Politics The General Election 2015

[Raven]

...because they are mobile...

 

[Raven]

I don't think @Scouse understands the concept of deterrent...

No there are no winners in a nuclear war, especially when one side can launch even when its own land based launch sites are wrecked. A mobile launch platform is the ultimate deterrent.

 

[Scouse]

No there are no winners in a nuclear war, especially when one side can launch even when its own land based launch sites are wrecked.

Regardless of circumstance both sides will be able to launch. There is no scenario where we can prevent launches or they can prevent ours - with or without trident.

So I ask you again, what's the point in Trident?

Nuclear deterrant works like this:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2erEi4e6h8k


If you lob nukes at us, we'll lob 'em at you. Neither of us is gonna win, but you'll die too...

Trident doesn't change or contribute to that. At all.

 

[Wij]

Wrong, launching from subs is absolutely the best option from all angles:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/0...t_cuts_what_the_lib_dems_want_is_disarmament/

 

[Scouse]

Even once the country itself has been largely incinerated it's subs remain safe and ready to hit back

...joy!

Explain to me why we need this functionality please Wij.

I mean, I'm all for pointlessly killing large swathes of uninvolved people after everyone I know is already dead as much as the next man...

...oh. wait.

 

[Embattle]

I've generally supported Trident but considering the £25bn+ (lets face facts it won't be on budget at all) costs involved with the need for new submarines to hold them I'm not quite as supportive as I once was and that is even taking into account how a considerable amount of that money would flow back in to the economy.

The principle behind MAD is well known and I generally agree with that principle, although recently I've given more thought to it and I don't think a sane person would truly use it against a country that didn't have nukes and the person that would probably wouldn't have a problem with attacking a country that did have nukes.

It's a tough one but I doubt it is an election winner/loser either way for most people.

 

[Raven]

...joy!

Explain to me why we need this functionality please Wij.

I mean, I'm all for pointlessly killing large swathes of uninvolved people after everyone I know is already dead as much as the next man...

...oh. wait.

...er as a deterrent?

Even if you turn my land into a boiling wasteland your major cities will be dust. So how about we lay off the nukes and talk.

Much catchier than trident too.

 

[Scouse]

Even if you turn my land into a boiling wasteland your major cities will be dust. So how about we lay off the nukes and talk.

Trident is about the hair-trigger functionality. My point, that I'm making clearly, is that we have the ability to murder that many innocents regardless of trident...

...though if we ever used it I think it'd be the ultimate action of a barbarous species and I'd come round to @Moriath's thinking on the human race.

 

[Wij]

There's much more likelihood of nuclear war happening if one side thinks it could win it by destroying your launchers. Simple really.

 

[Scouse]

There's much more likelihood of nuclear war happening if one side thinks it could win it by destroying your launchers. Simple really.

I agree. But I don't think any side thinks it can realistically achieve that.

I'm now loosely of the opinion (not 100%) that the UK could probably unilaterally disarm. If people are going to nuke us there's nothing we can realistically do about it and even if we did I care enough about the millions of innocents that we'd kill if we launched back that I'd simply not retaliate.

If we get to the point of a nuclear shooting war it's all over anyway. The human race needs a mindset change...

 

[Gwadien]

Frankly.

We could scrap Trident, since no-one knows where the sub's are anyway it could cease to exist secretly and then itll still act as a deterrent for years to come.

Issue is, doing it secretly will not stop it becoming a political issue

 

[old.user4556]

I honestly can't believe the amount of money we're prepared to spend on illegal wars and nuclear weapons. It saddens me greatly.

Nobody is ever going to fire nukes, and even if they do, we're all properly fucked anyway, so let's use the cash more constructively.

 

[Gwadien]

I honestly can't believe the amount of money we're prepared to spend on illegal wars and nuclear weapons. It saddens me greatly.

Nobody is ever going to fire nukes, and even if they do, we're all properly fucked anyway, so let's use the cash more constructively.

We could sell democracy

 

[Job]

We need our nukes (borrowed from the Yanks) more than ever, Russia squaring to the EU, if France and the UK got rid of our nukes Russia would push right across the continent knowing the US wouldn't get involved, they know we would use them if the alternative was invasion.
Seriously how fucking out of touch are the CND, like we get rid of our weapons and the bullets turn to flowers and we all skip through the fields.
Thousands of years of shit has us all squaring up to each other either militarily or diplomatically.
Our nukes would be the LAST thing I got rid of, the NHS would go first.

 

[old.user4556]

Deebs, we need an ultra fucking facepalm button.

 

[Job]

I read a passage by a famous military historian and he said 'In times of apparent peace people lose touch with how quickly fervent nationalism can be drummed up that leaps past the morality of the times and catches those who think peace is entrenched , unguarded.
Every major war started with everyone saying it can't happen now..it's whatever date.
As Churchill may have said..'speak softly but carry a large stick'

 

[DaGaffer]

As Churchill may have said..'speak softly but carry a large stick'

Theodore Roosevelt. Dumbass.

 

[Job]

Yes but it's a popular urban myth that he said it and I was trying to keep it British but did add may.

 

[Tom]

I read a passage by a famous military historian and he said 'In times of apparent peace people lose touch with how quickly fervent nationalism can be drummed up that leaps past the morality of the times and catches those who think peace is entrenched , unguarded.

In another thread, weren't you just recently bemoaning a lack of patriotism? And now you're criticising patriotism.

 

[Job]

Because if you stifle it ,you end up with Hitler and years of supressed feelings are easy to ignite...that is what PC has been doing for years.

 

[Job]

Someone is playing into Farage's hand, these stories are coming thick and fast...the simplistic push by the tories on the easy pickings like sham marriages is simply reinforcing peoples opinion that the UK is being swamped by chancers.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/561306/Migrant-crime-UK-Met-Police-arrests-one-three-foreigners

 

[Ormorof]

Still that means 2/3 are brits, so if we got rid of all the brits in britain crime would be even lower!

 

[Wij]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ion-to-axe-Saatchi-Bill-is-odd-and-wrong.html

Lib Dems have been hung out to dry by the Tories and Labour. They both knew the Saatchi bill was a dogs breakfast but are happy to let the Lib Dems take the blame from a public that won't understand the issues in a sensitive emotional subject.

Oh, and the Telegraph has been an absolute disgrace in this affair. Simply putting out Saatchi's press-releases as Telegraph editorials. Journalism is dead.

 

[Scouse]

the Telegraph has been an absolute disgrace

The HSBCToryGraph you mean.

I'd not heard about it tbh. But experimentation on dying patients set alarm bells ringing tbh - as did Saatchi's involvement (I think he's, basically, a cunt). What the lib dems said at the end of the article does seem the sensible route...

 

[Wij]

As someone on Twitter whose name I forget pointed out, all the supporters are still peddling the lie that this bill only applied to terminally ill patients with rare diseases. It was an open door to quackery.

Burnham knows this but is happy to let the Lib Dems take the fall and berate them for doing it. Lying cunt.

 

[Scouse]

So. Guy at work, brand new to contracting.

He started the same time as me and quickly came across as a bit of a whiny cunt - but I put that down to the fact that he'd been a permie all his life and all the perks he was used to (like people having to pretend to give a shit what he thinks, or care about his personal situation, or not be outright rude to him for any random reason they like) had evaporated - so I cut him a bit of slack. Tried to give him the low down on what the life was like and the definite no-no's of being a contractor (like expecting any of the above, telling someone outright that they're wrong (even if they are), complaining about shit too much etc. etc.).

I'm regretting that now. Aside from his rant about immigrants (in the canteen) a few weeks ago, last week he (loudly) told us that his missus' sister's gay and he fucking hates her, because she complains that gay people are put upon - and after all it's her own fault because she chose to be gay (and it's definitely a choice). And he thinks the same about whiny teachers too - they can always get another job doing something else if they don't like it.

If it wasn't a legal no-no I'm nailed-on sure he'd be openly racist.


Of course. He's a fucking UKIP voter...

 

[Scouse]

Oh, thought I'd posted that in "random annoying things"...

Anyway - it's never going to be high on the list of priorities but should Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons be in charge of inspecting a "detention centre" for immigrants?

I'm pretty uneasy about it tbh. Especially with the continual flow of pretty horrible stories coming from there...

 

[MYstIC G]

Am I the only one groaning that they're trying to make a news story about TV debates that nobody gives a shit about?

 

[Embattle]

No, they are a complete waste of time and I utterly hate them.

 

[TdC]

in an aside, the Dutch provincial elections, and the water board (yes, ladies!) elections are upcoming. I read the party lists and there is nobody I can be arsed voting for. I kinda feel bad, because usually I kind of like participating in a democracy. Prolly also has to do with the fact that the party I am a member of is not represented in these elections. Oh well.