"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."
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 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)
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 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.
"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."
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.
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 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.
"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"
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
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.
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 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
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?
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 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.
"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."
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.
"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"
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
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
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
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 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 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 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
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?
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
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!'.
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 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.
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
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 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.
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?
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 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.
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?
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
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.
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 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.
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
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 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.
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…
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?
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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 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
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.
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)
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 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
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.
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.
"Let me put it this way, Mr. Dickson. The HYUFD series is the most reliable computer ever made. No HYUFD computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
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).
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
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!
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.
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?
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
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?
"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."
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.
"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."
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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")"
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
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.
Comments
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
This might be just another symptom.
"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
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.
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.
You strike.
They attempt to bring the country to its knees in communist tool downing class war.
It'd need to be redone from scratch.
Indeed, the Chinese deliberately left the main sea lanes in and out of Taiwan open.
His lack of self-awareness knows no bounds.
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).
https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1559982100081778691
Could make the Senate stay Dem.
I will die laughing.
What about the unique specialised and complex factories we don't have for these developments. They will take years to build.
https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1560268053002469377
If those aren't high quality detailed sources, what more do you want? A testimonial from Donald himself?
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?
The country is descending into Zimbabwe, just without Mugabe.
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.
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.
60 men can build far more houses than 10 men over the same timeframe obviously
It’s relatively unlikely, but not unimaginably so.
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.
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.
A simple fact that HYUFD can't understand.
Don't ever say the Tories are anti-youth. 😊
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62585183
None of the 250-1 shots come in.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/21/forget-liz-truss-rishi-sunak-tory-supporters-would-much-rather/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1661109782
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bring-back-boris-why-swing-voters-dont-trust-truss-or-sunak-0dqxlhdmb
If she can’t build mo’ with Tory voters, what hope has she with swing voters?
"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.
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.
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.
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/
'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.
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.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
It seemed so unlikely.
https://twitter.com/scotgovusa/status/1526300187018207232?s=21&t=AtNbQCqniBe4vv2jg8Mb1w
Theresa May had such a plan in 2018. It's been reset to UK SBPNTP but still active.
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
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.
I don't know who offers that. I very much doubt it's Truss and her retinue of gremlins.
These days would no doubt send to Moscow by DHL.
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
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.
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.