Mass Murder

So it's official.  The Right Honourable Theresa May MP, our Prime Minister has admitted that she would kill countless men women and children. 

Does this make her a psychopath?  Well probably no, not technically, but it does give us some insight into the type of person we now have holding the highest office in the land.

In case you missed it George Kerevan the MP for East Lothian asked her the question:"Are you prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children?”  (Will it become to be known as 'The East Lothian Question' I wonder?) 

She replied with one word 'Yes'.

She then went on to defend what she had said by saying  "The whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it.”

It's interesting that no previous Prime Minister has ever said yes, in such a positive way. I wasn't particularly impressed with her answer, but it was made for political effect.  Knowing that Jeremy Corbyn would say 'No', had already said 'No' many times in fact, she wanted to inflict as much damage on him as possible.

Mrs Green last night over the washing up was bewailing the fact that she had always hoped that having more women in positions of authority and power might lead to a different approach to politics, a more measured approach, a more civilised approach, the sort of approach, in fact which is being proposed by Jeremy Corbyn, who I suspect is a man, even if not a traditional alpha male.  On the evidence so far she remains disappointed. 

I don't think in her attempt at political points scoring, Mrs May has done herself any favours. Oh, the bellicose and horsewhipping element of her party will have cheered as she said it, but does her argument stand up to inspection?

Trident missiles, and the submarines which launch them to 'deliver' the warheads, are classified as a deterrent.  By having them we are somehow expected to believe that potential aggressors will think twice before they launch a first strike.

Mhairi Black MP puts the arguments against so much better than I could.  It's on her Facebook page which is here https://www.facebook.com/Mhairi.Black.SNP/?pnref=story 

I particularly like her comment that if we use the weapons in response to an attack then we are already dead so why should we want to kill millions more civilians. Other than out of spite that is.  

I also question Mrs May's assertion that the deterrent only works if there is a potential aggressor needs to know that we would use our weapons.  Is that really true?  They only have to be sure that we have them and that there is a fair probability that we would use them if they tried any funny business.  They don't need to be certain.  Political points scoring has already demonstrated a lack of subtlety in Mrs May, which is worrying.  She is going to be up against some very Machiavellian minds on the world stage. Keeping potential enemies guessing introduces an element of uncertainty into their minds and makes planning just that little bit more difficult.

As to the vote.  No real surprises there.  Back to business as usual in the Labour Party, and we wait to see developments in that quarter.

On a lighter note I see that Mrs May has given Boris Alexander, Dr Fox and David (so good they almost named him twice) Davis a flat share in Chevening. I wonder if they will have a rota for the hoovering.