Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A taste of things to come.. – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    O/T

    Not good for test cricket fans.

    "South Africa are a world-beating team, top of the Test Championship, have one of the most exciting fast-bowling attacks to come here in years and they cannot even get someone to pay for the advertising space on their shirts. In England we are lucky enough to be still worrying about whether Test cricket has a future whereas in South Africa one prominent administrator put it in an off-the-record conversation this week: “The battle has already been lost.” They cannot really afford to play Test cricket any more."

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/aug/21/south-africa-england-test-series-lords-first-test
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    He was particularly accurate with regards to the strength of the Russian armed forces.

    Indeed DA would happily back Putin over the UK
    Not sure about that one.

    Don't think I've ever heard him back anything other than Extinction Rebellion.
    Also, did HYUFD ever serve his country in any capacity other than the Cub Scouts? DA certainly had a riskier time than learning how to put on a woggle and say 'dib-dib'.
    FUDHY is always ready for action.

    We're getting to the point where HYUFD is advocating hugely expensive nationalised factories and workforces.
    If the alternative is being obliterated by Putin of course
    Being obliterated by Putin’s pal Trump looks more feasible.
    Hardly but if he withdrew from NATO we would have no choice (though Putin never dared invade Ukraine under Trump nor did Xi so openly threaten Taiwan as under Biden)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Not good for test cricket fans.

    "South Africa are a world-beating team, top of the Test Championship, have one of the most exciting fast-bowling attacks to come here in years and they cannot even get someone to pay for the advertising space on their shirts. In England we are lucky enough to be still worrying about whether Test cricket has a future whereas in South Africa one prominent administrator put it in an off-the-record conversation this week: “The battle has already been lost.” They cannot really afford to play Test cricket any more."

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/aug/21/south-africa-england-test-series-lords-first-test

    We had friends who had just returned from South Africa at my birthday party last night. They hadn't been there since before Covid, four or five years ago, and their view was that things had substantially deteriorated.

    This might be just another symptom.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
    You are, as usual, quite ignorant. The French have home-developed ICBMs on their submarines. The UK doesn't and won't for many years.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    Ironic.

    "Journalists at rightwing Daily Express set to strike over pay
    Staff from newspaper that rails against ‘militant trade unions’ will join sister outlets in striking on Friday"

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/21/journalists-at-rightwing-daily-express-set-to-strike-over-pay
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    edited August 2022
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
    I'm talking about 2025 when he wins again not a few months ago.

    Like him or not Russia never invaded Ukraine and China never tried to blockade Taiwan when Trump was president
    Although there were plenty of Russian troops in Ukraine during that time. Indeed, they had effectively already invaded Ukraine.

    Now, I agree that Biden's willingness to pull troops from Afghanistan - and damn the consequences - emboldened Putin. But I don't think there is any evidence that Putin was scared of Trump's America.

    Also: China hasn't blockaded Taiwan.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    edited August 2022
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
    You are, as usual, quite ignorant. The French have home-developed ICBMs on their submarines. The UK doesn't and won't for many years.
    We have submarines too you know we can use for home developed missiles
  • MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
    OK.

    Here's the story.

    The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.

    However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.

    This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:

    (1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought
    (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
    Or far more likely:

    (3) Our models of early galaxy formation need a little tweaking.
    Or most likely of all

    (4) The paper is bullshit
    You can't get something from nothing.
    Where did the original 'something' come from then?
    It has always been there.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,505
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
    You are, as usual, quite ignorant. The French have home-developed ICBMs on their submarines. The UK doesn't and won't for many years.
    Be that as it may, there are plenty of options for the UK to possess an independent nuclear deterrent without developing and building our own ICBMs. Though it might be good to look at building that capacity anyway.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,338
    edited August 2022

    Andy_JS said:

    "RAF recruitment head refused 'unlawful' order to 'prioritise women and ethnic minorities over white men', leaked email reveals

    The group captain - whose subsequent resignation was revealed by Sky News - told her boss in the email earlier this month that she was not willing to allocate slots on RAF training courses based purely on a specific gender or ethnicity, according to a copy of the message, seen by Sky News."

    https://news.sky.com/story/raf-recruitment-chief-refused-unlawful-order-to-prioritise-women-and-ethnic-minorities-over-white-men-leaked-email-reveals-12678612

    Not a great look for Wallace.
    It's not a great look for the armed forces. However it is a very common phenomenon; middle aged men in male dominated professions in senior positions rolling out quotas for women in terms of entry and promotion. In doing so they find a place in the 'woke' revolution and congratulate themselves on their progressive credentials. I've seen this phenomenon quite a bit on PB.

    Few people ask the question as to whether this is fair on men who are younger and at an earlier stage in their career - in this case the recruiting officer who was a woman seemed to conclude it had got to the point where it was actually illegal discrimination. My guess is that it won't change anything though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Andy_JS said:

    Ironic.

    "Journalists at rightwing Daily Express set to strike over pay
    Staff from newspaper that rails against ‘militant trade unions’ will join sister outlets in striking on Friday"

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/21/journalists-at-rightwing-daily-express-set-to-strike-over-pay

    I legitimately protest over wages.

    You strike.

    They attempt to bring the country to its knees in communist tool downing class war.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
    I'm talking about 2025 when he wins again not a few months ago.

    Like him or not Russia never invaded Ukraine and China never tried to blockade Taiwan when Trump was president
    Although there were plenty of Russian troops in Ukraine during that time. Indeed, they had effectively already invaded Ukraine.

    Now, I agree that Biden's willingness to pull troops from Afghanistan - and damn the consequences - emboldened Putin. But I don't think there is any evidence that Putin was scared of Trump's America.

    Also: China hasn't blockaded Taiwan.
    A few in Crimea, they never went as far into invading Ukraine proper as now
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
    You are, as usual, quite ignorant. The French have home-developed ICBMs on their submarines. The UK doesn't and won't for many years.
    Be that as it may, there are plenty of options for the UK to possess an independent nuclear deterrent without developing and building our own ICBMs. Though it might be good to look at building that capacity anyway.
    More to the point, the UK has made no effort to do so. It no longer even uses any nukes other than Trident.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
    You are, as usual, quite ignorant. The French have home-developed ICBMs on their submarines. The UK doesn't and won't for many years.
    Be that as it may, there are plenty of options for the UK to possess an independent nuclear deterrent without developing and building our own ICBMs. Though it might be good to look at building that capacity anyway.
    More to the point, the UK has made no effort to do so. It no longer even uses any nukes other than Trident.
    As the US is a key NATO ally, if that ceased to be the case we would
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
    OK.

    Here's the story.

    The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.

    However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.

    This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:

    (1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought
    (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
    I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.

    If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
    No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
    Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
    God is eternal
    Just accept that the universe is eternal and the need to believe in your Father Christmas for grown-ups (many of whose presents are decidedly not what people were asking for) simply goes away.
    Nope, just convert to Christ and you will receive eternal life
    Simple-minded drivel
    No the most important life lesson of all
    When you say eternal life, what exactly do you mean?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,505
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
    I'm talking about 2025 when he wins again not a few months ago.

    Like him or not Russia never invaded Ukraine and China never tried to blockade Taiwan when Trump was president
    Although there were plenty of Russian troops in Ukraine during that time. Indeed, they had effectively already invaded Ukraine.

    Now, I agree that Biden's willingness to pull troops from Afghanistan - and damn the consequences - emboldened Putin. But I don't think there is any evidence that Putin was scared of Trump's America.

    Also: China hasn't blockaded Taiwan.
    That's why the dash for Kiev was so odd. I know it's impossible, but it's sort of like the Generals got over excited and thought 'let's have lunch in Kiev!'.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
    You are, as usual, quite ignorant. The French have home-developed ICBMs on their submarines. The UK doesn't and won't for many years.
    We have submarines too you know we can use for home developed missiles
    And where are the factories, workforces, test facilities, and launch pads to develop those missiles? The UK abandoned that capability in the 1960s, and it's fucking industrial archaeology now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
  • So do we support newspaper workers striking or what
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
    You are, as usual, quite ignorant. The French have home-developed ICBMs on their submarines. The UK doesn't and won't for many years.
    We have submarines too you know we can use for home developed missiles
    And where are the factories, workforces, test facilities, and launch pads to develop those missiles? The UK abandoned that capability in the 1960s, and it's fucking industrial archaeology now.
    Could be quickly resumed if necessary
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,505
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
    You are, as usual, quite ignorant. The French have home-developed ICBMs on their submarines. The UK doesn't and won't for many years.
    Be that as it may, there are plenty of options for the UK to possess an independent nuclear deterrent without developing and building our own ICBMs. Though it might be good to look at building that capacity anyway.
    More to the point, the UK has made no effort to do so. It no longer even uses any nukes other than Trident.
    Yes, but we were dealing in hypothetical scenarios. I don't think much of our actual deterrent either. On this issue we're very much aligned.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
    OK.

    Here's the story.

    The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.

    However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.

    This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:

    (1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought
    (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
    I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.

    If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
    No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
    Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
    God is eternal
    Just accept that the universe is eternal and the need to believe in your Father Christmas for grown-ups (many of whose presents are decidedly not what people were asking for) simply goes away.
    Nope, just convert to Christ and you will receive eternal life
    Simple-minded drivel
    No the most important life lesson of all
    When you say eternal life, what exactly do you mean?
    Read the Bible
  • FUDHY
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
    I'm talking about 2025 when he wins again not a few months ago.

    Like him or not Russia never invaded Ukraine and China never tried to blockade Taiwan when Trump was president
    Although there were plenty of Russian troops in Ukraine during that time. Indeed, they had effectively already invaded Ukraine.

    Now, I agree that Biden's willingness to pull troops from Afghanistan - and damn the consequences - emboldened Putin. But I don't think there is any evidence that Putin was scared of Trump's America.

    Also: China hasn't blockaded Taiwan.
    https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/china-direct/taiwan-crisis-4-day-de-facto-blockade-g7-slam-drills/
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
    You are, as usual, quite ignorant. The French have home-developed ICBMs on their submarines. The UK doesn't and won't for many years.
    We have submarines too you know we can use for home developed missiles
    And where are the factories, workforces, test facilities, and launch pads to develop those missiles? The UK abandoned that capability in the 1960s, and it's fucking industrial archaeology now.
    Could be quickly resumed if necessary
    I'll let you into a secret. The old plans use things like "transistors" and "resistors". None of the bits and pieces are made any more. Probably none of the factories or firms exist. Hell, they'll be in imperial units.

    It'd need to be redone from scratch.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    Makes one wonder what they were doing in Burghfield and Aldermaston for the last 70+ years. It's the missiles that we rent from the US.

    They would need to be done from scratch, as the transfer of nuclear tech is illegal by international treaty. And MoD can't even get a bog standard armoured vehicle right, despite several of the same general type long in production wordlwide.
    The last time we discussed this, @Dura_Ace wrote:

    “The RN can't degauss/deperm their boats because they lack a suitable facility and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.

    They can't test Trident launches because they lack an instrumented range ship and the inclination to spend the vast amounts of money necessary to build one.“

    He was quite clear that a truly independent nuclear weapons system was quite out of the question. He usually knows what he’s talking about on military topics
    Rubbish, we have the scientists and the funds to spend on our own independent nuclear weapons if it is a matter of our survival and the US no longer an ally
    It's not scientists you need or nukes, but engineers, project managers, and delivery systems.

    Do try and make the distinction.
    We have plenty of those too
    The party that says “Fuck Business” now appreciates the value of engineers, project managers and delivery systems? Nice try, but no coconut.
    The other point of interest is - who would build the things? I can't think of any UK company that makes ballistic missiles of the right general kind, can you?
    All you need is scientists and engineers to build them, of whom we have amongst the best in the world, the government can fund the project itself
    Slight brain fart there. You need factories and workforces. Where are they? Foreign factories? Foreign companies?
    BAE? You can build your own, you can also nationalise companies overnight for national security if needed
    They don't do ICBMs. Nor does anyone in the UK. Nothing to nationalise. And multinationals get snotty if you do.
    That's a strategic nuclear deterrent. We could have tactical nuclear warheads, delivered via conventional means. In many ways they would be a lot scarier to opponents than strategic ones, because they're not necessarily just a doomsday weapon of last resort.
    Exactly, the French do it perfectly well
    You are, as usual, quite ignorant. The French have home-developed ICBMs on their submarines. The UK doesn't and won't for many years.
    Be that as it may, there are plenty of options for the UK to possess an independent nuclear deterrent without developing and building our own ICBMs. Though it might be good to look at building that capacity anyway.
    More to the point, the UK has made no effort to do so. It no longer even uses any nukes other than Trident.
    As the US is a key NATO ally, if that ceased to be the case we would
    We could but have you any idea of the years if not decades to build this stuff.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,076
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
    OK.

    Here's the story.

    The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.

    However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.

    This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:

    (1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought
    (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
    I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.

    If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
    No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
    Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
    God is eternal
    Just accept that the universe is eternal and the need to believe in your Father Christmas for grown-ups (many of whose presents are decidedly not what people were asking for) simply goes away.
    Nope, just convert to Christ and you will receive eternal life
    Simple-minded drivel
    No the most important life lesson of all
    When you say eternal life, what exactly do you mean?
    Just imagine having to discuss something with HYUFD every day for as long as you can imagine…
  • HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
    OK.

    Here's the story.

    The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.

    However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.

    This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:

    (1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought
    (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
    I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.

    If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
    No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
    Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
    God is eternal
    Just accept that the universe is eternal and the need to believe in your Father Christmas for grown-ups (many of whose presents are decidedly not what people were asking for) simply goes away.
    Nope, just convert to Christ and you will receive eternal life
    Simple-minded drivel
    No the most important life lesson of all
    When you say eternal life, what exactly do you mean?
    Read the Bible
    Work of fiction. Especially the cosmology.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    It'd take about 5-10 years - or 20 if the Tories and MoD were involved.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    It'd take about 5-10 years - or 20 if the Tories and MoD were involved.
    Depends how many funds and scientists are involved
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    25th. Per capita. So you think we should become even poorer, what with your insistence on this and on preserving the legacy of every single Tory voting rich pensioner in the SE?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
    I'm talking about 2025 when he wins again not a few months ago.

    Like him or not Russia never invaded Ukraine and China never tried to blockade Taiwan when Trump was president
    Although there were plenty of Russian troops in Ukraine during that time. Indeed, they had effectively already invaded Ukraine.

    Now, I agree that Biden's willingness to pull troops from Afghanistan - and damn the consequences - emboldened Putin. But I don't think there is any evidence that Putin was scared of Trump's America.

    Also: China hasn't blockaded Taiwan.
    https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/china-direct/taiwan-crisis-4-day-de-facto-blockade-g7-slam-drills/
    At no point during the exercises were merchant vessels going to or from Taiwan refused passage.

    Indeed, the Chinese deliberately left the main sea lanes in and out of Taiwan open.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    It'd take about 5-10 years - or 20 if the Tories and MoD were involved.
    Depends how many funds and scientists are involved
    You don't get it. You don't need scientists. You need engineers. Project managers. Trainers.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
    I'm talking about 2025 when he wins again not a few months ago.

    Like him or not Russia never invaded Ukraine and China never tried to blockade Taiwan when Trump was president
    Although there were plenty of Russian troops in Ukraine during that time. Indeed, they had effectively already invaded Ukraine.

    Now, I agree that Biden's willingness to pull troops from Afghanistan - and damn the consequences - emboldened Putin. But I don't think there is any evidence that Putin was scared of Trump's America.

    Also: China hasn't blockaded Taiwan.
    A few in Crimea, they never went as far into invading Ukraine proper as now
    There were lots and lots in Crimea (they were busy building bases in Crimea at the time), and a fair number of "advisors" in the Donbas.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    25th. Per capita. So you think we should become even poorer, what with your insistence on this and on preserving the legacy of every single Tory voting rich pensioner in the SE?
    Well the choice is that or dying a pretty horrible death in a nuclear Holocaust after a Putin missile attack on the UK with no UK nuclear weapon response (given in this scenario the US has withdrawn from NATO)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    So do we support newspaper workers striking or what

    If it keeps the Express from pumping out bilge about Our wonderful Brexit, imperial units and bring back Boris then I am all for it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    It'd take about 5-10 years - or 20 if the Tories and MoD were involved.
    Depends how many funds and scientists are involved
    You don't get it. You don't need scientists. You need engineers. Project managers. Trainers.
    As I said we have over 5 million engineers
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    He does it day in day out.

    His lack of self-awareness knows no bounds.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,076
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    It'd take about 5-10 years - or 20 if the Tories and MoD were involved.
    Depends how many funds and scientists are involved
    You don't get it. You don't need scientists. You need engineers. Project managers. Trainers.
    As I said we have over 5 million engineers
    If this country has 5 million engineers the definition we use for engineer must be very, very, very broad and generous.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    It doesn't matter what resources you apply you can't develop this stuff quickly. It takes a long time to design and build a submarine and you need 3 as a minimum. Stuff will go wrong. Just look at the development time currently. It is in years and decades and there is always a critical path that can't be shortened by additional resources.

    FYI the pension group I represent on a voluntary basis are the scientists from the privatised part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Many of them worked on this stuff in the 60s and 70s. These people don't exist anymore here, but more importantly the facilities have been sold off and are now science parks. So before you start you have a huge capital build,
    which takes time (many years).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    The Fetterman campaign is really something:

    https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1559982100081778691
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    It doesn't matter what resources you apply you can't develop this stuff quickly. It takes a long time to design and build a submarine and you need 3 as a minimum. Stuff will go wrong. Just look at the development time currently. It is in years and decades and there is always a critical path that can't be shortened by additional resources.

    FYI the pension group I represent on a voluntary basis are the scientists from the privatised part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Many of them worked on this stuff in the 60s and 70s. These people don't exist anymore here, but more importantly the facilities have been sold off and are now science parks. So before you start you have a huge capital build,
    which takes time (many years).
    If the US withdrew from NATO the entire defence and most of the engineering and manufacturing industry in the UK would be directed to the task
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    It'd take about 5-10 years - or 20 if the Tories and MoD were involved.
    Depends how many funds and scientists are involved
    You don't get it. You don't need scientists. You need engineers. Project managers. Trainers.
    As I said we have over 5 million engineers
    If this country has 5 million engineers the definition we use for engineer must be very, very, very broad and generous.
    Including sanitation engineers, who work to clean bathrooms all over the country!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    rcs1000 said:

    The Fetterman campaign is really something:

    https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1559982100081778691

    Trump has pulled a belter with this guy (Oz I mean). Doesn't even live in the state and eats crudités.

    Could make the Senate stay Dem.

    I will die laughing.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    It'd take about 5-10 years - or 20 if the Tories and MoD were involved.
    Depends how many funds and scientists are involved
    You don't get it. You don't need scientists. You need engineers. Project managers. Trainers.
    As I said we have over 5 million engineers
    And how many of those are fusion engineers or delivery system engineers or do you propose putting dishwasher engineers on it? The only trained engineers on these systems are currently working on them and it takes years to train additional ones.

    What about the unique specialised and complex factories we don't have for these developments. They will take years to build.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    rcs1000 said:

    The Fetterman campaign is really something:

    https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1559982100081778691

    Oh man, whoever is running Fetterman's Twitter account deserves a raise:

    https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1560268053002469377
  • HYUFD said:
    Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
    Did you miss the citations in the hyperlinks on the article? As well as multiple links back to other articles on the same site, its got as a source "Evolution News" (which seems to be an Intelligent Design/anti-abortion/anti-euthanasia website) and "The Trumpet", a pro-Trump website currently leading on the Federal Bureau of Fabrication.

    If those aren't high quality detailed sources, what more do you want? A testimonial from Donald himself?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    It'd take about 5-10 years - or 20 if the Tories and MoD were involved.
    Depends how many funds and scientists are involved
    You don't get it. You don't need scientists. You need engineers. Project managers. Trainers.
    As I said we have over 5 million engineers
    And how many of those are fusion engineers or delivery system engineers or do you propose putting dishwasher engineers on it? The only trained engineers on these systems are currently working on them and it takes years to train additional ones.

    What about the unique specialised and complex factories we don't have for these developments. They will take years to build.
    Not if vast resources are allocated to it and diverted from elsewhere to build them Chinese style. If the US withdrew from NATO it would be by far the most important priority for the government and the nation
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    It doesn't matter what resources you apply you can't develop this stuff quickly. It takes a long time to design and build a submarine and you need 3 as a minimum. Stuff will go wrong. Just look at the development time currently. It is in years and decades and there is always a critical path that can't be shortened by additional resources.

    FYI the pension group I represent on a voluntary basis are the scientists from the privatised part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Many of them worked on this stuff in the 60s and 70s. These people don't exist anymore here, but more importantly the facilities have been sold off and are now science parks. So before you start you have a huge capital build,
    which takes time (many years).
    If the US withdrew from NATO the entire defence and most of the engineering and manufacturing industry in the UK would be directed to the task
    For crying out loud do you not understand critical path analysis?

    It takes 9 months to produce a baby. If you put 9 women on it you don't get a baby in 1 month.

    If it takes 10 men a month to build a house do you think 600 men can build a house by lunchtime?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Not good for test cricket fans.

    "South Africa are a world-beating team, top of the Test Championship, have one of the most exciting fast-bowling attacks to come here in years and they cannot even get someone to pay for the advertising space on their shirts. In England we are lucky enough to be still worrying about whether Test cricket has a future whereas in South Africa one prominent administrator put it in an off-the-record conversation this week: “The battle has already been lost.” They cannot really afford to play Test cricket any more."

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/aug/21/south-africa-england-test-series-lords-first-test

    We had friends who had just returned from South Africa at my birthday party last night. They hadn't been there since before Covid, four or five years ago, and their view was that things had substantially deteriorated.

    This might be just another symptom.
    The stories I hear from SA are really tragic.

    The country is descending into Zimbabwe, just without Mugabe.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Not good for test cricket fans.

    "South Africa are a world-beating team, top of the Test Championship, have one of the most exciting fast-bowling attacks to come here in years and they cannot even get someone to pay for the advertising space on their shirts. In England we are lucky enough to be still worrying about whether Test cricket has a future whereas in South Africa one prominent administrator put it in an off-the-record conversation this week: “The battle has already been lost.” They cannot really afford to play Test cricket any more."

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/aug/21/south-africa-england-test-series-lords-first-test

    We had friends who had just returned from South Africa at my birthday party last night. They hadn't been there since before Covid, four or five years ago, and their view was that things had substantially deteriorated.

    This might be just another symptom.
    The stories I hear from SA are really tragic.

    The country is descending into Zimbabwe, just without Mugabe.
    I wonder how many South Africans have the right to move to the UK, if things get that bad.
  • Andy_JS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Not good for test cricket fans.

    "South Africa are a world-beating team, top of the Test Championship, have one of the most exciting fast-bowling attacks to come here in years and they cannot even get someone to pay for the advertising space on their shirts. In England we are lucky enough to be still worrying about whether Test cricket has a future whereas in South Africa one prominent administrator put it in an off-the-record conversation this week: “The battle has already been lost.” They cannot really afford to play Test cricket any more."

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/aug/21/south-africa-england-test-series-lords-first-test

    We had friends who had just returned from South Africa at my birthday party last night. They hadn't been there since before Covid, four or five years ago, and their view was that things had substantially deteriorated.

    This might be just another symptom.
    The stories I hear from SA are really tragic.

    The country is descending into Zimbabwe, just without Mugabe.
    I wonder how many South Africans have the right to move to the UK, if things get that bad.
    Get that bad? They already are that bad.

    My wife was born there and she emigrated to the UK years ago, her entire family that could move abroad has done so now and most of her school friends who could do so have done so now too. She keeps in touch with friends there who can't/won't emigrate but finds the whole thing very upsetting, she's loves getting SA treats as a taste of "home" but has said she'd never go back now.
  • HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
    OK.

    Here's the story.

    The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.

    However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.

    This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:

    (1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought
    (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
    I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.

    If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
    No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
    Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
    God is eternal
    Just accept that the universe is eternal and the need to believe in your Father Christmas for grown-ups (many of whose presents are decidedly not what people were asking for) simply goes away.
    Nope, just convert to Christ and you will receive eternal life
    Simple-minded drivel
    No the most important life lesson of all
    When you say eternal life, what exactly do you mean?
    Read the Bible
    Reading the Bible doesn't give you eternal life, it just feels like it takes an eternity to read it.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    What resources? What management skills does the current string of Tory governments have?
    We are the 5th largest economy in the world, national security is the first job of any government. Billions and billions of pounds would be diverted to it if the US withdrew from NATO
    It'd take about 5-10 years - or 20 if the Tories and MoD were involved.
    Depends how many funds and scientists are involved
    You don't get it. You don't need scientists. You need engineers. Project managers. Trainers.
    As I said we have over 5 million engineers
    And how many of those are fusion engineers or delivery system engineers or do you propose putting dishwasher engineers on it? The only trained engineers on these systems are currently working on them and it takes years to train additional ones.

    What about the unique specialised and complex factories we don't have for these developments. They will take years to build.
    Not if vast resources are allocated to it and diverted from elsewhere to build them Chinese style. If the US withdrew from NATO it would be by far the most important priority for the government and the nation
    You are completely mad.

    You can't train a fusion engineer any faster. Where are you going to get them from. Same for delivery systems.

    It doesn't matter how many engineers and builders you ship into Harwell for instance it will take decades to convert it back from a science park to a nuclear facility.

    Do you really believe you can build a submarine in days/weeks by throwing resources at it. There is always a critical path.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    edited August 2022
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    It doesn't matter what resources you apply you can't develop this stuff quickly. It takes a long time to design and build a submarine and you need 3 as a minimum. Stuff will go wrong. Just look at the development time currently. It is in years and decades and there is always a critical path that can't be shortened by additional resources.

    FYI the pension group I represent on a voluntary basis are the scientists from the privatised part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Many of them worked on this stuff in the 60s and 70s. These people don't exist anymore here, but more importantly the facilities have been sold off and are now science parks. So before you start you have a huge capital build,
    which takes time (many years).
    If the US withdrew from NATO the entire defence and most of the engineering and manufacturing industry in the UK would be directed to the task
    For crying out loud do you not understand critical path analysis?

    It takes 9 months to produce a baby. If you put 9 women on it you don't get a baby in 1 month.

    If it takes 10 men a month to build a house do you think 600 men can build a house by lunchtime?
    If the alternative is you, me and everyone in Britain being vaporised by Putin's nuclear missiles without a nuclear deterrent from us if the US has withdrawn from NATO then of course most of the economy can be diverted to the task by government if needed.

    60 men can build far more houses than 10 men over the same timeframe obviously
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643
    What *is* the UK’s plan if the US descends into un-democracy?

    It’s relatively unlikely, but not unimaginably so.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,791
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    It doesn't matter what resources you apply you can't develop this stuff quickly. It takes a long time to design and build a submarine and you need 3 as a minimum. Stuff will go wrong. Just look at the development time currently. It is in years and decades and there is always a critical path that can't be shortened by additional resources.

    FYI the pension group I represent on a voluntary basis are the scientists from the privatised part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Many of them worked on this stuff in the 60s and 70s. These people don't exist anymore here, but more importantly the facilities have been sold off and are now science parks. So before you start you have a huge capital build,
    which takes time (many years).
    If the US withdrew from NATO the entire defence and most of the engineering and manufacturing industry in the UK would be directed to the task
    For crying out loud do you not understand critical path analysis?

    It takes 9 months to produce a baby. If you put 9 women on it you don't get a baby in 1 month.

    If it takes 10 men a month to build a house do you think 600 men can build a house by lunchtime?
    You ever seen those videos of the Amish putting up a barn?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,791

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
    OK.

    Here's the story.

    The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.

    However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.

    This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:

    (1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought
    (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
    I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.

    If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
    No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
    Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
    God is eternal
    Just accept that the universe is eternal and the need to believe in your Father Christmas for grown-ups (many of whose presents are decidedly not what people were asking for) simply goes away.
    Nope, just convert to Christ and you will receive eternal life
    Simple-minded drivel
    No the most important life lesson of all
    When you say eternal life, what exactly do you mean?
    Read the Bible
    Reading the Bible doesn't give you eternal life, it just feels like it takes an eternity to read it.
    Is there PB in heaven?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,791
    Eabhal said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    It doesn't matter what resources you apply you can't develop this stuff quickly. It takes a long time to design and build a submarine and you need 3 as a minimum. Stuff will go wrong. Just look at the development time currently. It is in years and decades and there is always a critical path that can't be shortened by additional resources.

    FYI the pension group I represent on a voluntary basis are the scientists from the privatised part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Many of them worked on this stuff in the 60s and 70s. These people don't exist anymore here, but more importantly the facilities have been sold off and are now science parks. So before you start you have a huge capital build,
    which takes time (many years).
    If the US withdrew from NATO the entire defence and most of the engineering and manufacturing industry in the UK would be directed to the task
    For crying out loud do you not understand critical path analysis?

    It takes 9 months to produce a baby. If you put 9 women on it you don't get a baby in 1 month.

    If it takes 10 men a month to build a house do you think 600 men can build a house by lunchtime?
    You ever seen those videos of the Amish putting up a barn?
    Ok, the fact that HYUFD liked that post suggests he does have a very good sense of humour.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    It doesn't matter what resources you apply you can't develop this stuff quickly. It takes a long time to design and build a submarine and you need 3 as a minimum. Stuff will go wrong. Just look at the development time currently. It is in years and decades and there is always a critical path that can't be shortened by additional resources.

    FYI the pension group I represent on a voluntary basis are the scientists from the privatised part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Many of them worked on this stuff in the 60s and 70s. These people don't exist anymore here, but more importantly the facilities have been sold off and are now science parks. So before you start you have a huge capital build,
    which takes time (many years).
    If the US withdrew from NATO the entire defence and most of the engineering and manufacturing industry in the UK would be directed to the task
    For crying out loud do you not understand critical path analysis?

    It takes 9 months to produce a baby. If you put 9 women on it you don't get a baby in 1 month.

    If it takes 10 men a month to build a house do you think 600 men can build a house by lunchtime?
    If the alternative is you, me and everyone in Britain being vaporised by Putin's nuclear missiles without a nuclear deterrent from us if the US has withdrawn from NATO then of course most of the economy can be diverted to the task by government if needed.

    60 men can build far more houses than 10 men over the same timeframe obviously
    Re your last para. You completely misunderstand the issue. If 10 people can build one house then 60 can build 6 houses as you point out, but that isn't the problem. You don't understand the problem!

    The problem is if it takes 10 people to build one house in a month 600 can not build the house in half a day. It is the pregnant women problem. You can't do it quicker, you can only produce more by extra resources.

    In other words there is a critical path you can't go below to build an individual item. You can build more of them, but can't build an individual one quicker than the optimum path.

    So by throwing resources at it you can build 2 submarines quicker per submarine than building one submarine, but you can't build one submarine quicker than the optimum critical path by throwing more resources at it. It is simple maths.

    And that critical path is measured in years and decades because it takes that long to train the appropriate engineers (you can't half train 2), build the appropriate facilities and build say one submarine.
  • rcs1000 said:

    The Fetterman campaign is really something:

    https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1559982100081778691

    Trump has pulled a belter with this guy (Oz I mean). Doesn't even live in the state and eats crudités.

    Could make the Senate stay Dem.

    I will die laughing.

    Trump is a "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of shyster though.

    If Oz wins, Trump will claim credit, its all thanks to Trump's own popularity.

    If Oz loses, Trump will claim Oz didn't listen to him, if he had he would have won and this is why people need to listen to Trump.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    edited August 2022
    Eabhal said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    It doesn't matter what resources you apply you can't develop this stuff quickly. It takes a long time to design and build a submarine and you need 3 as a minimum. Stuff will go wrong. Just look at the development time currently. It is in years and decades and there is always a critical path that can't be shortened by additional resources.

    FYI the pension group I represent on a voluntary basis are the scientists from the privatised part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Many of them worked on this stuff in the 60s and 70s. These people don't exist anymore here, but more importantly the facilities have been sold off and are now science parks. So before you start you have a huge capital build,
    which takes time (many years).
    If the US withdrew from NATO the entire defence and most of the engineering and manufacturing industry in the UK would be directed to the task
    For crying out loud do you not understand critical path analysis?

    It takes 9 months to produce a baby. If you put 9 women on it you don't get a baby in 1 month.

    If it takes 10 men a month to build a house do you think 600 men can build a house by lunchtime?
    You ever seen those videos of the Amish putting up a barn?
    Yes very good. I have and it is very impressive. However that is a very good example isn't it because they are superb at working to the critical path. Twice as many Amish would put up two barns in the same time, but they couldn't get one barn put up in half the time.

    A simple fact that HYUFD can't understand.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    15 year olds can vote in the Conservative leadership contest.

    Don't ever say the Tories are anti-youth. 😊

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62585183
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    edited August 2022
    kjh said:

    Eabhal said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    It doesn't matter what resources you apply you can't develop this stuff quickly. It takes a long time to design and build a submarine and you need 3 as a minimum. Stuff will go wrong. Just look at the development time currently. It is in years and decades and there is always a critical path that can't be shortened by additional resources.

    FYI the pension group I represent on a voluntary basis are the scientists from the privatised part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Many of them worked on this stuff in the 60s and 70s. These people don't exist anymore here, but more importantly the facilities have been sold off and are now science parks. So before you start you have a huge capital build,
    which takes time (many years).
    If the US withdrew from NATO the entire defence and most of the engineering and manufacturing industry in the UK would be directed to the task
    For crying out loud do you not understand critical path analysis?

    It takes 9 months to produce a baby. If you put 9 women on it you don't get a baby in 1 month.

    If it takes 10 men a month to build a house do you think 600 men can build a house by lunchtime?
    You ever seen those videos of the Amish putting up a barn?
    Yes very good. I have and it is very impressive. However that is a very good example isn't it because they are superb at working to the critical path. Twice as many Amish would put up two barns in the same time, but they couldn't get one barn put up in half the time.

    A simple fact that HYUFD can't understand.
    Well guess you will just have to be vaporised and destroyed in a Putin nuclear missile attack then given you are clearly not willing to support the necessary national defence measures in the event of a US withdrawal from NATO
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348
    Andy_JS said:

    15 year olds can vote in the Conservative leadership contest.

    Don't ever say the Tories are anti-youth. 😊

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62585183

    You can be a Tory member from 15 so fine
  • Andy_JS said:

    15 year olds can vote in the Conservative leadership contest.

    Don't ever say the Tories are anti-youth. 😊

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62585183

    16 year olds can decide the PM as long as they are Tories.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    edited August 2022
    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
    OK.

    Here's the story.

    The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.

    However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.

    This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:

    (1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought
    (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
    I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.

    If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
    No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
    Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
    God is eternal
    Just accept that the universe is eternal and the need to believe in your Father Christmas for grown-ups (many of whose presents are decidedly not what people were asking for) simply goes away.
    Nope, just convert to Christ and you will receive eternal life
    Simple-minded drivel
    No the most important life lesson of all
    When you say eternal life, what exactly do you mean?
    Read the Bible
    Reading the Bible doesn't give you eternal life, it just feels like it takes an eternity to read it.
    Is there PB in heaven?
    There is in Hell.

    None of the 250-1 shots come in.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643
    HYUFD said:
    This is not at all good for Truss.

    If she can’t build mo’ with Tory voters, what hope has she with swing voters?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    15 year olds can vote in the Conservative leadership contest.

    Don't ever say the Tories are anti-youth. 😊

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62585183

    You can be a Tory member from 15 so fine
    You can be a British citizen at birth.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    edited August 2022
    This is what we said every morning at primary school.

    "Our Father in heaven,
    Hallowed be your name,
    Your kingdom come,
    Your will be done,
    On earth as in heaven.
    Give us today our daily bread.
    Forgive us our sins
    As we forgive those who sin against us.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    But deliver us from evil.
    For yours is the kingdom,
    and the power, and the glory,
    for ever and ever. Amen."

    In church it was slightly different. Thy/thine instead of yours, and trespasses instead of sins.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 1,059
    Well, the Manhattan Project started modestly in 1939, and had produced two types of atomic bombs by 1945, plutonium and U-235. The total cost of the project was "nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $23 billion in 2020)." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

    The US population at the end of 1945 was about 132 million. Given the lower productivity of the US economy then, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Britain's GDP is now larger than the US GDP was then.

    Since the secrets are out, I see no reason that Britain couldn't produce its own atomic bombs in less than a year. (I have heard estimates that Japan could do it in six months, since they have a large amount of plutonium on hand.)

    And do it more cheaply than that $23 billion.

    For the record: I would much prefer that nations, especially Russia, China, and the US, work on ways to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. That is one of the many ways that the loser, Trump, failed to match his predecessors. There were substantial reductions while Obama was president, and even larger ones while George W. Bush was.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    Well, the Manhattan Project started modestly in 1939, and had produced two types of atomic bombs by 1945, plutonium and U-235. The total cost of the project was "nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $23 billion in 2020)." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

    The US population at the end of 1945 was about 132 million. Given the lower productivity of the US economy then, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Britain's GDP is now larger than the US GDP was then.

    Since the secrets are out, I see no reason that Britain couldn't produce its own atomic bombs in less than a year. (I have heard estimates that Japan could do it in six months, since they have a large amount of plutonium on hand.)

    And do it more cheaply than that $23 billion.

    For the record: I would much prefer that nations, especially Russia, China, and the US, work on ways to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. That is one of the many ways that the loser, Trump, failed to match his predecessors. There were substantial reductions while Obama was president, and even larger ones while George W. Bush was.

    I have little doubt the UK could get a serviceable weapon in under a year... But do remember that the bombs used in WW2 were dropped from planes. Getting a package down to the size that can be mounted atop a missile is the real challenge.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    On topic, it's a bit petty of the video producer to make a thing out of her simply stumbling over words. Lessens the impact of the rest of the video.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,790
    edited August 2022
    darkage said:



    Few people ask the question as to whether this is fair on men who are younger and at an earlier stage in their career - in this case the recruiting officer who was a woman seemed to conclude it had got to the point where it was actually illegal discrimination. My guess is that it won't change anything though.

    It's also nothing new. When I instructed on 4FTS in the 90s we had instructions to wing 'Bumpy Jumpers' (as they were called then) at any cost. No matter how many additional hours it took.

    This practice and the latest anti-discriminative measures are a good and necessary thing in my opinion. If we rely on the massively entrenched structural prejudices of the armed forces to wither away without assertive action it'll never happen.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    "The Unexpected Future
    We need to consider ways to reverse or at least slow rapid depopulation
    Joel Kotkin
    Wendell Cox

    We are entering an unanticipated reality—an era of slow population growth and, increasingly, demographic decline that will shape our future in profound and unpredictable ways. Globally, last year’s total population growth was the smallest in a half-century, and by 2050, some 61 countries are expected to see population declines while the world’s population is due to peak sometime later this century."

    https://quillette.com/2022/08/20/the-unexpected-future/
  • Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:



    Few people ask the question as to whether this is fair on men who are younger and at an earlier stage in their career - in this case the recruiting officer who was a woman seemed to conclude it had got to the point where it was actually illegal discrimination. My guess is that it won't change anything though.

    It's also nothing new. When I instructed on 4FTS in the 90s we had instructions to wing 'Bumpy Jumpers' (as they were called then) at any cost. No matter how many additional hours it took.

    This practice and the latest anti-discriminative measures are a good and necessary thing in my opinion. If we rely on the massively entrenched structural prejudices of the armed forces to wither away without assertive action it'll never happen.
    And after all who cares about the actual defence of the realm as long as we have the right quotas.

    'Woke Wigston' as he is pretty much universally known by serving RAF officers, was given one vital task to achieve and that was to sort out the utter chaos in the RAF flight training system which has basically collapsed since it was contracted out. He has failed to do so but has instead spent his time giving speeches about how the greatest challenge in the RAF is diversity. No you fucking idiot it is not diversity, it is having enough trained pilots of any colour, creed or sex to fly your aircraft.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,790
    rcs1000 said:

    Well, the Manhattan Project started modestly in 1939, and had produced two types of atomic bombs by 1945, plutonium and U-235. The total cost of the project was "nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $23 billion in 2020)." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

    The US population at the end of 1945 was about 132 million. Given the lower productivity of the US economy then, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Britain's GDP is now larger than the US GDP was then.

    Since the secrets are out, I see no reason that Britain couldn't produce its own atomic bombs in less than a year. (I have heard estimates that Japan could do it in six months, since they have a large amount of plutonium on hand.)

    And do it more cheaply than that $23 billion.

    For the record: I would much prefer that nations, especially Russia, China, and the US, work on ways to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. That is one of the many ways that the loser, Trump, failed to match his predecessors. There were substantial reductions while Obama was president, and even larger ones while George W. Bush was.

    I have little doubt the UK could get a serviceable weapon in under a year... But do remember that the bombs used in WW2 were dropped from planes. Getting a package down to the size that can be mounted atop a missile is the real challenge.

    The UK already makes its own warheads for Trident at Aldermaston. It's the missiles and some support functions for the boats for which we heavily depend on US goodwill.

    If the US unfriended the UK then the move is obvious. We'd get M51 airframes from Ariane and integrate the existing UK weapons while adapting the Dreadnoughts to take M51. Allah alone knows how long this would take and what it would cost. There would be a few another anciliary matters like the UK having to grovel their way back into Galileo but that could all eventually be overcome.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    edited August 2022
    82% of our energy is coming from gas and nuclear atm.

    https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
  • Andy_JS said:

    On topic, it's a bit petty of the video producer to make a thing out of her simply stumbling over words. Lessens the impact of the rest of the video.

    Petty, yes, but not new. Don't misunderestimate George Bush. Truss's critics should concentrate on hard facts, like how she eats a bacon roll or pays for petrol with a contactless card.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,334
    it will be interesting to see how the Felixstowe dock strike plays out.... I cant see this one dragging on at all, something like 50% of UK trade goes through..... (acc to media sources).
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Eabhal said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.

    Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.

    If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
    We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
    What are your qualifications and knowledge on fusion weapons and delivery systems to make such a rash statement. Do you know you could launch from existing submarines for instance? If not could you build 3 submarines (the minimum needed to maintain a full time deterent) 'quickly'. How you have the arrogance to come out with statements when you have no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me
    If the alternative is risking nuclear destruction by Putin with no deterrent response of course, the government would direct huge resources to it
    It doesn't matter what resources you apply you can't develop this stuff quickly. It takes a long time to design and build a submarine and you need 3 as a minimum. Stuff will go wrong. Just look at the development time currently. It is in years and decades and there is always a critical path that can't be shortened by additional resources.

    FYI the pension group I represent on a voluntary basis are the scientists from the privatised part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Many of them worked on this stuff in the 60s and 70s. These people don't exist anymore here, but more importantly the facilities have been sold off and are now science parks. So before you start you have a huge capital build,
    which takes time (many years).
    If the US withdrew from NATO the entire defence and most of the engineering and manufacturing industry in the UK would be directed to the task
    For crying out loud do you not understand critical path analysis?

    It takes 9 months to produce a baby. If you put 9 women on it you don't get a baby in 1 month.

    If it takes 10 men a month to build a house do you think 600 men can build a house by lunchtime?
    You ever seen those videos of the Amish putting up a barn?
    Yes very good. I have and it is very impressive. However that is a very good example isn't it because they are superb at working to the critical path. Twice as many Amish would put up two barns in the same time, but they couldn't get one barn put up in half the time.

    A simple fact that HYUFD can't understand.
    Well guess you will just have to be vaporised and destroyed in a Putin nuclear missile attack then given you are clearly not willing to support the necessary national defence measures in the event of a US withdrawal from NATO
    I never said I wasn't. I was just pointing out your saying hat we can build this stuff quickly because we have 5 million (dishwasher) engineers is utter nonsense.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,696
    Being vaporised by Putin’s nukes sounds like sweet relief from having to read another “once in a generation” post on PB.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    What *is* the UK’s plan if the US descends into un-democracy?

    It’s relatively unlikely, but not unimaginably so.

    What *is* the US’s plan now the UK has descended into un-democracy?

    It seemed so unlikely.

    https://twitter.com/scotgovusa/status/1526300187018207232?s=21&t=AtNbQCqniBe4vv2jg8Mb1w
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343

    Being vaporised by Putin’s nukes sounds like sweet relief from having to read another “once in a generation” post on PB.

    If the Scots can knock out a brand new Trident submarine in an afternoon by just retraining a load of dishwasher engineers in the morning, I guess they should be allowed an Indy vote more than once every 25 years.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,015
    Dura_Ace said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Well, the Manhattan Project started modestly in 1939, and had produced two types of atomic bombs by 1945, plutonium and U-235. The total cost of the project was "nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $23 billion in 2020)." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

    The US population at the end of 1945 was about 132 million. Given the lower productivity of the US economy then, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Britain's GDP is now larger than the US GDP was then.

    Since the secrets are out, I see no reason that Britain couldn't produce its own atomic bombs in less than a year. (I have heard estimates that Japan could do it in six months, since they have a large amount of plutonium on hand.)

    And do it more cheaply than that $23 billion.

    For the record: I would much prefer that nations, especially Russia, China, and the US, work on ways to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. That is one of the many ways that the loser, Trump, failed to match his predecessors. There were substantial reductions while Obama was president, and even larger ones while George W. Bush was.

    I have little doubt the UK could get a serviceable weapon in under a year... But do remember that the bombs used in WW2 were dropped from planes. Getting a package down to the size that can be mounted atop a missile is the real challenge.

    The UK already makes its own warheads for Trident at Aldermaston. It's the missiles and some support functions for the boats for which we heavily depend on US goodwill.

    If the US unfriended the UK then the move is obvious. We'd get M51 airframes from Ariane and integrate the existing UK weapons while adapting the Dreadnoughts to take M51. Allah alone knows how long this would take and what it would cost. There would be a few another anciliary matters like the UK having to grovel their way back into Galileo but that could all eventually be overcome.
    Or the UK simply launches its own GNSS / PNS.

    Theresa May had such a plan in 2018. It's been reset to UK SBPNTP but still active.
  • Good morning

    I have popped in and out of the forum over the last 24 hours and frankly at times the discussions have descended into the bizarre not least with @HYUFD comical and unfathomable comments

    Anyway Scholz facing topless protests in Germsny

    https://news.sky.com/story/germany-topless-protesters-interrupt-olaf-scholz-speech-as-fuel-crisis-deepens-12678926
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,015

    What *is* the UK’s plan if the US descends into un-democracy?

    It’s relatively unlikely, but not unimaginably so.

    Well, if they do, we're screwed.

    The US is the keystone that underpins the whole existing global system.

    It collapses if it goes. No-one else has either the capacity, money or will to step in to the void - even collectively.

    The remaining Western nations will squabble amongst themselves and fight for survival, which means the grubbiest and most sordid of deals that will make humiliation and ever eroding freedom our new way of life.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,947

    Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:



    Few people ask the question as to whether this is fair on men who are younger and at an earlier stage in their career - in this case the recruiting officer who was a woman seemed to conclude it had got to the point where it was actually illegal discrimination. My guess is that it won't change anything though.

    It's also nothing new. When I instructed on 4FTS in the 90s we had instructions to wing 'Bumpy Jumpers' (as they were called then) at any cost. No matter how many additional hours it took.

    This practice and the latest anti-discriminative measures are a good and necessary thing in my opinion. If we rely on the massively entrenched structural prejudices of the armed forces to wither away without assertive action it'll never happen.
    And after all who cares about the actual defence of the realm as long as we have the right quotas.

    'Woke Wigston' as he is pretty much universally known by serving RAF officers, was given one vital task to achieve and that was to sort out the utter chaos in the RAF flight training system which has basically collapsed since it was contracted out. He has failed to do so but has instead spent his time giving speeches about how the greatest challenge in the RAF is diversity. No you fucking idiot it is not diversity, it is having enough trained pilots of any colour, creed or sex to fly your aircraft.
    The BBC should be able to help him in his quest.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993

    What *is* the UK’s plan if the US descends into un-democracy?

    It’s relatively unlikely, but not unimaginably so.

    Well, if they do, we're screwed.

    The US is the keystone that underpins the whole existing global system.

    It collapses if it goes. No-one else has either the capacity, money or will to step in to the void - even collectively.

    The remaining Western nations will squabble amongst themselves and fight for survival, which means the grubbiest and most sordid of deals that will make humiliation and ever eroding freedom our new way of life.
    Yes. Should the US collapse and Balkanise, I guess it’s more likely it could precipitate another Dark Ages rather than a period of hegemony for China (or someone else). Not overnight probably but within a century.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 768

    Dura_Ace said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Well, the Manhattan Project started modestly in 1939, and had produced two types of atomic bombs by 1945, plutonium and U-235. The total cost of the project was "nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $23 billion in 2020)." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

    The US population at the end of 1945 was about 132 million. Given the lower productivity of the US economy then, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Britain's GDP is now larger than the US GDP was then.

    Since the secrets are out, I see no reason that Britain couldn't produce its own atomic bombs in less than a year. (I have heard estimates that Japan could do it in six months, since they have a large amount of plutonium on hand.)

    And do it more cheaply than that $23 billion.

    For the record: I would much prefer that nations, especially Russia, China, and the US, work on ways to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. That is one of the many ways that the loser, Trump, failed to match his predecessors. There were substantial reductions while Obama was president, and even larger ones while George W. Bush was.

    I have little doubt the UK could get a serviceable weapon in under a year... But do remember that the bombs used in WW2 were dropped from planes. Getting a package down to the size that can be mounted atop a missile is the real challenge.

    The UK already makes its own warheads for Trident at Aldermaston. It's the missiles and some support functions for the boats for which we heavily depend on US goodwill.

    If the US unfriended the UK then the move is obvious. We'd get M51 airframes from Ariane and integrate the existing UK weapons while adapting the Dreadnoughts to take M51. Allah alone knows how long this would take and what it would cost. There would be a few another anciliary matters like the UK having to grovel their way back into Galileo but that could all eventually be overcome.
    Or the UK simply launches its own GNSS / PNS.

    Theresa May had such a plan in 2018. It's been reset to UK SBPNTP but still active.
    Or as Beyond the Fringe had it (some years ago) "The "Sea Slug" missile ("a ludicrously cumbersome weapon, relying as it does on a team of highly trained runners carrying it into enemy territory")"

    These days would no doubt send to Moscow by DHL.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    Talking of decline, Italy is in a bit of a state. Even Florence is looking, in many places, quite ragged and down at heel, and Tuscany is one of the richer regions, and Florence usually a jewel in that crown

    Prices are lower than you’d expect in a tourist mecca. The posh cafes are desperate for business. The cheap pizzerias are doing fine

    There is lots of graffiti and litter. Beautiful buildings decay. The illegal migrants are obvious. O tempora O mores. I know lots of this is standard for Italy but.. this feels worse than usual

    In short, I can see why the Italians are about to elect a hard right, post fascist government

    I’m off to Rome today and will report whether the capital is in a similar mood

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    Meanwhile, all hell is breaking lose in Pakistan:

    Imran Khan: Pakistan police charge ex-PM under terrorism act
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62628124

    This of course has nothing to do with him wiping out the army-backed government in a by-election in Punjab.

    Looks to me like there's a non-trivial chance of a coup against the army, which would definitely be a first.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    Dura_Ace said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Well, the Manhattan Project started modestly in 1939, and had produced two types of atomic bombs by 1945, plutonium and U-235. The total cost of the project was "nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $23 billion in 2020)." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

    The US population at the end of 1945 was about 132 million. Given the lower productivity of the US economy then, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Britain's GDP is now larger than the US GDP was then.

    Since the secrets are out, I see no reason that Britain couldn't produce its own atomic bombs in less than a year. (I have heard estimates that Japan could do it in six months, since they have a large amount of plutonium on hand.)

    And do it more cheaply than that $23 billion.

    For the record: I would much prefer that nations, especially Russia, China, and the US, work on ways to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. That is one of the many ways that the loser, Trump, failed to match his predecessors. There were substantial reductions while Obama was president, and even larger ones while George W. Bush was.

    I have little doubt the UK could get a serviceable weapon in under a year... But do remember that the bombs used in WW2 were dropped from planes. Getting a package down to the size that can be mounted atop a missile is the real challenge.

    The UK already makes its own warheads for Trident at Aldermaston. It's the missiles and some support functions for the boats for which we heavily depend on US goodwill.

    If the US unfriended the UK then the move is obvious. We'd get M51 airframes from Ariane and integrate the existing UK weapons while adapting the Dreadnoughts to take M51. Allah alone knows how long this would take and what it would cost. There would be a few another anciliary matters like the UK having to grovel their way back into Galileo but that could all eventually be overcome.
    Or the UK simply launches its own GNSS / PNS.

    Theresa May had such a plan in 2018. It's been reset to UK SBPNTP but still active.
    It's not particularly complex: hence the fact that the US, Russia, China and the EU all have their own satellite based positioning systems.

    That said, while we could make the satellites easily enough, getting the ticket launches needed to get in the right positions is probably non trivial right now.
This discussion has been closed.