I don't think this is going to play well for the tories. Putin is pulverising Ukraine and we're doing nothing to stop it. We haven't even touched dirty Russian money.
It's a pathetic response.
We should stand up to the bullies and drive them out of Ukraine even if that risks a nuclear war.
Maybe explain how the UK can drive Russia out of Ukraine on its own
You do know the entire membership of NATO is against no fly zones
Boris and Starmer are cooperating on Russian money but these London lawyers threatening the UK with litigation on behalf of their Russian clients need to be named and shamed and sanctioned
Uh, we don't suspend rule of law just because we don't like those being subject to it. They have every right to try to challenge and defend themselves against legal sanctions.
Not if we pass primary legislation they can't.
Even then they can still challenge it. They might not get the law struck down, but a court could still declare it incompatible with other legislation.
Article 1 of the ECHR? Maybe some lawyers will have an opinion on this.
In general, I don't think lawyers will like being told who they can defend.
I was thinking of the Human Rights Act. But yeah, I still believe that primary legislation can be challenged in court even if the prospects of striking it down are close to nil.
Courts don't 'strike down' legislation in that manner in the UK? I'm not sure declarations of non-compatibility would be worthy of that name, nor actions being unlawful as the legislation did not cover it/account for other legislation.
Have only had a scan through the last hour, but there does seem to be this odd thing where HY thinks our Trident missiles would restrain the russian bear. "we would threaten to attack Moscow" or some guff.
So lets understand how the hour or so of nuclear war would last. We threaten to nuke Moscow. They detect that we are at maximum readiness. So they choose to preempt - a nuclear attack on British military and 3C assets. That means they take out airbases, dockyards and command centres.
If you look at a map of this country and overlay these counterforce targets, you will see that we lose the country in a single attack. Like permanently lose it. Hard for London to order a counterattack when its had 8 SS-27 warheads flatten it and our cold war bunkers no longer exist.
So no, Trident will not defend London. If we fire them we are either in the process of being destroyed, or we have already been destroyed. I'd fare better up here with plenty of cows and potatoes and trees to cook them on, some of you less well.
Either way, its clear that the Big Dog has been leant on hard in his defence briefings. Instead of his usual detail-free waffle and bluster he is very clear when challenged over things like no-fly zones which means WWII which quickly could end us.
That is the whole reason Trident is on submarines not on land.
A Trident nuclear missile would be launched on Moscow from a submarine if the UK was attacked depending on what the PM of the time had written in their letter of last resort.
The PM and Cabinet have a nuclear bunker ready for them anyway if needed. I have already made clear I oppose a no fly zone and troops in Ukraine and only support sanctions.
This scenario is entirely based on most of Europe falling to Russian invasion and the UK being next in line
Thats not what you said though. You said that Trident would defend London. It won't.
If as you said we launch it at Moscow to stop the reds invading the UK they would simply launch a full counter strike and destroy the whole country.
If as you now say we launch at what used to be Moscow because the letter says launch they're opening the letter because London has been destroyed along with the rest of the UK. And they have missiles to fire because they were not used in the nuclear exchange which destroyed western civilisation because SLBMs are held back as a second strike platform.
So, we launch and bring about our own destruction. Or we launch having been destroyed.
Either way, Trident is NOT defending if London as you claim.
It is. If the Russians destroy London, we destroy Moscow by launching a Trident nuclear missile from a submarine.
That would be the risk the Russians would take.
Yes London may already have been destroyed when Trident was launched but so what? Moscow would still be destroyed in the end too
Unsure if dense or not listening.
Nuclear strategists consider three stages of nuclear war: Theatre wide - use of air-dropped nuclear weapons on a specific target in theatre. As an example NATO drops B61 bombs onto that Russian military column. Russia responds in kind against NATO forces Counterforce - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy weapons and 3C capabilities. This would EXCLUDE Trident but would destroy 3C targets such as London and Moscow Countervalue - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy utterly.
So we would see a counterforce exchange where US missiles and bombers burst over Russian targets and theirs over NATO targets. Both capitals and millions of people are dead. We then get talking from whomever is left to try and stop the war there, with submarine systems held in reserve to threaten total destruction. Not that we would care as the counterforce strike would do so much damage to the UK that we would cease to function as a nation.
Only afterwards - the letter of last resort or an explicit order - does Trident fire. And not at smoking ruins like Moscow. We're off slaughtering the 600k civilians in Irkutsk.
How is Trident defending London as you keep saying? That is *explicitly* not its role.
I think this is all a lot less likely than last week for now, so maybe we should all be thinking on that calmer basis for the moment.
I am calm, and I'm unclear about the danger having passed. The longer this goes on with Russia not just failing to win but being economically broken and globally pariahed, the greater the risk that Putin decides he need to step it up.
I don't for a minute mean he would go straight to nuclear. But what if he decides the way to break the resolve of the Ukranians is to fire missiles into Kyiv from afar and slaughter as many people as possible?
Ukraine is not a NATO country and we won't go to war to defend it. But we *might* be forced into trying to enforce a blockade or no fly zone if the slaughter of the innocents becomes too much for us. And then...
I don't think this is going to play well for the tories. Putin is pulverising Ukraine and we're doing nothing to stop it. We haven't even touched dirty Russian money.
It's a pathetic response.
We should stand up to the bullies and drive them out of Ukraine even if that risks a nuclear war.
where people say it’s the most media covered war ever thanks to social media - but not true as both sides very sensibly don’t want to concede any helpful intel or succour to the other side via media or footage. I appreciate the propaganda from all our media, government department and MOD departments, and especially so from the Ukrainian spin teams all the disasters the Russian invasion is having is actually true to keep moral and resolve up is very important at time of war, and we are at war too in UK not neutral observer, but it’s in place of actually having news from the war, so maybe not preparing us properly for how it’s going? Coverage for us across all media, old and new, It’s bit like Wandavision at the moment - reality keeps breaking through to jar us from time to time with inexplicable moments that show us Ukraine armoured columns wiped out, Ukraine maps turning red, or where the PM was berated “you are just so close watching us die and be defeated”.
Maybe it’s just something about me craving to know what’s really happening, but if they said switch to red button now for our best most balanced assessment of what’s really happening that’ll be like a glass of horrible cold water chucked in your face, I think I would take the splash of horrible cold water and face up to what really is happening, because not knowing what is really going on can feel worse than actually knowing Do you know what I mean?
I’m finding it horrible. I really sad deflated week of my life ☹️
Have only had a scan through the last hour, but there does seem to be this odd thing where HY thinks our Trident missiles would restrain the russian bear. "we would threaten to attack Moscow" or some guff.
So lets understand how the hour or so of nuclear war would last. We threaten to nuke Moscow. They detect that we are at maximum readiness. So they choose to preempt - a nuclear attack on British military and 3C assets. That means they take out airbases, dockyards and command centres.
If you look at a map of this country and overlay these counterforce targets, you will see that we lose the country in a single attack. Like permanently lose it. Hard for London to order a counterattack when its had 8 SS-27 warheads flatten it and our cold war bunkers no longer exist.
So no, Trident will not defend London. If we fire them we are either in the process of being destroyed, or we have already been destroyed. I'd fare better up here with plenty of cows and potatoes and trees to cook them on, some of you less well.
Either way, its clear that the Big Dog has been leant on hard in his defence briefings. Instead of his usual detail-free waffle and bluster he is very clear when challenged over things like no-fly zones which means WWII which quickly could end us.
That is the whole reason Trident is on submarines not on land.
A Trident nuclear missile would be launched on Moscow from a submarine if the UK was attacked depending on what the PM of the time had written in their letter of last resort.
The PM and Cabinet have a nuclear bunker ready for them anyway if needed. I have already made clear I oppose a no fly zone and troops in Ukraine and only support sanctions.
This scenario is entirely based on most of Europe falling to Russian invasion and the UK being next in line
Thats not what you said though. You said that Trident would defend London. It won't.
If as you said we launch it at Moscow to stop the reds invading the UK they would simply launch a full counter strike and destroy the whole country.
If as you now say we launch at what used to be Moscow because the letter says launch they're opening the letter because London has been destroyed along with the rest of the UK. And they have missiles to fire because they were not used in the nuclear exchange which destroyed western civilisation because SLBMs are held back as a second strike platform.
So, we launch and bring about our own destruction. Or we launch having been destroyed.
Either way, Trident is NOT defending if London as you claim.
It is. If the Russians destroy London, we destroy Moscow by launching a Trident nuclear missile from a submarine.
That would be the risk the Russians would take.
Yes London may already have been destroyed when Trident was launched but so what? Moscow would still be destroyed in the end too
Unsure if dense or not listening.
Nuclear strategists consider three stages of nuclear war: Theatre wide - use of air-dropped nuclear weapons on a specific target in theatre. As an example NATO drops B61 bombs onto that Russian military column. Russia responds in kind against NATO forces Counterforce - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy weapons and 3C capabilities. This would EXCLUDE Trident but would destroy 3C targets such as London and Moscow Countervalue - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy utterly.
So we would see a counterforce exchange where US missiles and bombers burst over Russian targets and theirs over NATO targets. Both capitals and millions of people are dead. We then get talking from whomever is left to try and stop the war there, with submarine systems held in reserve to threaten total destruction. Not that we would care as the counterforce strike would do so much damage to the UK that we would cease to function as a nation.
Only afterwards - the letter of last resort or an explicit order - does Trident fire. And not at smoking ruins like Moscow. We're off slaughtering the 600k civilians in Irkutsk.
How is Trident defending London as you keep saying? That is *explicitly* not its role.
I think this is all a lot less likely than last week for now, so maybe we should all be thinking on that calmer basis for the moment.
I am calm, and I'm unclear about the danger having passed. The longer this goes on with Russia not just failing to win but being economically broken and globally pariahed, the greater the risk that Putin decides he need to step it up.
I don't for a minute mean he would go straight to nuclear. But what if he decides the way to break the resolve of the Ukranians is to fire missiles into Kyiv from afar and slaughter as many people as possible?
Ukraine is not a NATO country and we won't go to war to defend it. But we *might* be forced into trying to enforce a blockade or no fly zone if the slaughter of the innocents becomes too much for us. And then...
Putin meeting some arbitrary military objective and declaring victory won’t make sanctions go away. That only happens now if he withdraws and negotiates.
I don't think this is going to play well for the tories. Putin is pulverising Ukraine and we're doing nothing to stop it. We haven't even touched dirty Russian money.
It's a pathetic response.
We should stand up to the bullies and drive them out of Ukraine even if that risks a nuclear war.
That would be nice. The trouble is that at a moral level the existence of mutually assured destruction not only changes the textbooks for generals about how to fight, it changes entirely the landscape of what constitutes a just war. To wage a just war (both secular and religious traditions are onto this) one of the features has to be proportion, risk, the chance of winning, of doing more good than harm and so on.
So in 1939 we went into war with Germany, after Poland, having weighed up the prospects. It may well have been a balanced decision, with arguments on both sides.
Now imagine that in 1939 Germany held the power to destroy in 24 hours the entire of western Europe and North America and we had no way of stopping it.
What would we have decided?
That's what our leaders face now. God help them.
Hitler was so close to getting nukes first. It is a truly terrifying concept and counter-factual, and of course the basis for The Man in the High Castle. A world where Hitler wins and rules the planet
The difference between that idea, and what we face now, is that both sides - many sides - have nukes. A Mexican stand off
He was no-where near. If the attempted reactor in Bavaria had a bit more heavy water, it would have run away and achieved the world's first melt down. The German scientists on the project were out of their depth
That's interesting - any decent site with more info, please?
Pictures of the re-creation (there's a museum there now)
As to the likely result of running it - see "Hitler's Nuclear Weapons" by Geoffrey Brooks. There was no control system. If it had gone critical, it would have run away in seconds, killing the operators with radiation and escalating to... fun...
I don't think this is going to play well for the tories. Putin is pulverising Ukraine and we're doing nothing to stop it. We haven't even touched dirty Russian money.
It's a pathetic response.
We should stand up to the bullies and drive them out of Ukraine even if that risks a nuclear war.
Maybe explain how the UK can drive Russia out of Ukraine on its own
You do know the entire membership of NATO is against no fly zones
Boris and Starmer are cooperating on Russian money but these London lawyers threatening the UK with litigation on behalf of their Russian clients need to be named and shamed and sanctioned
Uh, we don't suspend rule of law just because we don't like those being subject to it. They have every right to try to challenge and defend themselves against legal sanctions.
Not if we pass primary legislation they can't.
Even then they can still challenge it. They might not get the law struck down, but a court could still declare it incompatible with other legislation.
Article 1 of the ECHR? Maybe some lawyers will have an opinion on this.
In general, I don't think lawyers will like being told who they can defend.
I was thinking of the Human Rights Act. But yeah, I still believe that primary legislation can be challenged in court even if the prospects of striking it down are close to nil.
There are a few different things in play here - in particular, it's not necessarily about challenging a law in its entirety in order to strike it down so much as arguing that a specific provision or impact hasn't been properly considered, or is constrained by/incompatible with something else... and so on, in order to defend an individual case (I do tax, not public law so this is not what you'd call an expert view). If you have a look at the kind of challenges the Good Law Project have taken to judicial review in the last couple of years you get the idea.
I think the better way of looking at it is this: we are constrained by relatively few obligations following Brexit (Parliament can now generally amend retained EU law, albeit with a risk of impact on the TCA and some other modes of engagement with the EU) and as far as I know we are not operating within any international constraints which do not also apply to EU member states. So it is hard to see a genuine reason that the UK as a sovereign nation can't legislate effectively to do things that EU nations are now doing. Reasons might include "it's difficult" or "we are worried about the longer-term precedent" or "we don't really want to".
Have only had a scan through the last hour, but there does seem to be this odd thing where HY thinks our Trident missiles would restrain the russian bear. "we would threaten to attack Moscow" or some guff.
So lets understand how the hour or so of nuclear war would last. We threaten to nuke Moscow. They detect that we are at maximum readiness. So they choose to preempt - a nuclear attack on British military and 3C assets. That means they take out airbases, dockyards and command centres.
If you look at a map of this country and overlay these counterforce targets, you will see that we lose the country in a single attack. Like permanently lose it. Hard for London to order a counterattack when its had 8 SS-27 warheads flatten it and our cold war bunkers no longer exist.
So no, Trident will not defend London. If we fire them we are either in the process of being destroyed, or we have already been destroyed. I'd fare better up here with plenty of cows and potatoes and trees to cook them on, some of you less well.
Either way, its clear that the Big Dog has been leant on hard in his defence briefings. Instead of his usual detail-free waffle and bluster he is very clear when challenged over things like no-fly zones which means WWII which quickly could end us.
That is the whole reason Trident is on submarines not on land.
A Trident nuclear missile would be launched on Moscow from a submarine if the UK was attacked depending on what the PM of the time had written in their letter of last resort.
The PM and Cabinet have a nuclear bunker ready for them anyway if needed. I have already made clear I oppose a no fly zone and troops in Ukraine and only support sanctions.
This scenario is entirely based on most of Europe falling to Russian invasion and the UK being next in line
Thats not what you said though. You said that Trident would defend London. It won't.
If as you said we launch it at Moscow to stop the reds invading the UK they would simply launch a full counter strike and destroy the whole country.
If as you now say we launch at what used to be Moscow because the letter says launch they're opening the letter because London has been destroyed along with the rest of the UK. And they have missiles to fire because they were not used in the nuclear exchange which destroyed western civilisation because SLBMs are held back as a second strike platform.
So, we launch and bring about our own destruction. Or we launch having been destroyed.
Either way, Trident is NOT defending if London as you claim.
It is. If the Russians destroy London, we destroy Moscow by launching a Trident nuclear missile from a submarine.
That would be the risk the Russians would take.
Yes London may already have been destroyed when Trident was launched but so what? Moscow would still be destroyed in the end too
Unsure if dense or not listening.
Nuclear strategists consider three stages of nuclear war: Theatre wide - use of air-dropped nuclear weapons on a specific target in theatre. As an example NATO drops B61 bombs onto that Russian military column. Russia responds in kind against NATO forces Counterforce - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy weapons and 3C capabilities. This would EXCLUDE Trident but would destroy 3C targets such as London and Moscow Countervalue - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy utterly.
So we would see a counterforce exchange where US missiles and bombers burst over Russian targets and theirs over NATO targets. Both capitals and millions of people are dead. We then get talking from whomever is left to try and stop the war there, with submarine systems held in reserve to threaten total destruction. Not that we would care as the counterforce strike would do so much damage to the UK that we would cease to function as a nation.
Only afterwards - the letter of last resort or an explicit order - does Trident fire. And not at smoking ruins like Moscow. We're off slaughtering the 600k civilians in Irkutsk.
How is Trident defending London as you keep saying? That is *explicitly* not its role.
Without wishing to get into the comedy of all of the above - most people who have looked at the issue of nuclear war think (well, the rational ones) that escalation to "strategic" level would be inevitable. So when you drop a tactical nuke on a military column, you are The End Of The World.
Which is why I would rather we don't do that, please.
Yep. Once someone bursts a nuke it can get really bad really quickly. And with Russia already flexing its strategic forces' muscles and using the nuke work casually you can see the scenario where the US Joint Chiefs are having to have the conversation with Biden about the need to remove the threat.
The simple reality is as WOPR said on War Games - the only way to win is not to play. Nuclear War almost happened at least three times and all would have been a mistake. Lets not even get ourselves into the position where mistakes can happen. Yeltsin had his nuclear key activated in their launch order briefcase in 1995. He managed not to and he was permanently pissed.
Would Putin have the same restraint in a similar "we're under attack!!!" circumstances?
BREAKING: Ukraine's military said the southern city of Kherson is not under Russian control. “By now... heavy fights are taking place near Kherson. The city is not under Russian control. They use it as a temporary base” for units to transfer, an armed forces representative said. https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1499365512345800707
That much was obvious yesterday. The Russians went *through* Kherson, and on towards the next city. They’ve not come close to holding it, and are liable to have their supply lines chocked from behind.
I don't think this is going to play well for the tories. Putin is pulverising Ukraine and we're doing nothing to stop it. We haven't even touched dirty Russian money.
It's a pathetic response.
We should stand up to the bullies and drive them out of Ukraine even if that risks a nuclear war.
That would be nice. The trouble is that at a moral level the existence of mutually assured destruction not only changes the textbooks for generals about how to fight, it changes entirely the landscape of what constitutes a just war. To wage a just war (both secular and religious traditions are onto this) one of the features has to be proportion, risk, the chance of winning, of doing more good than harm and so on.
So in 1939 we went into war with Germany, after Poland, having weighed up the prospects. It may well have been a balanced decision, with arguments on both sides.
Now imagine that in 1939 Germany held the power to destroy in 24 hours the entire of western Europe and North America and we had no way of stopping it.
What would we have decided?
That's what our leaders face now. God help them.
Hitler was so close to getting nukes first. It is a truly terrifying concept and counter-factual, and of course the basis for The Man in the High Castle. A world where Hitler wins and rules the planet
The difference between that idea, and what we face now, is that both sides - many sides - have nukes. A Mexican stand off
He was no-where near. If the attempted reactor in Bavaria had a bit more heavy water, it would have run away and achieved the world's first melt down. The German scientists on the project were out of their depth
That's interesting - any decent site with more info, please?
Pictures of the re-creation (there's a museum there now)
As to the likely result of running it - see "Hitler's Nuclear Weapons" by Geoffrey Brooks. There was no control system. If it had gone critical, it would have run away in seconds, killing the operators with radiation and escalating to... fun...
Not bad, albeit Ukraine's not had a smooth ride of things.
I didnt know George Osborne was moonlighting as head of Russia!
Interesting to look at Putin ageing in those photos. From 2000-2014 he ages ‘normally’. In fact quite well for a senior politician. Suddenly in the latest photo he looks decidedly worse. Barely recognisable
Adds to the idea he might be unwell
Facial filler injections. Google 'pillow face' for a range of other fans.
Yes that is true it does give succour to those who want or need it. I am just concerned about the old echo chamber element of twitter. We can't condemn it when we disagree with its nature on the one hand, and cite it as a key element in the fight for truth on the other.
Yes, Twitter's basically a neutral tool for projecting unfiltered chatter from all kinds of people, and no more reliable that what a stranger tells you in a pub. The general ethos of mutually supportive networks encourages rah-rah cheerleading - the good guys are winning, the other side are idiots. On a similar note it's curious that we've shut down access to RussiaToday, which I suspect had a viewership close to zero before this. From today, we're not allowed to look at it, which is something I don't think we've ever done before - e.g. I believe it's possible to look at militant Islamist websites, and during WW2 AFAIK we never bothered to try to jam Lord Haw-Haw.
I've no brief for the war, which is basically neo-Czarist imperialism, but understanding what everyone is saying is important, and if we stop people doing that, it's harder to complain about Russian censorship of Western comment. It also makes it harder to have an unconstrained discussion as one starts to think that there's something suspect about even knowing what the other side are saying.
I agree we shouldn’t ban Russia Today. But was it a UK political decision? I thought it was done of necessity for some complex EU-related reason
RT hasn’t been banned by Britain. The satellite operator who sends the broadcast feed has terminated their contract. Google has also binned their Youtube page.
I can get it easily online. So it’s definitely not ‘banned’. Which is good - banning your enemy’s obvious bullshit is a sign of weakness. Unless it is actively inciting treason and rapine. I agree with NPXMP on this
And FWIW Russia Today is not as bad as Al Jazeera, esp AJ Arabic (which we have never banned). There have been times when AJA has been openly pro-jihadist, even sympathetic to ISIS
Al Jazeera was a part of why Qatar fell out with its neighbours a few years back. Yes, they were basically supporting ISIS and the Iranian regime.
Not bad, albeit Ukraine's not had a smooth ride of things.
I didnt know George Osborne was moonlighting as head of Russia!
Interesting to look at Putin ageing in those photos. From 2000-2014 he ages ‘normally’. In fact quite well for a senior politician. Suddenly in the latest photo he looks decidedly worse. Barely recognisable
Adds to the idea he might be unwell
Facial filler injections. Google 'pillow face' for a range of other fans.
I'm going with steroids. I have seen very similar facial results in a close family member, when they were given as 'treatment' for an incurable brain tumour. Behavioural change went with both the treatment and the disease.
Perhaps I was a bit close to that so I'm seeing things that aren't there, but I'd have thought it was within the bounds of possibility based on what we have actually seen (which isn't very much).
Not bad, albeit Ukraine's not had a smooth ride of things.
I didnt know George Osborne was moonlighting as head of Russia!
Interesting to look at Putin ageing in those photos. From 2000-2014 he ages ‘normally’. In fact quite well for a senior politician. Suddenly in the latest photo he looks decidedly worse. Barely recognisable
Adds to the idea he might be unwell
Facial filler injections. Google 'pillow face' for a range of other fans.
Interesting suggestion. It may well be imagineation, but he does look like he's gotten wider in the face more than just getting generally fatter as he ages. It's a bit uncanny valley.
Have only had a scan through the last hour, but there does seem to be this odd thing where HY thinks our Trident missiles would restrain the russian bear. "we would threaten to attack Moscow" or some guff.
So lets understand how the hour or so of nuclear war would last. We threaten to nuke Moscow. They detect that we are at maximum readiness. So they choose to preempt - a nuclear attack on British military and 3C assets. That means they take out airbases, dockyards and command centres.
If you look at a map of this country and overlay these counterforce targets, you will see that we lose the country in a single attack. Like permanently lose it. Hard for London to order a counterattack when its had 8 SS-27 warheads flatten it and our cold war bunkers no longer exist.
So no, Trident will not defend London. If we fire them we are either in the process of being destroyed, or we have already been destroyed. I'd fare better up here with plenty of cows and potatoes and trees to cook them on, some of you less well.
Either way, its clear that the Big Dog has been leant on hard in his defence briefings. Instead of his usual detail-free waffle and bluster he is very clear when challenged over things like no-fly zones which means WWII which quickly could end us.
That is the whole reason Trident is on submarines not on land.
A Trident nuclear missile would be launched on Moscow from a submarine if the UK was attacked depending on what the PM of the time had written in their letter of last resort.
The PM and Cabinet have a nuclear bunker ready for them anyway if needed. I have already made clear I oppose a no fly zone and troops in Ukraine and only support sanctions.
This scenario is entirely based on most of Europe falling to Russian invasion and the UK being next in line
Thats not what you said though. You said that Trident would defend London. It won't.
If as you said we launch it at Moscow to stop the reds invading the UK they would simply launch a full counter strike and destroy the whole country.
If as you now say we launch at what used to be Moscow because the letter says launch they're opening the letter because London has been destroyed along with the rest of the UK. And they have missiles to fire because they were not used in the nuclear exchange which destroyed western civilisation because SLBMs are held back as a second strike platform.
So, we launch and bring about our own destruction. Or we launch having been destroyed.
Either way, Trident is NOT defending if London as you claim.
It is. If the Russians destroy London, we destroy Moscow by launching a Trident nuclear missile from a submarine.
That would be the risk the Russians would take.
Yes London may already have been destroyed when Trident was launched but so what? Moscow would still be destroyed in the end too
Unsure if dense or not listening.
Nuclear strategists consider three stages of nuclear war: Theatre wide - use of air-dropped nuclear weapons on a specific target in theatre. As an example NATO drops B61 bombs onto that Russian military column. Russia responds in kind against NATO forces Counterforce - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy weapons and 3C capabilities. This would EXCLUDE Trident but would destroy 3C targets such as London and Moscow Countervalue - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy utterly.
So we would see a counterforce exchange where US missiles and bombers burst over Russian targets and theirs over NATO targets. Both capitals and millions of people are dead. We then get talking from whomever is left to try and stop the war there, with submarine systems held in reserve to threaten total destruction. Not that we would care as the counterforce strike would do so much damage to the UK that we would cease to function as a nation.
Only afterwards - the letter of last resort or an explicit order - does Trident fire. And not at smoking ruins like Moscow. We're off slaughtering the 600k civilians in Irkutsk.
How is Trident defending London as you keep saying? That is *explicitly* not its role.
I think this is all a lot less likely than last week for now, so maybe we should all be thinking on that calmer basis for the moment.
I am calm, and I'm unclear about the danger having passed. The longer this goes on with Russia not just failing to win but being economically broken and globally pariahed, the greater the risk that Putin decides he need to step it up.
I don't for a minute mean he would go straight to nuclear. But what if he decides the way to break the resolve of the Ukranians is to fire missiles into Kyiv from afar and slaughter as many people as possible?
Ukraine is not a NATO country and we won't go to war to defend it. But we *might* be forced into trying to enforce a blockade or no fly zone if the slaughter of the innocents becomes too much for us. And then...
Putin meeting some arbitrary military objective and declaring victory won’t make sanctions go away. That only happens now if he withdraws and negotiates.
It's presumably diplomatically tricky. The sanctions are for the invasion and so even if he withdraws they shouldn't all be removed since those dead people won't come back to life, but theoretically if he did pull out there would be a relaxation as a quid pro quo to encourage him to back down.
But equally if he is saying he has achieved his aims then there is no incentive at all to remove them.
Not bad, albeit Ukraine's not had a smooth ride of things.
I didnt know George Osborne was moonlighting as head of Russia!
Interesting to look at Putin ageing in those photos. From 2000-2014 he ages ‘normally’. In fact quite well for a senior politician. Suddenly in the latest photo he looks decidedly worse. Barely recognisable
Adds to the idea he might be unwell
Facial filler injections. Google 'pillow face' for a range of other fans.
Interesting suggestion. It may well be imagineation, but he does look like he's gotten wider in the face more than just getting generally fatter as he ages. It's a bit uncanny valley.
If you look at Putin's features in the earlier pics, he has thin craggy features with pronounced under-eye wrinkles. This would become more pronounced with age. Injectable fillers would reverse this, lifting the cheeks and plumping out the features. Putin is extremely image conscious and would not want to look elderly. Plus this sort of work is extremely common in Russia - look at any wealthy Russian women over 60; it ain't a natural look.
Actually, I don't think it's too horrific a job. If you want to see cosmetic procedures gone wrong, look at poor old Biden.
Not bad, albeit Ukraine's not had a smooth ride of things.
I didnt know George Osborne was moonlighting as head of Russia!
Interesting to look at Putin ageing in those photos. From 2000-2014 he ages ‘normally’. In fact quite well for a senior politician. Suddenly in the latest photo he looks decidedly worse. Barely recognisable
Adds to the idea he might be unwell
Facial filler injections. Google 'pillow face' for a range of other fans.
Interesting suggestion. It may well be imagineation, but he does look like he's gotten wider in the face more than just getting generally fatter as he ages. It's a bit uncanny valley.
If you look at Putin's features in the earlier pics, he has thin craggy features with pronounced under-eye wrinkles. This would become more pronounced with age. Injectable fillers would reverse this, lifting the cheeks and plumping out the features. Putin is extremely image conscious and would not want to look elderly. Plus this sort of work is extremely common in Russia - look at any wealthy Russian women over 60; it ain't a natural look.
Actually, I don't think it's too horrific a job. If you want to see cosmetic procedures gone wrong, look at poor old Biden.
I guess he left it too late to try out the 'unrealistically thick and dark hair even in your late 80s' dictator look, a la Mubarak and others.
Not bad, albeit Ukraine's not had a smooth ride of things.
I didnt know George Osborne was moonlighting as head of Russia!
Interesting to look at Putin ageing in those photos. From 2000-2014 he ages ‘normally’. In fact quite well for a senior politician. Suddenly in the latest photo he looks decidedly worse. Barely recognisable
Adds to the idea he might be unwell
Facial filler injections. Google 'pillow face' for a range of other fans.
Interesting suggestion. It may well be imagineation, but he does look like he's gotten wider in the face more than just getting generally fatter as he ages. It's a bit uncanny valley.
If you look at Putin's features in the earlier pics, he has thin craggy features with pronounced under-eye wrinkles. This would become more pronounced with age. Injectable fillers would reverse this, lifting the cheeks and plumping out the features. Putin is extremely image conscious and would not want to look elderly. Plus this sort of work is extremely common in Russia - look at any wealthy Russian women over 60; it ain't a natural look.
Actually, I don't think it's too horrific a job. If you want to see cosmetic procedures gone wrong, look at poor old Biden.
I guess he left it too late to try out the 'unrealistically thick and dark hair even in your late 80s' dictator look, a la Mubarak and others.
He's not really a 'dripping with medals' type of dictator, but still seems very anxious to project youthful vigour.
Comments
I don't for a minute mean he would go straight to nuclear. But what if he decides the way to break the resolve of the Ukranians is to fire missiles into Kyiv from afar and slaughter as many people as possible?
Ukraine is not a NATO country and we won't go to war to defend it. But we *might* be forced into trying to enforce a blockade or no fly zone if the slaughter of the innocents becomes too much for us. And then...
Maybe it’s just something about me craving to know what’s really happening, but if they said switch to red button now for our best most balanced assessment of what’s really happening that’ll be like a glass of horrible cold water chucked in your face, I think I would take the splash of horrible cold water and face up to what really is happening, because not knowing what is really going on can feel worse than actually knowing Do you know what I mean?
I’m finding it horrible. I really sad deflated week of my life ☹️
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomkeller-Museum
As to the likely result of running it - see "Hitler's Nuclear Weapons" by Geoffrey Brooks. There was no control system. If it had gone critical, it would have run away in seconds, killing the operators with radiation and escalating to... fun...
I think the better way of looking at it is this: we are constrained by relatively few obligations following Brexit (Parliament can now generally amend retained EU law, albeit with a risk of impact on the TCA and some other modes of engagement with the EU) and as far as I know we are not operating within any international constraints which do not also apply to EU member states. So it is hard to see a genuine reason that the UK as a sovereign nation can't legislate effectively to do things that EU nations are now doing. Reasons might include "it's difficult" or "we are worried about the longer-term precedent" or "we don't really want to".
The simple reality is as WOPR said on War Games - the only way to win is not to play. Nuclear War almost happened at least three times and all would have been a mistake. Lets not even get ourselves into the position where mistakes can happen. Yeltsin had his nuclear key activated in their launch order briefcase in 1995. He managed not to and he was permanently pissed.
Would Putin have the same restraint in a similar "we're under attack!!!" circumstances?
Covid denier ✔
Anti masker ✔
Vaccine sceptic ✔
Massive narcissistic rsole ✔
Putinist ✔
Why Scottish Nationalists are such useful idiots to Putin:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/russia-ukraine-crisis-why-vladimir-putin-is-interested-in-scotland-and-scottish-nationalists-e2-80-93-dr-alison-smith/ar-AAUvurh?ocid=uxbndlbing
Perhaps I was a bit close to that so I'm seeing things that aren't there, but I'd have thought it was within the bounds of possibility based on what we have actually seen (which isn't very much).
He might just be abusing them of course.
Next up, Russian medics selflessly provide a comforting cigarette to those who have been shot by Russian bullets.
But equally if he is saying he has achieved his aims then there is no incentive at all to remove them.
Actually, I don't think it's too horrific a job. If you want to see cosmetic procedures gone wrong, look at poor old Biden.