. She makes no sense on this topic.
She compared nuclear weapons to kids with knives she is absolutely clueless. I don't think she has done any reading surrounding the end of WW2. The only reason America could get away with nuking Japan is because nobody else had nukes. If Japan had nukes in WW2, they would not have been nuked themselves. It is the strongest deterrent you can have.
Ukraine got rid of their nuclear weapons and then got invaded is madness. You are out of order.
No first use is a reasonable stance. Its actually China's stance.
Big difference between no first use an no use because we don't have them. I doubt China would be willing to give up their nukes
I was going to vote greens but now hearing this....why can't a party care about national and international policy?
Vote tactical to get the tories out. Email your candidate and tell them you are lending them your vote for 1 election, but you expect electoral reform in exchange. Email them again after the election to remind them.
Don't vote Green, they have been traditionally away with the fairies...
She is no Caroline Lucas
They have taken down all the policy documents from their website. As you said you were going to vote for them I would guess you've read them but for everyone else, here are some of the highlights for you.
NY203 In the long term, the Green Party wishes to see the concept of legal nationality abolished.
NY204 British Nationality must be based predominantly on residence rather than inheritance.
NY300 We will work to create a world of global inter-responsibility in which the concept of a 'British National' is irrelevant and outdated.
That's just from their nationality section. The whole thing is a cornucopia of authoritarian nonsense based on Marxist principles. They are not friendly tree huggers.
she said we'd keep them but want to in the future to get rid of ALL nuclear weapons worldwide - whats wrong with that ?
There shouldn't be any right wing journalist on LBC
Greens got my vote!
Completely clueless. Not much different that a tory MP on social and tax policies, for that matter.
very different. greens will implement wealth tax.
Poor girl - she thinks we live in Utopia.
Poor Alan Batty with a name like that you never stood a chance
She needs to stop watching Disney Plus.
She really doesn't - she recognises the threats facing the UK and says we need a capable military force that is funded appropriately. I don't think you've really listened to her.
Holding a deterent warhead is an unfortunate nacessity and nieve to think otherwise. I do a lot of what the green party are about but this is something they are very very wrong on
Can someone explain to me why we need a nuclear deterrent costing the country billions yet the rest of Europe apart from France don't?
It's a balance between wanting a non proliferation on nuclear weapons and being able to protect NATO members, there's also America protecting us in NATO and they have way more weapons than we do. Essentially it's us doing our part on the global stage to preserve peace. Unfortunately Ukraine is not a part of NATO.
Ask yourself, why do you need a military at all (costing billions) when the rest of Europe has a military?
The answer is the same as to your question.
Because we cant rely on the support of the US forever
I think this is the wrong question. What you should be asking is can you rely on Valdamir Putin and Donald Trump with UK national security because that's who you'd potential be relying on without spending the money
She can answer questions and create policy with the knowledge she won't ever be in power and have to justify it
Dear Great Britain, an Indian here. You don't need nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Just use harsh language if threatened. That will suffice as a deterrent. 😂
P.s. India is a nuclear armed nation and we will never give up this greatest shastar (weapon) of all shastars.
Dear India, Thank you for your suggestion, but we will take your helpful recommendation under advisement. Toodle loo.
Shes a pure soul geniun humane lady
Could anyone imagine this silly little girl anywhere near power
Lewis Goodall is far right
Highly impressive, Lewis Goodall.
These things have been here forever why are we all of a sudden worried again?
Since the cold war Russia has invaded Georgia, Crimea, and East Ukraine. Why not be concerned now?
She's very articulate
Not even bothered you'll never get close to power!
What exactly would Ukraine do if they had nuclear weapons? Would they fire first and start a nuclear war? If they wouldn't.. then there would be no point in them having them. I don't think Russia would NOT have attacked if Ukraine had nuclear weapons. Aside from that.. I'd rather be invaded by Russia than fire a nuclear weapon on innocent civilians.
Hot war between Russia and none nuclear Ukraine has been conventional even when Ukraine has attacked military targets in Russia. From a military POV nuclear options are winnerless
That's because Putin knows if he uses his nuclear weapons, NATO will obliterate him, and China will sever all ties.
Well, at the very least she seems far less childish and narcissistic than Zack Polanski.
She’s right though, and she’s saying it honestly, which is amazing to see. Literally no dodging and completely transparent, I love the greens for that 💚
her knife argument was actually pretty strong!
If you have the intellect of a pre-pubescent child. Grown ups realise that the nuclear deterrent is very powerful.
No, no it wasn't.
It really wasn't, people don't stab people if they know for sure they're going to be killed themselves. Hence how it isn't analogous to Nuclear Warfare.
Only if you think the military is run by literal children
"We're not going to nuke ourselves" Honey, you are talking to the country that voted for Brexit!
I see her point if you don’t have the weapons you aren’t a target as you aren’t a threat in that way.
She is wrong though. UK will still be a target as there are multiple reasons why countries attack other countries.
With the UKs geographic position a small capable military and a nuclear deterrent the UK is almost impossible to invade regardless of its allies or enemies.
It's a nonsensical argument. How's Ukraine doing after giving their nuclear weapons up?
No country with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded and they wont ever be invaded. You best believe there would be no Russians in Ukraine right now if Ukraine had a deterrent program.
Tell that too the Vikings and Romans. They still invaded none the less. We'd still have the science to build them and that alone make us a threat. Only we'd be a defenseless threat with no Trident.
This might have been as close to a perfect interview as politician can get
is having a nuclear deterrent that fails, ultimately causing mutually assured destruction, worth having the deterrent in the first place?
5:10
"not going to nuke ourselves are we"
naive to think accidents can't happen just as they did to the teenagers. plus if you nuke first, you could just get nuked back.
She really doesn't 'get' it when it comes to nuclear weapons defence. It's obvious too she is 'out of her depth'. You cannot compare having a nuclear deterrent to a teenager carrying a knife! Ridiculous argument.
Why not? It is a comparable scenario just on a smaller scale, the reasoning and dangers are similar.
I don't think you actually understand what she's saying.
It's the complete opposite; anyone carrying a knife is likely to have the knife used in on them. A deterrent, is just that! Without nuclear weapons, we'd be at China's n Putin's mercy! I do understand what she's saying but she's wrong. Yes it'd be lovely to live in a world without them, but we don't and I for one, feel safer knowing we have them. They've been around for 70+ years without a nuclear war occurring - anyone knows pressing the 'red button' means complete annihilation of their country too in doing so. That's how it works.
'We aren't going to nuke ourselves 'is infinitely more believable a claim than any Tory will make this election
No worse than Liz Truss😅
Can we just forget the 🥬
He’s just trying to make her trip up.
Carla,. you only had to agree with him when he said we're a target whether we have nukes or not. Ergo, we don't need them. Perfect opportunity wasted. Nevermind.
but having nukes act as a deterrent so that if we are a target anyway to attack us would would be too costly
Pathetic clickbait title from LBC, nothing painful about this interview she just has a different opinion to Lewis on nuclear weapons - nothing wrong with that.
She's totally naive. Best intentions havnt ensured ww3 hasn't broken out between major powers over the last 70 years. Mutually assured destruction has. If every nation gives up there deterrent and one bad actor secretly builds up a large arsenal what do you think would happen?
We haven't had a successful Trident launch since 2012.
I think you could argue that we currently dont have a trident defense system.
The last 2 launches failed in 2016 and 2024.
The idea that there is a nuclear power out there that isn't aware of this is laughable.
And they wonder why Farage does so well these amateurs embarrassing themselves
Farage is the man ❤
Not going to nuke ourselves are.we... erm.. let's not even ask that! The uk isn't exactly the last word in competency 😂
this woman is nuts
Borrowing a tiny nuclear component from the US to simply give the impression of "contributing" to their deterrent arsenal seems a bit daft. Stop deluding yourselves, honestly.
Seems like a fine interview.
Quite happy to give up our nuclear deterrent but still rely on other members of N.A.T.O. to keep the nuclear deterrent for our defence .
Who you?
@@harleyokeefe5193 she was .You are either against nuclear weapons or in favour of them .She was wanting to give up our nuclear weapons but still remaining part of N.A.T.O. which would still have nuclear weapons .Trying to have your cake and eat it .
The UKs deterrent forces its foes to accept being nuked if they nuked the UK. Without them in the event the UK was attacked using nuclear weapons there would be no guarantee nuclear armed Nato allies would respond in kind. Article 5 would require allies to respond but not necessarily using nuclear weapons.
@@davidmontgomery9846 Oh right I agree with you then, she doesn't understand that we can't rely on others for defense.
Sensible questions from the interviewer, well done.
He works for Rupert Murdoch and the conservative party
Green Party’s defence policy includes unicorns, fluffy bunnies and yoga.
The one reason you never give up your nukes is simply Ukraine,they had them,gave them up and now i know they wish they never listened to those who said give up your nukes and we will guarantee your safety..nuff said.
By that argument, maybe we should give all countries around Russia, if not all countries in the world, nuclear weapons.
Every political party removes candidates
05:11 penny-drop moment 😭😭😭
The whole interview has more pennies dropped than a Blackpool arcade
😅😅😅
I actually think I would rather vote for Farage 😅
This is what happens when student politics get given the keys to a political party... I bet the likes of Russia, Iran, and N.Korea will be rubbing their hands with glee with this interview...
They carry knives presumably to protect themselves.... ie. as a deterrent..... so the difference between that and nuclear weapons as a deterrent is?
I think you misunderstood. She is saying that if you carry a knife you are more likely to be stabbed - this is statistically true. I have never carried a knife, I'm never been stabbed
@@lorrainemoynehan6791 It's a childish conflation. An actual, real-life analogy is when a country gives up its nuclear deterrent and is then invaded by a nuclear power, like Russia is currently doing in Ukraine.
@@lorrainemoynehan6791 Of course you wil lbe stabbed if you conspiciously carry a knife, but it doesn't follow you will be stabbed, policemen carry guns but not all of them get shot.
@@andrewcarson5850 you do know I was trying to clarify the confusion of the previous statement, don't you?
@@annishilcock4587 I'm really confused, what are you trying to say?
Surely stating that Israel and Gaza conspiring in October 7th isn't antisemitic, wrong but not antisemitic as it's not blaming Jews
LBC being completely impartial with the left wing party. 😂😂😂😂
We are not going to nuke ourselves 😂
it's possible for nuclear weapons to be hijacked.
also, several trident tests have failed miserably
What a terrible title for this video. It wasn't painful at all. She made clear policy statements. Maybe the only painful thing though was Goodall not asking a Green Party representative anything about the existential threat of climate change.
She comes across as very sixth form
she is sooo annoying... clueless
I’d listen to her for a year straight then never hear a tory
I take on board what she is saying but I also think she lives in a world where you don’t get absolute crazy people in power and where a deal is a deal.
Beautiful,incisive interview
im voting green
very true, america having nukes is more than enough , theyll destoey wvwryone anyway as they have rhe monopoly and most importantly america is the only country that can detect a nuclear weapon firing and they know excsclty where it come from unless under sea
Given the state of trident we really might ..
Interviewer got pretty hung up on nuclear weapons in an otherwise quite interesting discussion. Bit of a shame really
Childish idealism