British PM Willing to Nuke Hundreds of Thousands; Parliament Approves Funding

British PM Willing to Nuke Hundreds of Thousands; Parliament Approves Funding | Insists not having nukes would be ‘gross irresponsibility’

In one of the first high profile parliamentary debates since she took over the premiership last week, British PM Theresa May today insisted she would have no hesitation in ordering nuclear strikes abroad that would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The somewhat blunt, somewhat genocidal answer appears to have been the right one for the crowd, as it wasn’t long thereafter that parliament agreed to spend upward of $40 billion modernizing their nuclear weapons arsenal. Many analysts have suggested that the $40 billion is a gross underestimate, and the nukes will end up costing far more.

The question about massacring civilians with a nuclear strike is a common one during such debates, and historically one prime ministers dodge. Former Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe said he believed it was a question no prime minister would ever directly answer.

But with Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn being open that he “does not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to go about international relations,” and that he absolutely would not kill millions of innocent people, May ultimately decided to go the other, pro-nuclear holocaust way.

May went on from answering the question to insist that not keeping their nuclear arsenal would be “gross irresponsibility,” Defense Secretary Michael Fallon also backed the move, claiming North Korea is a growing threat and that nukes “are not going to disappear.”

Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz

Author: Jason Ditz

Jason Ditz is news editor of Antiwar.com.

  • REDPILLED

    Yet another violent sociopath takes power.

    • Mark Thomason

      Hillary said the same thing about Iran, that nuclear weapons had to be “on the table.” She promised AIPAC.

      • REDPILLED

        Yes, Hillary is another sociopath who wants ultimate power, as is Trump.

  • Ladies and gentleman, Margaret Thatcher the Second.

    • Idiotland

      Close. More like Killary Clinton the second.

      • Is there a difference?

        • Idiotland

          Not Really.

        • Tim Hadfield

          Yes – Thatcher was intelligent, Hillary is definitely not.

  • r.p. mc murohy

    Disgusting. Sad. Horrific. She is another despicable inhuman monster who should be defanged, declawed, and summarily removed from power.

  • duglarri

    Corbyn should have brought a cat into the House and asked her to strangle it.
    Or a puppy.

    Better yet, a four or five-year-old child. He should have brought the child in and invited May to put her hands around the child’s neck and choke it to death. Or he could have offered her a hammer with which to crush it’s skull. Or a rock.

    After all, if she’s not capable of doing that, if she’s not capable of murdering just one, single child with her own hands, how can we expect that she would vaporize thousands of very similar five-year-olds when the time comes? Why should she not be called upon to prove it?

    Then on the other hand, maybe not; she might have taken him up on it.

    • Bill Rood

      It’s much easier to push a button than to strangle a child.

  • ton

    Inviting nuclear retaliation and incinerating millions of innocent British citizens. Ironically women (hillerary Clinton) appear to be more dangerous than men.

  • dahoit

    They’ve got their own version of HRC,a nut ?
    What profit is there in 40 billion for weaponry for GB?(The People)Holy moly,the world is going insane.

  • dieter heymann

    The huge irony of her statement is that GB began its research and development for a nuclear weapon soon after nuclear fission had been discovered. The British bomb was to be used against a current NATO member namely Germany! Presumably on Berlin. Or Essen? It was a (Jewish) German refugee-scientist living in England (1) who had correctly calculated the mass of pure U235 needed for a nuclear explosion. The British scientists knew this before ours.
    (1) He was a cousin of Lisa Meitner. Although he was from a Jewish family he was an atheist himself. No Jewish-Zionist plot here!

  • Claus-Erik Hamle

    Trident-2 and Minuteman-3 are state-of-the-art first strike weapons. NAVSTAR, now called GPS, was developed for Minuteman-3 and Trident-2 to be able to hit Russan missile silos accurately. Missile engineer Bob Aldridge on the new US missiles in Poland and Romania and on 32 ships in the Mediterranean: “Whether they are on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike.”

  • Claus-Erik Hamle

    Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org-was chief Trident missile engineer but resigned because the Pentagon aims to achieve a Disarming First Strike Capability which of course is Suicidal. He wrote The Counterforce Syndrome, First Strike! The Pentagon’s Strategy For Nuclear War, Nuclear Empire (ch. 9 on anti-submarine warfare) and America In Peril. The US Navy can track and destroy all enemy submarines simultaneously according to Bob Aldridge.

    • Tim Hadfield

      I’ll bet it can’t.

  • yep

    we must get rid of all these israeli firsters in the world’s government today, or else we all die, these people are no respect for human life, period

  • Mark Thomason

    Given today’s weapons and populations, it would kill a lot more than 100,000. She’d be more likely to repeat the whole Armenian Genocide, double the Rwanda genocide, in a single flash or two.

  • There’s no idealism required in being against Trident.

    Pure, old-fashioned good sense is completely adequate.

    Its costs are unbelievable – and note how the government has been very coy in telling the full story there – and you, quite simply, can do nothing with it.

    A deterrent cannot be a deterrent if you can’t use it, and it is very much the case that you cannot use Trident.

    Here, again, the government is being very coy, but the fact is that part of the package you “buy” with Trident are controls against your ever using it independently.

    You can only use it with American approval and against American-allocated targets, full stop. Any other possible use has built-in controls against it, and believe me any British enemies know that as well as I do.

    American top-level policy does not allow independent nuclear deterrence anywhere. When countries like Ukraine and Belorussia separated from the Soviet Union, they were briefly nuclear powers themselves with Soviet weapons based on their territory. The U.S. quickly disabused them of any illusions, explaining that if they did not give them up for dismantling, they themselves would be targeted by American ICBMs.

    All Trident does is make you feel like you’re playing in the big leagues, but it’s a silly illusion, enjoyed at immense cost.

    Moreover, if you want to give Scotland a serious new issue for independence, then buy Trident. The Scots do not like having it based in their country, and Independence leaders there would love to have a hot new issue.

    In the end, Trident is at least as much an illusion as “the special relationship” itself is, yet of course we know important people still go on about their special relationship, oblivious to the fact that disgraced Tony Blair provides the quintessential example of what America means by a special relationship.

    For America, Britain’s having Trident is just one big fat, lovely, long-term subsidy from British taxpayers to the Pentagon, a pretty insane deal from the British point of view.

    • Tim Hadfield

      Well said.

    • steddyneddy

      “A deterrent cannot be a deterrent if you can’t use it, and it is very much the case that you cannot use Trident”

      Do you really know that’s true, or are you guessing?

  • legal eagle

    Then there should be no problems with retaliatory strikes against the UK huh? This brain dead politician, who has a problem seeing past the end of her nose. should consider that the UK and it’s buddies are not the only people on earth to possess nukes, and woe to the idiot who uses them.

  • RageInEden606

    Note that Corbyn and those loyal to him voted against. The traitorous “Labour” scumbags trying to oust him voted with the right-wing government.

  • Tim Hadfield

    We have our Hillary – ego the size of a planet, brain …
    maybe not so big. 100% death or glory hawk.
    Will she continue bombing schools and hospitals and marketplaces in Yemen?

    • Bill Rood

      Does the sun rise in the east?

  • William

    Please. These things are not for deterring the Russians. Deterring the Russians is the excuse for funding these things which don’t even work but generate R$D and huge contracts capitalizing sales to tyrants worldwide.

  • June 11, 2016 Propaganda & Engineering Consent for Empire

    The manipulation of public opinion through suggestion can be traced back to the father of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, who discovered that preying on the subconscious mind was the best way to sell products people don’t need, and wars people don’t want.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44850.htm