In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
Logic fail because it implies all countries having WMDs makes for a safer world.
But you do have a point. Tricky issue. No easy answers.
I'd ditch trident. It fails the cost benefit test for me.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Trouble is, an awful lot of well-informed people on social media and elsewhere think Putin might not be bluffing. The short-arse Russian is in deep shit, and also pretty crazy now
Who are these people? With all respect Leon you aren't averse to hysteria and I'm sure there are a fair few people making a living from spreading it.
I'm strangely relaxed about the prospect of armageddon. As a single man I'm probably quite expendable and prepared to take the risk of staring down Mr Putin. I do have nieces and nephews though which gives me pause for thought.
As for locations, have you considered Penarth? It's raining cats and dogs down this way but you'd be safe for a while at least unless Vlad drops the big one on Wales.
@leon is a couple of years older than me, so would have spent his teens in the latter stages of the cold war. He must have been a permanent gibbering wreck, cacking his pants every time Frankie Goes to Hollywood's Two Tribes came on the radio, or Sting sang his lament about how he hoped Russians loved their children too (which let's face it is now in some doubt)
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Trouble is, an awful lot of well-informed people on social media and elsewhere think Putin might not be bluffing. The short-arse Russian is in deep shit, and also pretty crazy now
Who are these people? With all respect Leon you aren't averse to hysteria and I'm sure there are a fair few people making a living from spreading it.
I'm strangely relaxed about the prospect of armageddon. As a single man I'm probably quite expendable and prepared to take the risk of staring down Mr Putin. I do have nieces and nephews though which gives me pause for thought.
As for locations, have you considered Penarth? It's raining cats and dogs down this way but you'd be safe for a while at least unless Vlad drops the big one on Wales.
It's not hysterical to be a tad concerned when proper experts are full of the fear
It was easily missed, amidst all the other news that this Government has generated over the past week, but the Court of Appeal yesterday afforded an important victory to Suella Braverman.
As Attorney General, she asked it to review the judgement in the ‘Colston Four’ trial, which saw four vandals acquitted on the grounds that tearing down a public artwork was protected under human rights legislation…..
In the wake of the ruling, Braverman used powers conferred on the Attorney General by Parliament to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Not to overturn the actual judgement, but to clarify the law.
This move was widely ridiculed by legal Twitter, which rarely passed over an opportunity to discredit itself where Braverman was concerned. One legal luminary compared her to a cleaner; Jolyon Maugham went so far as to compare her legal acumen to that of a dog……
Yet the Court of Appeal agreed with Braverman; convicting someone for public vandalism would not, in fact, constitute an unacceptable breach of their right to protest.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
Logic fail because it implies all countries having WMDs makes for a safer world.
But you do have a point. Tricky issue. No easy answers.
I'd ditch trident. It fails the cost benefit test for me.
As luck would have it I am just looking at my insurance policy.
There is no cover for:
10) War, terrorism, radioactive contamination and pressure waves Any claim resulting directly or indirectly from or in connection with: a) war, terrorism, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, uprising, military or usurped power; b) ionising radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel; c) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component of it; d) pressure waves caused by aircraft or other aerial devices travelling at sonic or supersonic speed.
It's against the rules of Lloyd's and I assume also the companies market to write land based war risks.
You can buy war-on-land coverage. Just not in a current war zone.
Not at Lloyd's unless the rules have changed
Lloyd's writes War and Terrorism coverage, either separately or combined, all the time - including sabotage (if you want). In marine, non-marine and aviation markets. It has done since it was founded. More-or-less.
War-on-land is a commonly bought coverage for cargo risks for example. Lloyd's is not prevented from writing this at all. In fact there are underwriters specialising in it. Lloyd's cannot write coverage for radioactive contamination either from terror or war, but that's pretty much the only limit.
Not sure why you think Lloyd's is banned from writing W&T.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
Logic fail because it implies all countries having WMDs makes for a safer world.
But you do have a point. Tricky issue. No easy answers.
I'd ditch trident. It fails the cost benefit test for me.
But we return to Leon's previous point. Would Ukraine be in the mess it is now if it had a huge stockpile of strategic nuclear weapons, ready to exterminate all life in Russia the nanosecond that it tried to invade?
The Russia-Ukraine War is, alas, the best advertisement for nuclear proliferation ever made.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Trouble is, an awful lot of well-informed people on social media and elsewhere think Putin might not be bluffing. The short-arse Russian is in deep shit, and also pretty crazy now
Who are these people? With all respect Leon you aren't averse to hysteria and I'm sure there are a fair few people making a living from spreading it.
I'm strangely relaxed about the prospect of armageddon. As a single man I'm probably quite expendable and prepared to take the risk of staring down Mr Putin. I do have nieces and nephews though which gives me pause for thought.
As for locations, have you considered Penarth? It's raining cats and dogs down this way but you'd be safe for a while at least unless Vlad drops the big one on Wales.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Trouble is, an awful lot of well-informed people on social media and elsewhere think Putin might not be bluffing. The short-arse Russian is in deep shit, and also pretty crazy now
Who are these people? With all respect Leon you aren't averse to hysteria and I'm sure there are a fair few people making a living from spreading it.
I'm strangely relaxed about the prospect of armageddon. As a single man I'm probably quite expendable and prepared to take the risk of staring down Mr Putin. I do have nieces and nephews though which gives me pause for thought.
As for locations, have you considered Penarth? It's raining cats and dogs down this way but you'd be safe for a while at least unless Vlad drops the big one on Wales.
@leon is a couple of years older than me, so would have spent his teens in the latter stages of the cold war. He must have been a permanent gibbering wreck, cacking his pants every time Frankie Goes to Hollywood's Two Tribes came on the radio, or Sting sang his lament about how he hoped Russians loved their children too (which let's face it is now in some doubt)
Yes I do personally recall the Cold War
I remember Duck and Cover. And that silent shrill sense of Eeek, in the back of your mind. What if they drop the bomb? It was a persistent and perturbing background murmur. Like a hummadruz
And this new emergency feels magnitudes worse and more unnerving, because it has spiralled out of nowhere in a world already thrown out of kilter by plague. I do NOT remember the Cuban Missile Crisis - I'm not that old - but I suspect this is even more perilous a moment than that
I too believe that the solution to the problem of poor and deteriorating public services and declining real income for most people is economic growth. I think most people will agree.
The problem is clearly not one of demand, otherwise there would not be inflation. So cutting taxes is not an answer.
The problem is supply, in particular lack of labour and problems with the supply chain. The answer is freedom of movement and removing barriers to the supply chain, in other words rejoining the EU. Problem solved.
As luck would have it I am just looking at my insurance policy.
There is no cover for:
10) War, terrorism, radioactive contamination and pressure waves Any claim resulting directly or indirectly from or in connection with: a) war, terrorism, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, uprising, military or usurped power; b) ionising radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel; c) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component of it; d) pressure waves caused by aircraft or other aerial devices travelling at sonic or supersonic speed.
It's against the rules of Lloyd's and I assume also the companies market to write land based war risks.
You can buy war-on-land coverage. Just not in a current war zone.
Not at Lloyd's unless the rules have changed
Lloyd's writes War and Terrorism coverage, either separately or combined, all the time - including sabotage (if you want). In marine, non-marine and aviation markets. It has done since it was founded. More-or-less.
War-on-land is a commonly bought coverage for cargo risks for example. Lloyd's is not prevented from writing this at all. In fact there are underwriters specialising in it. Lloyd's cannot write coverage for radioactive contamination either from terror or war, but that's pretty much the only limit.
Not sure why you think Lloyd's is banned from writing W&T.
I too believe that the solution to the problem of poor and deteriorating public services and declining real income for most people is economic growth. I think most people will agree.
The problem is clearly not one of demand, otherwise there would not be inflation. So cutting taxes is not an answer.
The problem is supply, in particular lack of labour and problems with the supply chain. The answer is freedom of movement and removing barriers to the supply chain, in other words rejoining the EU. Problem solved.
Problem reduced a bit, not cured judging by figures from various EU nation states.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Trouble is, an awful lot of well-informed people on social media and elsewhere think Putin might not be bluffing. The short-arse Russian is in deep shit, and also pretty crazy now
Who are these people? With all respect Leon you aren't averse to hysteria and I'm sure there are a fair few people making a living from spreading it.
I'm strangely relaxed about the prospect of armageddon. As a single man I'm probably quite expendable and prepared to take the risk of staring down Mr Putin. I do have nieces and nephews though which gives me pause for thought.
As for locations, have you considered Penarth? It's raining cats and dogs down this way but you'd be safe for a while at least unless Vlad drops the big one on Wales.
Scilly Isles?
Food running out will be an issue here if its a major tits up on the mainland
Ideally we hang on til Wednesday for Armageddon because I've got La Dame de Pic on Tuesday.
Could we make it Thursday, please? Meeting a friend for lunch on Wednesday.
Oh jeez are we putting our bids in. Mon/Tues I'm in Paris; Thurs I have a drinks, then Friday off for the weekend.
So I have a window I suppose on Weds but if people are busy that night then I'm happy to bump it to next week.
What about my cunningly delayed house move?
We have an ideal diversion planned for Monday. We're off to hear Max Hastings talk about the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Should be good though. Very interesting and very topical. Not to succumb to hyperbolic doomcasting - as if - but this does look a slightly precarious situation. Putin is attempting nuclear blackmail and at same time giving America no choice but to not give in to it. What a bad mad man.
If there is a discussion afterwards, it will be interesting to hear his views on the current situation.
As luck would have it I am just looking at my insurance policy.
There is no cover for:
10) War, terrorism, radioactive contamination and pressure waves Any claim resulting directly or indirectly from or in connection with: a) war, terrorism, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, uprising, military or usurped power; b) ionising radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel; c) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component of it; d) pressure waves caused by aircraft or other aerial devices travelling at sonic or supersonic speed.
It's against the rules of Lloyd's and I assume also the companies market to write land based war risks.
You can buy war-on-land coverage. Just not in a current war zone.
Not at Lloyd's unless the rules have changed
Lloyd's writes War and Terrorism coverage, either separately or combined, all the time - including sabotage (if you want). In marine, non-marine and aviation markets. It has done since it was founded. More-or-less.
War-on-land is a commonly bought coverage for cargo risks for example. Lloyd's is not prevented from writing this at all. In fact there are underwriters specialising in it. Lloyd's cannot write coverage for radioactive contamination either from terror or war, but that's pretty much the only limit.
Not sure why you think Lloyd's is banned from writing W&T.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
I had 3 types of weighting: ones that would rule a country out altogether (like visa requirement or flying over war zone), some nice to haves with low scores (like cost of living) and other more important ones that were weighted twice as much (ease of getting there and back).
I’d rather not go intercontinental if possible as it’s that much trickier to come back if it’s all a false alarm.
Ireland would rely on westerlies. Would need to take heed of the medium term forecast. Also need to be far enough from Northern Ireland and Shannon airport.
What about Tenerife? Can't see it being on the target list.
You’ve got to hope that someone somewhere is going to still be in a position to ship food in, because once the stocks run out what happens then?
Eat bananas and hope there are enough fish, I suppose.
The same problem will happen in Morocco, too.
Though perhaps it will rain there more in a nuclear winter? The polar front will move south.
As luck would have it I am just looking at my insurance policy.
There is no cover for:
10) War, terrorism, radioactive contamination and pressure waves Any claim resulting directly or indirectly from or in connection with: a) war, terrorism, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, uprising, military or usurped power; b) ionising radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel; c) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component of it; d) pressure waves caused by aircraft or other aerial devices travelling at sonic or supersonic speed.
It's against the rules of Lloyd's and I assume also the companies market to write land based war risks.
You can buy war-on-land coverage. Just not in a current war zone.
Not at Lloyd's unless the rules have changed
Lloyd's writes War and Terrorism coverage, either separately or combined, all the time - including sabotage (if you want). In marine, non-marine and aviation markets. It has done since it was founded. More-or-less.
War-on-land is a commonly bought coverage for cargo risks for example. Lloyd's is not prevented from writing this at all. In fact there are underwriters specialising in it. Lloyd's cannot write coverage for radioactive contamination either from terror or war, but that's pretty much the only limit.
Not sure why you think Lloyd's is banned from writing W&T.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
Does anyone else find it (at least) odd, that a UK government would go out of it's way (according to it's own narrative) to exacerbate a fiscal crisis, smack dab in the middle of a hot European war, involving MAJOR threats (putting it mildly) to the UK and the world?
I mean, WHO stands to benefit from pouring gasoline onto the burning building? The fire fighers - or the arsonist?
This is Q-Anon level stuff. You might as well imply that the Federal Reserve is secretly working for Russia by hiking rates so quickly and creating market dislocations around the world.
You seem quite defensive. More so than persuasive. As per your recent postings.
Current HMG (BoJo & Bojo Lite) IS on record has having granted peerage to at least on security risk, is it not?
And ever hear of Alger Hiss and Kim Philby, just to name a few fellow security risks who managed to become quite influential in government circles of their time & place?
I'm just exasperated that you can't see how silly the allegation of a grand pro-Russian conspiracy taking in half of British politics is. One that conveniently overlooks the role that many of the same individuals have played in countering Russia.
It's the mindset of a delusional conspiracy theorist, not a considered sceptic.
As luck would have it I am just looking at my insurance policy.
There is no cover for:
10) War, terrorism, radioactive contamination and pressure waves Any claim resulting directly or indirectly from or in connection with: a) war, terrorism, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, uprising, military or usurped power; b) ionising radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel; c) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component of it; d) pressure waves caused by aircraft or other aerial devices travelling at sonic or supersonic speed.
It's against the rules of Lloyd's and I assume also the companies market to write land based war risks.
You can buy war-on-land coverage. Just not in a current war zone.
Not at Lloyd's unless the rules have changed
Lloyd's writes War and Terrorism coverage, either separately or combined, all the time - including sabotage (if you want). In marine, non-marine and aviation markets. It has done since it was founded. More-or-less.
War-on-land is a commonly bought coverage for cargo risks for example. Lloyd's is not prevented from writing this at all. In fact there are underwriters specialising in it. Lloyd's cannot write coverage for radioactive contamination either from terror or war, but that's pretty much the only limit.
Not sure why you think Lloyd's is banned from writing W&T.
That was a Market Circular instructing underwriters to more closely monitor their issued policies to exactly define if war was/is covered - as many legacy policies were vague and open to challenge. So a suite of LMA endorsements was issued to more tightly control these open policies.
If you even read the document you evidently just dumped here hoping to win your argument then what it basically says:
"Managing agents should ensure that they clearly document the scope of any war, civil war and related perils cover provided. Where cover is not provided, managing agents should ensure that a suitable exclusion clause is included in the policy terms and conditions. A number of model clauses have been developed by the LMA for this purpose. Where cover is to be given, the scope of cover should be clearly stated either in a separate policy or in a separately identifiable section of the policy. A number of model clauses have been developed by the LMA for certain classes that specifically provide for extended coverage, such as personal accident. Model clauses have also been developed by various market committees in the marine and aviation markets. "
Sorry. Lloyd's writes war and terrorism. Why don't you just admit you're wrong. For once.
Ukraine received new missiles for HIMARS/M270 - modification of M30A1
The M30A1/A2 differs from the previously used M31A1/A2 in an alternative warhead with 180,000 preformed spheroidal tungsten fragments placed around the explosive charge.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
You are getting carried away. Putin is far more likely to use a tactical nuke first and see what the response is. Or indeed, not nuke at all but chemical weapon - far less likely to trigger a nuke response.
Ukraine received new missiles for HIMARS/M270 - modification of M30A1
The M30A1/A2 differs from the previously used M31A1/A2 in an alternative warhead with 180,000 preformed spheroidal tungsten fragments placed around the explosive charge.
"It was a deliberate act of sabotage. Now the Russians are pumping out disinformation. We will work with our allies to get to the bottom of what happened... But don't listen to Putin. What he's saying we know is not true."
Does house insurance usually protect you in instances of nuclear war?
Asking for a friend.
Three problems. A living policyholder. An insurance company that hasn’t been annihilated. Insurance companies’ small print.
What kind of event or action is sufficient, do you think, to trigger a sensible evacuation of one’s family to the countryside or even New Zealand?
Asking for another friend.
In the event of a strategic nuclear exchange there's no point in running. Anywhere that's not obliterated by a thermonuclear blast will simply be irradiated by fallout, then starved and frozen to death in a nuclear winter.
Besides which, Putin is psychotic, genocidal scum and so are all the people around him. It wouldn't at all surprise me if they decided to nuke as wide a range of targets as possible in their zeal to take the entire world down with them. New Zealand is, therefore, probably on their "let's kill the whole planet" list anyway.
The Cold War plans of the USSR included nuking New Zealand. The reasoning was that
a) The anti-nuclear thing was probably a fake b) They were Western country so would probably ally with the rest of the West.
40 warheads, IIRC.
Australia was going to be nuked as well. IIRC Port Moresby was going to get urban redevelopment.... Yes, the USSR was planning on bombing Papua New Guinea back to the Stone Age.
Papua New Guinea is as close as you get to the stone age already.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
If there was US capitulation that scenario there is nothing stopping Putin dropping a nuke whenever he wants something. If he drops on Munich to use your example, for Ukraine, what is to stop him dropping on Madrid for Moldova? Amsterdam for the Baltics? Oslo for Poland?
You are essentially giving him carte blanche to take whatever he wants of the non-nuclear world.
So it wouldn’t work. Retaliation on a Russian city would be the bare minimum.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
China might prove the curveball difference here. Russias nukes are targetted at the West, Putin goes tactical, China fires in 3 dong fengs with a 'cease and desist' order, Russia capitulates as it will be fried before it can target China and a grateful world hands China military protectorate over Asian Russia.
It was easily missed, amidst all the other news that this Government has generated over the past week, but the Court of Appeal yesterday afforded an important victory to Suella Braverman.
As Attorney General, she asked it to review the judgement in the ‘Colston Four’ trial, which saw four vandals acquitted on the grounds that tearing down a public artwork was protected under human rights legislation…..
In the wake of the ruling, Braverman used powers conferred on the Attorney General by Parliament to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Not to overturn the actual judgement, but to clarify the law.
This move was widely ridiculed by legal Twitter, which rarely passed over an opportunity to discredit itself where Braverman was concerned. One legal luminary compared her to a cleaner; Jolyon Maugham went so far as to compare her legal acumen to that of a dog……
Yet the Court of Appeal agreed with Braverman; convicting someone for public vandalism would not, in fact, constitute an unacceptable breach of their right to protest.
Braverman should get credit where it is due. But her record as Attorney General was not very impressive. Ironically the ruling doesn't really help her case against 'human rights laws'. If I have understood it correctly, the court of appeal came to the conclusion that human rights laws don't permit you to tear down statues.
They make some valid points about the 'legal commentariat'. They like to think of themselves as being above politics, but they aren't and there is a lot of left wing groupthink going on.
Ukraine received new missiles for HIMARS/M270 - modification of M30A1
The M30A1/A2 differs from the previously used M31A1/A2 in an alternative warhead with 180,000 preformed spheroidal tungsten fragments placed around the explosive charge.
Does anyone else find it (at least) odd, that a UK government would go out of it's way (according to it's own narrative) to exacerbate a fiscal crisis, smack dab in the middle of a hot European war, involving MAJOR threats (putting it mildly) to the UK and the world?
I mean, WHO stands to benefit from pouring gasoline onto the burning building? The fire fighers - or the arsonist?
This is Q-Anon level stuff. You might as well imply that the Federal Reserve is secretly working for Russia by hiking rates so quickly and creating market dislocations around the world.
You seem quite defensive. More so than persuasive. As per your recent postings.
Current HMG (BoJo & Bojo Lite) IS on record has having granted peerage to at least on security risk, is it not?
And ever hear of Alger Hiss and Kim Philby, just to name a few fellow security risks who managed to become quite influential in government circles of their time & place?
I'm just exasperated that you can't see how silly the allegation of a grand pro-Russian conspiracy taking in half of British politics is. One that conveniently overlooks the role that many of the same individuals have played in countering Russia.
It's the mindset of a delusional conspiracy theorist, not a considered sceptic.
So you keep saying, that YOUR critics are dumb and delusional. It's your constant, quick fall-back.
What I am saying, is that the possibility of Russian infiltration - NOT total "grand" domination - is a definitely possibility, given the character and quality of recent AND current "leadership" of HMG.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
If there was US capitulation that scenario there is nothing stopping Putin dropping a nuke whenever he wants something. If he drops on Munich to use your example, for Ukraine, what is to stop him dropping on Madrid for Moldova? Amsterdam for the Baltics? Oslo for Poland?
You are essentially giving him carte blanche to take whatever he wants of the non-nuclear world.
So it wouldn’t work. Retaliation on a Russian city would be the bare minimum.
What? I'm not giving anything I'm trying to work out IF the USA would retaliate, and how they would do it, in that scenario. And I'm not sure America would go full on total nuke exchange
More likely they would do what you say. One Russian city. And then a desperate seeking of peace. Which might suit Putin completely
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
China might prove the curveball difference here. Russias nukes are targetted at the West, Putin goes tactical, China fires in 3 dong fengs with a 'cease and desist' order, Russia capitulates as it will be fried before it can target China and a grateful world hands China military protectorate over Asian Russia.
I hope we are having serious talks in Beijing right now; because Xi is the man who is the most likely person who can stop this war.
That's the end of the speech. As I said from day 1, the purpose of what Putin is doing in Ukraine is to throw the West off its pedestal. This isn't about NATO or Ukraine, this is the big play to replace the current world order.
Ukraine received new missiles for HIMARS/M270 - modification of M30A1
The M30A1/A2 differs from the previously used M31A1/A2 in an alternative warhead with 180,000 preformed spheroidal tungsten fragments placed around the explosive charge.
Does anyone else find it (at least) odd, that a UK government would go out of it's way (according to it's own narrative) to exacerbate a fiscal crisis, smack dab in the middle of a hot European war, involving MAJOR threats (putting it mildly) to the UK and the world?
I mean, WHO stands to benefit from pouring gasoline onto the burning building? The fire fighers - or the arsonist?
This is Q-Anon level stuff. You might as well imply that the Federal Reserve is secretly working for Russia by hiking rates so quickly and creating market dislocations around the world.
You seem quite defensive. More so than persuasive. As per your recent postings.
Current HMG (BoJo & Bojo Lite) IS on record has having granted peerage to at least on security risk, is it not?
And ever hear of Alger Hiss and Kim Philby, just to name a few fellow security risks who managed to become quite influential in government circles of their time & place?
I'm just exasperated that you can't see how silly the allegation of a grand pro-Russian conspiracy taking in half of British politics is. One that conveniently overlooks the role that many of the same individuals have played in countering Russia.
It's the mindset of a delusional conspiracy theorist, not a considered sceptic.
So you keep saying, that YOUR critics are dumb and delusional. It's your constant, quick fall-back.
What I am saying, is that the possibility of Russian infiltration - NOT total "grand" domination - is a definitely possibility, given the character and quality of recent AND current "leadership" of HMG.
Be specific and rigorous about what you are alleging. Who is on your Joe McCarthy-style list of suspects and in what way do you think they are compromised?
"It was a deliberate act of sabotage. Now the Russians are pumping out disinformation. We will work with our allies to get to the bottom of what happened... But don't listen to Putin. What he's saying we know is not true."
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
If there was US capitulation that scenario there is nothing stopping Putin dropping a nuke whenever he wants something. If he drops on Munich to use your example, for Ukraine, what is to stop him dropping on Madrid for Moldova? Amsterdam for the Baltics? Oslo for Poland?
You are essentially giving him carte blanche to take whatever he wants of the non-nuclear world.
So it wouldn’t work. Retaliation on a Russian city would be the bare minimum.
The West would not target a city primarily. A naval base, military installation, industrial complex, air base etc Countervalue targetting is the endgame of MAD Putin would similarly hit an economic or military target
It was easily missed, amidst all the other news that this Government has generated over the past week, but the Court of Appeal yesterday afforded an important victory to Suella Braverman.
As Attorney General, she asked it to review the judgement in the ‘Colston Four’ trial, which saw four vandals acquitted on the grounds that tearing down a public artwork was protected under human rights legislation…..
In the wake of the ruling, Braverman used powers conferred on the Attorney General by Parliament to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Not to overturn the actual judgement, but to clarify the law.
This move was widely ridiculed by legal Twitter, which rarely passed over an opportunity to discredit itself where Braverman was concerned. One legal luminary compared her to a cleaner; Jolyon Maugham went so far as to compare her legal acumen to that of a dog……
Yet the Court of Appeal agreed with Braverman; convicting someone for public vandalism would not, in fact, constitute an unacceptable breach of their right to protest.
Braverman should get credit where it is due. But her record as Attorney General was not very impressive. Ironically the ruling doesn't really help her case against 'human rights laws'. If I have understood it correctly, the court of appeal came to the conclusion that human rights laws don't permit you to tear down statues.
They make some valid points about the 'legal commentariat'. They like to think of themselves as being above politics, but they aren't and there is a lot of left wing groupthink going on.
Judgement - which is obviously correct, and nothing to do with how good Braverman is as AG etc - here:
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
You are getting carried away. Putin is far more likely to use a tactical nuke first and see what the response is. Or indeed, not nuke at all but chemical weapon - far less likely to trigger a nuke response.
I'm not "getting carried away" I am elaborating on scenarios I have seen discussed by military experts online, and by Russian politicians on Russian TV, is all
This is an unlikely scenario, but not ridiculously so. See Russians discussing a first strike on UK or Germany here
"Meanwhile in Russia, more of the usual: nuclear threats against Germany and Britain, cautioning NATO against going into Ukraine. This directly clashes with their lies, constantly spewed by state TV, that Russia is already at war with NATO & "uniformed NATO troops" are in Ukraine."
I get criticised if I post too few (cherry-picking). I get criticised if I post too many (bloody jocks).
Hopefully get some proper polls around the SC decision.
Fundamental methodological error: never measure at or around an “event”. Regular, say monthly, polls are your friend. Scotland used to have two (System Three and ? I forget the other, ICM? courtesy of G Herald and Scotsman) until the rise of the SNP. Odd coincidence that they disappeared about then 😉
2010-ish? Yes, that was about when the Scotsman and then GH stopped being decent middle of the road broadsheets anyway, which didn't help.
Scotland needs a national media. National polling companies. And a national government.
Scotland is ill served by its media. There is one newspaper where the SNP can do no ill. The rest are biased in the opposite direction. There is no unbiased media. At all. Mind you, the rest of the UK suffers badly from the same failures.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
If there was US capitulation that scenario there is nothing stopping Putin dropping a nuke whenever he wants something. If he drops on Munich to use your example, for Ukraine, what is to stop him dropping on Madrid for Moldova? Amsterdam for the Baltics? Oslo for Poland?
You are essentially giving him carte blanche to take whatever he wants of the non-nuclear world.
So it wouldn’t work. Retaliation on a Russian city would be the bare minimum.
What? I'm not giving anything I'm trying to work out IF the USA would retaliate, and how they would do it, in that scenario. And I'm not sure America would go full on total nuke exchange
More likely they would do what you say. One Russian city. And then a desperate seeking of peace. Which might suit Putin completely
This all reads like a fundamental misunderstanding of the American mentality. Italy and Germany are seen as part of the West, and the West is seen as America's gang. Tens of millions of Americans are proud of their Italian or German identity. A nuke dropped on one of those countries would absolutely lead to Russia losing one of its major cities. Quite likely Moscow.
Which is why Russia won't do it. Putin knows all this. The people around him all know this. And if Putin really did go mad and try it, the people around him would block it, just as they blocked full mobilization.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I think you're pissing into the radioactive wind.
If I wanted to live in the remnants of our civilisation. I'd go and eat puffins on the Western Isles.
The torrential rain will wash a lot of the radioactive fallout away. Good call.
Infinite supply of iodine rich kelp and all the sea birds a man can desire.
Care to join me for tern a l'bladder rack this Christmas?
You won’t get there before Christmas because of Calmac ferries.
Ukraine received new missiles for HIMARS/M270 - modification of M30A1
The M30A1/A2 differs from the previously used M31A1/A2 in an alternative warhead with 180,000 preformed spheroidal tungsten fragments placed around the explosive charge.
Ugh. As a species, we really are quite inventive at thinking of ways to kill people, aren't we?
Ideal for ill equipped mobilised forces with little hard cover. Shame the new recruits don't get to see this in advance.
As a species we're really quite inventive at thinking of ways to help people and improve things too.
It's the flip side of imagination.
Oh, I know, I was an Engineer once.
I just can't imagine working to design and test something like this - and yet I'm kind of glad there is someone who does. It is somehow more personal than eg an aircraft.
That's the end of the speech. As I said from day 1, the purpose of what Putin is doing in Ukraine is to throw the West off its pedestal. This isn't about NATO or Ukraine, this is the big play to replace the current world order.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
If there was US capitulation that scenario there is nothing stopping Putin dropping a nuke whenever he wants something. If he drops on Munich to use your example, for Ukraine, what is to stop him dropping on Madrid for Moldova? Amsterdam for the Baltics? Oslo for Poland?
You are essentially giving him carte blanche to take whatever he wants of the non-nuclear world.
So it wouldn’t work. Retaliation on a Russian city would be the bare minimum.
What? I'm not giving anything I'm trying to work out IF the USA would retaliate, and how they would do it, in that scenario. And I'm not sure America would go full on total nuke exchange
More likely they would do what you say. One Russian city. And then a desperate seeking of peace. Which might suit Putin completely
This all reads like a fundamental misunderstanding of the American mentality. Italy and Germany are seen as part of the West, and the West is seen as America's gang. Tens of millions of Americans are proud of their Italian or German identity. A nuke dropped on one of those countries would absolutely lead to Russia losing one of its major cities. Quite likely Moscow.
Which is why Russia won't do it. Putin knows all this. The people around him all know this. And if Putin really did go mad and try it, the people around him would block it, just as they blocked full mobilization.
I mostly agree with you, apart from your last point
I watched the annexation ceremony today. A truly bizarre event
The relevance is that Putin looked completely mad, and the entire crowd looked terrified and disturbed, like kidnap victims, like he had them all there at gunpoint. Maybe he did, in effect
I kept looking for signs they would stop this mad fucker. I could not see any, unfortunately. I just saw fear
One hopes there is a Zhukov-like character hanging around the Kreml somewhere
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 1h NEW: I understand “multiple” Conservative MPs are in talks with Labour in Parliament to defeat elements of the “mini-budget. Particular focus on 45p rate. Focus is on sending a signal to markets.
That's the end of the speech. As I said from day 1, the purpose of what Putin is doing in Ukraine is to throw the West off its pedestal. This isn't about NATO or Ukraine, this is the big play to replace the current world order.
If that is correct, then Putin is failing miserably. Sadly there is no other option than he bangs his head against a nuclear NATO wall about 20% of the way in to Ukraine and gets humiliated in front of the rest of the world. No one buys his bizarre rantings about fighting western colonialism with his own colonial war. I guess it is all for a domestic consumption anyway.
"The same people who engineered and financed World Wars 1 and 2 are now trying to start World War 3 - and for the same reasons. The only difference this time is that a lot more of us are wise to their game."
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 1h NEW: I understand “multiple” Conservative MPs are in talks with Labour in Parliament to defeat elements of the “mini-budget. Particular focus on 45p rate. Focus is on sending a signal to markets.
Edit: One of the MPs is Liz Truss (probably)
How can a government possibly continue with such chaos? This would not "send a calming signal to the markets" it would make everything worse, by giving the acute sense Britain has no functioning government at all. Enough! Get rid of her, back her, or call a fucking election. Them's the choices
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 1h NEW: I understand “multiple” Conservative MPs are in talks with Labour in Parliament to defeat elements of the “mini-budget. Particular focus on 45p rate. Focus is on sending a signal to markets.
Edit: One of the MPs is Liz Truss (probably)
If enough of them rebel over a vote on supply then the likelihood of an election greatly increases. The normal response to this would be withdrawal of the whip, ergo the effective loss of Truss's Parliamentary majority.
It was easily missed, amidst all the other news that this Government has generated over the past week, but the Court of Appeal yesterday afforded an important victory to Suella Braverman.
As Attorney General, she asked it to review the judgement in the ‘Colston Four’ trial, which saw four vandals acquitted on the grounds that tearing down a public artwork was protected under human rights legislation…..
In the wake of the ruling, Braverman used powers conferred on the Attorney General by Parliament to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Not to overturn the actual judgement, but to clarify the law.
This move was widely ridiculed by legal Twitter, which rarely passed over an opportunity to discredit itself where Braverman was concerned. One legal luminary compared her to a cleaner; Jolyon Maugham went so far as to compare her legal acumen to that of a dog……
Yet the Court of Appeal agreed with Braverman; convicting someone for public vandalism would not, in fact, constitute an unacceptable breach of their right to protest.
Braverman should get credit where it is due. But her record as Attorney General was not very impressive. Ironically the ruling doesn't really help her case against 'human rights laws'. If I have understood it correctly, the court of appeal came to the conclusion that human rights laws don't permit you to tear down statues.
They make some valid points about the 'legal commentariat'. They like to think of themselves as being above politics, but they aren't and there is a lot of left wing groupthink going on.
I don’t see now the legal ruling really helps Braverman. We all knew that it was one of those jury decisions where the jury goes, “F*** what the law says, we’ll find them innocent.” There wasn’t any real risk of copycat incidents, except in the minds of those who have scared themselves into believing in a global Woke takeover.
It was easily missed, amidst all the other news that this Government has generated over the past week, but the Court of Appeal yesterday afforded an important victory to Suella Braverman.
As Attorney General, she asked it to review the judgement in the ‘Colston Four’ trial, which saw four vandals acquitted on the grounds that tearing down a public artwork was protected under human rights legislation…..
In the wake of the ruling, Braverman used powers conferred on the Attorney General by Parliament to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Not to overturn the actual judgement, but to clarify the law.
This move was widely ridiculed by legal Twitter, which rarely passed over an opportunity to discredit itself where Braverman was concerned. One legal luminary compared her to a cleaner; Jolyon Maugham went so far as to compare her legal acumen to that of a dog……
Yet the Court of Appeal agreed with Braverman; convicting someone for public vandalism would not, in fact, constitute an unacceptable breach of their right to protest.
Braverman should get credit where it is due. But her record as Attorney General was not very impressive. Ironically the ruling doesn't really help her case against 'human rights laws'. If I have understood it correctly, the court of appeal came to the conclusion that human rights laws don't permit you to tear down statues.
They make some valid points about the 'legal commentariat'. They like to think of themselves as being above politics, but they aren't and there is a lot of left wing groupthink going on.
Judgement - which is obviously correct, and nothing to do with how good Braverman is as AG etc - here:
I did like this legal point, since there are quite a few occasions where people try to rely on things minister's say, or say poorly, as if it is itself law.
iii) Lack of cogent justification during a Parliamentary debate does not count against the legislation on issues of proportionality. The court evaluates the proportionality of the legislation, not the adequacy of a minister's exploration of policy options or his explanations to Parliament:
It was easily missed, amidst all the other news that this Government has generated over the past week, but the Court of Appeal yesterday afforded an important victory to Suella Braverman.
As Attorney General, she asked it to review the judgement in the ‘Colston Four’ trial, which saw four vandals acquitted on the grounds that tearing down a public artwork was protected under human rights legislation…..
In the wake of the ruling, Braverman used powers conferred on the Attorney General by Parliament to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Not to overturn the actual judgement, but to clarify the law.
This move was widely ridiculed by legal Twitter, which rarely passed over an opportunity to discredit itself where Braverman was concerned. One legal luminary compared her to a cleaner; Jolyon Maugham went so far as to compare her legal acumen to that of a dog……
Yet the Court of Appeal agreed with Braverman; convicting someone for public vandalism would not, in fact, constitute an unacceptable breach of their right to protest.
Braverman should get credit where it is due. But her record as Attorney General was not very impressive. Ironically the ruling doesn't really help her case against 'human rights laws'. If I have understood it correctly, the court of appeal came to the conclusion that human rights laws don't permit you to tear down statues.
They make some valid points about the 'legal commentariat'. They like to think of themselves as being above politics, but they aren't and there is a lot of left wing groupthink going on.
I don’t see now the legal ruling really helps Braverman. We all knew that it was one of those jury decisions where the jury goes, “F*** what the law says, we’ll find them innocent.” There wasn’t any real risk of copycat incidents, except in the minds of those who have scared themselves into believing in a global Woke takeover.
I don’t think it helps her at all. The jury acquitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the law, as they always have tended to do. Still a system worth having.
"The same people who engineered and financed World Wars 1 and 2 are now trying to start World War 3 - and for the same reasons. The only difference this time is that a lot more of us are wise to their game."
The conspiracy theories over WW1 and WW2 really are a good example of showing who is unhinged. And it is almost always extreme right wing reactionaries that would prefer Putinism to Western Enlightenment democracy.
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 1h NEW: I understand “multiple” Conservative MPs are in talks with Labour in Parliament to defeat elements of the “mini-budget. Particular focus on 45p rate. Focus is on sending a signal to markets.
Edit: One of the MPs is Liz Truss (probably)
How can a government possibly continue with such chaos? This would not "send a calming signal to the markets" it would make everything worse, by giving the acute sense Britain has no functioning government at all. Enough! Get rid of her, back her, or call a fucking election. Them's the choices
We are weeks from - Caretaker PM Peter Bone says the opposition to the 'Mrs Bone Budget' is unacceptable but in an olive branch to rebels he has sacked Chancellor Francois and replaced him with a copy of Alan Clark's diary
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 1h NEW: I understand “multiple” Conservative MPs are in talks with Labour in Parliament to defeat elements of the “mini-budget. Particular focus on 45p rate. Focus is on sending a signal to markets.
Edit: One of the MPs is Liz Truss (probably)
How can a government possibly continue with such chaos? This would not "send a calming signal to the markets" it would make everything worse, by giving the acute sense Britain has no functioning government at all. Enough! Get rid of her, back her, or call a fucking election. Them's the choices
Handing the leadership vote to the party membership has uncoupled the executive from the majority in Parliament and thus broken the constitution.
As luck would have it I am just looking at my insurance policy.
There is no cover for:
10) War, terrorism, radioactive contamination and pressure waves Any claim resulting directly or indirectly from or in connection with: a) war, terrorism, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, uprising, military or usurped power; b) ionising radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel; c) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component of it; d) pressure waves caused by aircraft or other aerial devices travelling at sonic or supersonic speed.
It's against the rules of Lloyd's and I assume also the companies market to write land based war risks.
You can buy war-on-land coverage. Just not in a current war zone.
Not at Lloyd's unless the rules have changed
Lloyd's writes War and Terrorism coverage, either separately or combined, all the time - including sabotage (if you want). In marine, non-marine and aviation markets. It has done since it was founded. More-or-less.
War-on-land is a commonly bought coverage for cargo risks for example. Lloyd's is not prevented from writing this at all. In fact there are underwriters specialising in it. Lloyd's cannot write coverage for radioactive contamination either from terror or war, but that's pretty much the only limit.
Not sure why you think Lloyd's is banned from writing W&T.
That was a Market Circular instructing underwriters to more closely monitor their issued policies to exactly define if war was/is covered - as many legacy policies were vague and open to challenge. So a suite of LMA endorsements was issued to more tightly control these open policies.
If you even read the document you evidently just dumped here hoping to win your argument then what it basically says:
"Managing agents should ensure that they clearly document the scope of any war, civil war and related perils cover provided. Where cover is not provided, managing agents should ensure that a suitable exclusion clause is included in the policy terms and conditions. A number of model clauses have been developed by the LMA for this purpose. Where cover is to be given, the scope of cover should be clearly stated either in a separate policy or in a separately identifiable section of the policy. A number of model clauses have been developed by the LMA for certain classes that specifically provide for extended coverage, such as personal accident. Model clauses have also been developed by various market committees in the marine and aviation markets. "
Sorry. Lloyd's writes war and terrorism. Why don't you just admit you're wrong. For once.
I never don't admit I am wrong. I have read the document, why would I not? I spent much of the 80s and 90s litigating in the London marine insurance market and the rule then was no non marine war risks. You know as well as I do that a cargo policy is marine irrespective of the cargo being at sea or not so why pretend otherwise?
"A column of heavy #Russian equipment carrying nuclear warheads was spotted in #Rostov ,#Putin #PutinWarCriminal #UkraineWar #Ukraine️ #UkraineWillWin #SlavaUkrainii #SlavaUkraïni #StandWithUkraine #Russia #nuclearwar"
I may have to bring forward my Doomsday Finger Buffet
NB: I have no idea if that video is genuine. The trees look suspiciously springlike, not autumnal, tho the weather matches the forecast for today in Rostov: clear and 24C
If that twitter summary of "Czar" Putin's speech was reasonably complete, then I am disappointed that he left out the 4th Crusade, merely going back a few hundred years. I was half hoping he would blame the United States for that, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade
(By the way, after World War I, the United States, under the leadership of Herbert Hoover, gave immense amounts of food aid to the Soviet Union. "At its peak, the ARA employed 300 Americans, more than 120,000 Russians and fed 10.5 million people daily." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Relief_Administration )
I am reasonably sure Putin didn't mention that in his speech.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
If there was US capitulation that scenario there is nothing stopping Putin dropping a nuke whenever he wants something. If he drops on Munich to use your example, for Ukraine, what is to stop him dropping on Madrid for Moldova? Amsterdam for the Baltics? Oslo for Poland?
You are essentially giving him carte blanche to take whatever he wants of the non-nuclear world.
So it wouldn’t work. Retaliation on a Russian city would be the bare minimum.
What? I'm not giving anything I'm trying to work out IF the USA would retaliate, and how they would do it, in that scenario. And I'm not sure America would go full on total nuke exchange
More likely they would do what you say. One Russian city. And then a desperate seeking of peace. Which might suit Putin completely
This all reads like a fundamental misunderstanding of the American mentality. Italy and Germany are seen as part of the West, and the West is seen as America's gang. Tens of millions of Americans are proud of their Italian or German identity. A nuke dropped on one of those countries would absolutely lead to Russia losing one of its major cities. Quite likely Moscow.
Which is why Russia won't do it. Putin knows all this. The people around him all know this. And if Putin really did go mad and try it, the people around him would block it, just as they blocked full mobilization.
I mostly agree with you, apart from your last point
I watched the annexation ceremony today. A truly bizarre event
The relevance is that Putin looked completely mad, and the entire crowd looked terrified and disturbed, like kidnap victims, like he had them all there at gunpoint. Maybe he did, in effect
I kept looking for signs they would stop this mad fucker. I could not see any, unfortunately. I just saw fear
One hopes there is a Zhukov-like character hanging around the Kreml somewhere
The people that would block him are not in that crowd. They are in the offices of Russian banks and the KGB. The KGB can assassinate him and the bankers can stop his funding. Putin is Peter III and the coup is inevitable. If he is lucky, cancer will get him first.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
Logic fail because it implies all countries having WMDs makes for a safer world.
But you do have a point. Tricky issue. No easy answers.
I'd ditch trident. It fails the cost benefit test for me.
But we return to Leon's previous point. Would Ukraine be in the mess it is now if it had a huge stockpile of strategic nuclear weapons, ready to exterminate all life in Russia the nanosecond that it tried to invade?
The Russia-Ukraine War is, alas, the best advertisement for nuclear proliferation ever made.
It doesn't follow from this that Trident passes the cost benefit test for us.
That's the end of the speech. As I said from day 1, the purpose of what Putin is doing in Ukraine is to throw the West off its pedestal. This isn't about NATO or Ukraine, this is the big play to replace the current world order.
If that is correct, then Putin is failing miserably. Sadly there is no other option than he bangs his head against a nuclear NATO wall about 20% of the way in to Ukraine and gets humiliated in front of the rest of the world. No one buys his bizarre rantings about fighting western colonialism with his own colonial war. I guess it is all for a domestic consumption anyway.
im just reading a book on Putin and apparently he blew up apartment blocks in Moscow ie killed his own people to give him an excuse to launch air strikes against grozny and propel him to the presidency...the man is utterly ruthless and very deceptive...a dangerous enemy
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 1h NEW: I understand “multiple” Conservative MPs are in talks with Labour in Parliament to defeat elements of the “mini-budget. Particular focus on 45p rate. Focus is on sending a signal to markets.
Edit: One of the MPs is Liz Truss (probably)
How can a government possibly continue with such chaos? This would not "send a calming signal to the markets" it would make everything worse, by giving the acute sense Britain has no functioning government at all. Enough! Get rid of her, back her, or call a fucking election. Them's the choices
Handing the leadership vote to the party membership has uncoupled the executive from the majority in Parliament and thus broken the constitution.
Maybe the Tories need to take a leaf out of the Labour party and give a proportion of the votes to the unions.
"A column of heavy #Russian equipment carrying nuclear warheads was spotted in #Rostov ,#Putin #PutinWarCriminal #UkraineWar #Ukraine️ #UkraineWillWin #SlavaUkrainii #SlavaUkraïni #StandWithUkraine #Russia #nuclearwar"
I may have to bring forward my Doomsday Finger Buffet
NB: I have no idea if that video is genuine. The trees look suspiciously springlike, not autumnal, tho the weather matches the forecast for today in Rostov: clear and 24C
No need to add to *the fear*. That's definitely spring. May Day parade somewhere?
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
If Putin were to drop a strategic nuclear weapon on anywhere other than a remote location it's basically a suicide weapon. The gloves would come off and Nato would obliterate Russia's military, IT and infrastructure. The whole world would want him dead and I think he knows it.
Probably yes, so if he's rational Putin won't do this
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
If there was US capitulation that scenario there is nothing stopping Putin dropping a nuke whenever he wants something. If he drops on Munich to use your example, for Ukraine, what is to stop him dropping on Madrid for Moldova? Amsterdam for the Baltics? Oslo for Poland?
You are essentially giving him carte blanche to take whatever he wants of the non-nuclear world.
So it wouldn’t work. Retaliation on a Russian city would be the bare minimum.
What? I'm not giving anything I'm trying to work out IF the USA would retaliate, and how they would do it, in that scenario. And I'm not sure America would go full on total nuke exchange
More likely they would do what you say. One Russian city. And then a desperate seeking of peace. Which might suit Putin completely
This all reads like a fundamental misunderstanding of the American mentality. Italy and Germany are seen as part of the West, and the West is seen as America's gang. Tens of millions of Americans are proud of their Italian or German identity. A nuke dropped on one of those countries would absolutely lead to Russia losing one of its major cities. Quite likely Moscow.
Which is why Russia won't do it. Putin knows all this. The people around him all know this. And if Putin really did go mad and try it, the people around him would block it, just as they blocked full mobilization.
I mostly agree with you, apart from your last point
I watched the annexation ceremony today. A truly bizarre event
The relevance is that Putin looked completely mad, and the entire crowd looked terrified and disturbed, like kidnap victims, like he had them all there at gunpoint. Maybe he did, in effect
I kept looking for signs they would stop this mad fucker. I could not see any, unfortunately. I just saw fear
One hopes there is a Zhukov-like character hanging around the Kreml somewhere
The people that would block him are not in that crowd. They are in the offices of Russian banks and the KGB. The KGB can assassinate him and the bankers can stop his funding. Putin is Peter III and the coup is inevitable. If he is lucky, cancer will get him first.
Feels a bit "Prester John" to me, but I hope you are right
Who is the unity candidate for Tory party MPs realising that they face certain disaster at the polls unless Truss is replaced. They would have a year to 18 months to turn things around. Cometh the hour....
"Arm founder says the UK has no chance of tech sovereignty. Government fritters away homegrown technologies and has no strategy to lessen reliance on other countries"
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 1h NEW: I understand “multiple” Conservative MPs are in talks with Labour in Parliament to defeat elements of the “mini-budget. Particular focus on 45p rate. Focus is on sending a signal to markets.
Edit: One of the MPs is Liz Truss (probably)
If enough of them rebel over a vote on supply then the likelihood of an election greatly increases. The normal response to this would be withdrawal of the whip, ergo the effective loss of Truss's Parliamentary majority.
If you're a Tory MP convinced your seat is beyond saving why not stand up and risk having the whip withdrawn?
"A column of heavy #Russian equipment carrying nuclear warheads was spotted in #Rostov ,#Putin #PutinWarCriminal #UkraineWar #Ukraine️ #UkraineWillWin #SlavaUkrainii #SlavaUkraïni #StandWithUkraine #Russia #nuclearwar"
I may have to bring forward my Doomsday Finger Buffet
NB: I have no idea if that video is genuine. The trees look suspiciously springlike, not autumnal, tho the weather matches the forecast for today in Rostov: clear and 24C
No need to add to *the fear*. That's definitely spring. May Day parade somewhere?
Yes thats certainly not clandestine movement of ordnance into position for nefarious attack. It is very 'parade'
"The same people who engineered and financed World Wars 1 and 2 are now trying to start World War 3 - and for the same reasons. The only difference this time is that a lot more of us are wise to their game."
The conspiracy theories over WW1 and WW2 really are a good example of showing who is unhinged. And it is almost always extreme right wing reactionaries that would prefer Putinism to Western Enlightenment democracy.
Delingpole works with Lawrence Fox a lot now apparently....
"A column of heavy #Russian equipment carrying nuclear warheads was spotted in #Rostov ,#Putin #PutinWarCriminal #UkraineWar #Ukraine️ #UkraineWillWin #SlavaUkrainii #SlavaUkraïni #StandWithUkraine #Russia #nuclearwar"
I may have to bring forward my Doomsday Finger Buffet
NB: I have no idea if that video is genuine. The trees look suspiciously springlike, not autumnal, tho the weather matches the forecast for today in Rostov: clear and 24C
No need to add to *the fear*. That's definitely spring. May Day parade somewhere?
Who is the unity candidate for Tory party MPs realising that they face certain disaster at the polls unless Truss is replaced. They would have a year to 18 months to turn things around. Cometh the hour....
There isn't one. A bit of unpopularity you can turn around. What we've seen now? Nope.
As for unity, well, the JRM gang were already ranting about traitors, so they won't unify with anyone who isn't them, and there's a hard core on the other side who are opposed to a JRM type (which unfortunately it turns out Truss is).
Maybe someone like Wallace could have, he seems a bit of a blank slate, but he went all in on how great Truss was going to be.
Who is the unity candidate for Tory party MPs realising that they face certain disaster at the polls unless Truss is replaced. They would have a year to 18 months to turn things around. Cometh the hour....
As luck would have it I am just looking at my insurance policy.
There is no cover for:
10) War, terrorism, radioactive contamination and pressure waves Any claim resulting directly or indirectly from or in connection with: a) war, terrorism, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, uprising, military or usurped power; b) ionising radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel; c) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component of it; d) pressure waves caused by aircraft or other aerial devices travelling at sonic or supersonic speed.
It's against the rules of Lloyd's and I assume also the companies market to write land based war risks.
You can buy war-on-land coverage. Just not in a current war zone.
Not at Lloyd's unless the rules have changed
Lloyd's writes War and Terrorism coverage, either separately or combined, all the time - including sabotage (if you want). In marine, non-marine and aviation markets. It has done since it was founded. More-or-less.
War-on-land is a commonly bought coverage for cargo risks for example. Lloyd's is not prevented from writing this at all. In fact there are underwriters specialising in it. Lloyd's cannot write coverage for radioactive contamination either from terror or war, but that's pretty much the only limit.
Not sure why you think Lloyd's is banned from writing W&T.
That was a Market Circular instructing underwriters to more closely monitor their issued policies to exactly define if war was/is covered - as many legacy policies were vague and open to challenge. So a suite of LMA endorsements was issued to more tightly control these open policies.
If you even read the document you evidently just dumped here hoping to win your argument then what it basically says:
"Managing agents should ensure that they clearly document the scope of any war, civil war and related perils cover provided. Where cover is not provided, managing agents should ensure that a suitable exclusion clause is included in the policy terms and conditions. A number of model clauses have been developed by the LMA for this purpose. Where cover is to be given, the scope of cover should be clearly stated either in a separate policy or in a separately identifiable section of the policy. A number of model clauses have been developed by the LMA for certain classes that specifically provide for extended coverage, such as personal accident. Model clauses have also been developed by various market committees in the marine and aviation markets. "
Sorry. Lloyd's writes war and terrorism. Why don't you just admit you're wrong. For once.
I never don't admit I am wrong. I have read the document, why would I not? I spent much of the 80s and 90s litigating in the London marine insurance market and the rule then was no non marine war risks. You know as well as I do that a cargo policy is marine irrespective of the cargo being at sea or not so why pretend otherwise?
I say you didn't read it as the document clearly states that in order to write W&T syndicates must include it in their annual business plan and thus be granted the relevant risk codes. It doesn't say they must NOT write it.
Cargo is of course marine, or included in the "marine" umbrella. However "war" can of course be written on non-marine policies. As can terrorism. Property, Energy and PA all have such coverage wordings for a start - Christ even liability policies can buy these covers. In fact in the US offering TRIPRA cover is mandatory for property risks, and Lloyd's must comply. Why anyone would buy TRIPRA is another matter, but it is a (shit) terrorism cover nevertheless.
"A column of heavy #Russian equipment carrying nuclear warheads was spotted in #Rostov ,#Putin #PutinWarCriminal #UkraineWar #Ukraine️ #UkraineWillWin #SlavaUkrainii #SlavaUkraïni #StandWithUkraine #Russia #nuclearwar"
I may have to bring forward my Doomsday Finger Buffet
NB: I have no idea if that video is genuine. The trees look suspiciously springlike, not autumnal, tho the weather matches the forecast for today in Rostov: clear and 24C
No need to add to *the fear*. That's definitely spring. May Day parade somewhere?
Yes thats certainly not clandestine movement of ordnance into position for nefarious attack. It is very 'parade'
Tho of course Putin might do it like this deliberately, in a flamboyant paradey way, to freak us out
Nonetheless I reckon the vid is bogus. The trees are coming into leaf, like something almost being said. It's April or May, not Sept
Comments
But you do have a point. Tricky issue. No easy answers.
I'd ditch trident. It fails the cost benefit test for me.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/03/snp-and-labour-msps-unite-to-vote-against-trident-renewal
But I asked a question first.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-end
"In recent years, a small group of scholars has focussed on war-termination theory. They see reason to fear the possible outcomes in Ukraine."
Excellent article. TLDR: the likely outcomes are either pretty bleak, or REALLY bleak
As Attorney General, she asked it to review the judgement in the ‘Colston Four’ trial, which saw four vandals acquitted on the grounds that tearing down a public artwork was protected under human rights legislation…..
In the wake of the ruling, Braverman used powers conferred on the Attorney General by Parliament to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Not to overturn the actual judgement, but to clarify the law.
This move was widely ridiculed by legal Twitter, which rarely passed over an opportunity to discredit itself where Braverman was concerned. One legal luminary compared her to a cleaner; Jolyon Maugham went so far as to compare her legal acumen to that of a dog……
Yet the Court of Appeal agreed with Braverman; convicting someone for public vandalism would not, in fact, constitute an unacceptable breach of their right to protest.
This case has been a useful reminder both of how skewed against the Government the legal commentariat generally is, and that it is nonetheless worth the effort of taking them on.
https://conservativehome.com/2022/09/29/why-could-so-few-legal-commentators-see-that-braverman-was-right-about-the-colston-four/
War-on-land is a commonly bought coverage for cargo risks for example. Lloyd's is not prevented from writing this at all. In fact there are underwriters specialising in it. Lloyd's cannot write coverage for radioactive contamination either from terror or war, but that's pretty much the only limit.
Not sure why you think Lloyd's is banned from writing W&T.
Someone ought to tell these people then.
https://www.beazley.com/london_market/political_risks_and_contingency/terrorism.html
The Russia-Ukraine War is, alas, the best advertisement for nuclear proliferation ever made.
I remember Duck and Cover. And that silent shrill sense of Eeek, in the back of your mind. What if they drop the bomb? It was a persistent and perturbing background murmur. Like a hummadruz
http://www.exploringtheuncanny.com/hummadruz/
And this new emergency feels magnitudes worse and more unnerving, because it has spiralled out of nowhere in a world already thrown out of kilter by plague. I do NOT remember the Cuban Missile Crisis - I'm not that old - but I suspect this is even more perilous a moment than that
The problem is clearly not one of demand, otherwise there would not be inflation. So cutting taxes is not an answer.
The problem is supply, in particular lack of labour and problems with the supply chain.
The answer is freedom of movement and removing barriers to the supply chain, in other words rejoining the EU. Problem solved.
The fact remains Lloyd's writes war coverage - and terrorism. And even Kidnap and Ransom if you so wish. You just have to buy it.
The same problem will happen in Morocco, too.
Though perhaps it will rain there more in a nuclear winter? The polar front will move south.
Will Boris be there?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://assets.lloyds.com/media/a9760e12-037d-4cb9-b65b-236f457b8600/Y4483---The-underwriting-of-war,-civil-war-and-related-perils.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwix4Pvfi736AhXagVwKHdzrACkQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw22FGWBseH3Xr4Gv0GE1bXD
But the theory is What if he is driven into irrationality by his desperation (and he is clearly desperate)
A tactical nuke might not be enough to freak out the West, in his crazed mind. But what about one strategic warhead dropped on, say, Munich or Milan? And then he stands there waiting for us to blink and surrender Ukraine. Would America really ensure its own destruction by raining down nuclear fire on Russia, thus ensuring similar fire rains down on Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, all to Not save Munich, which is already gone?
It's a profound question, and it would be the ultimate exploration of Deterrence Theory. And it is a possibility openly discussed on Russian TV
The relevance to us is that Putin would not select Paris or London because France and the UK DO have nukes and would certainly retaliate, rendering this gamble a calamitous mistake from the get-go
It's the mindset of a delusional conspiracy theorist, not a considered sceptic.
That was a Market Circular instructing underwriters to more closely monitor their issued policies to exactly define if war was/is covered - as many legacy policies were vague and open to challenge. So a suite of LMA endorsements was issued to more tightly control these open policies.
If you even read the document you evidently just dumped here hoping to win your argument then what it basically says:
"Managing agents should ensure that they clearly document the scope of any war, civil war
and related perils cover provided.
Where cover is not provided, managing agents should ensure that a suitable exclusion
clause is included in the policy terms and conditions. A number of model clauses have
been developed by the LMA for this purpose.
Where cover is to be given, the scope of cover should be clearly stated either in a separate
policy or in a separately identifiable section of the policy. A number of model clauses have
been developed by the LMA for certain classes that specifically provide for extended
coverage, such as personal accident. Model clauses have also been developed by various
market committees in the marine and aviation markets. "
Sorry. Lloyd's writes war and terrorism. Why don't you just admit you're wrong. For once.
Ukraine received new missiles for HIMARS/M270 - modification of M30A1
The M30A1/A2 differs from the previously used M31A1/A2 in an alternative warhead with 180,000 preformed spheroidal tungsten fragments placed around the explosive charge.
https://twitter.com/TpyxaNews/status/1575878062981664768
As for other potential attendees, we know that NPxMP will be there, cause he's told us (representing his pro-animal organization).
Are any other PBers planning to attend, either as delegates, or in media (protected by barbed-wire cage?), peanut galleries or lurking in the fringes?
Ideal for ill equipped mobilised forces with little hard cover. Shame the new recruits don't get to see this in advance.
"It was a deliberate act of sabotage. Now the Russians are pumping out disinformation. We will work with our allies to get to the bottom of what happened... But don't listen to Putin. What he's saying we know is not true."
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1575909001346400256
You are essentially giving him carte blanche to take whatever he wants of the non-nuclear world.
So it wouldn’t work. Retaliation on a Russian city would be the bare minimum.
Ironically the ruling doesn't really help her case against 'human rights laws'. If I have understood it correctly, the court of appeal came to the conclusion that human rights laws don't permit you to tear down statues.
They make some valid points about the 'legal commentariat'. They like to think of themselves as being above politics, but they aren't and there is a lot of left wing groupthink going on.
What I am saying, is that the possibility of Russian infiltration - NOT total "grand" domination - is a definitely possibility, given the character and quality of recent AND current "leadership" of HMG.
More likely they would do what you say. One Russian city. And then a desperate seeking of peace. Which might suit Putin completely
What does Boris do over the next week or so?
It's the flip side of imagination.
Countervalue targetting is the endgame of MAD
Putin would similarly hit an economic or military target
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2022/1259.html
This is an unlikely scenario, but not ridiculously so. See Russians discussing a first strike on UK or Germany here
"Meanwhile in Russia, more of the usual: nuclear threats against Germany and Britain, cautioning NATO against going into Ukraine. This directly clashes with their lies, constantly spewed by state TV, that Russia is already at war with NATO & "uniformed NATO troops" are in Ukraine."
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1571712271063072773?s=20&t=CpFHV9_8XcYgN1ljVSVrOg
Which is why Russia won't do it. Putin knows all this. The people around him all know this. And if Putin really did go mad and try it, the people around him would block it, just as they blocked full mobilization.
I just can't imagine working to design and test something like this - and yet I'm kind of glad there is someone who does. It is somehow more personal than eg an aircraft.
I watched the annexation ceremony today. A truly bizarre event
The relevance is that Putin looked completely mad, and the entire crowd looked terrified and disturbed, like kidnap victims, like he had them all there at gunpoint. Maybe he did, in effect
I kept looking for signs they would stop this mad fucker. I could not see any, unfortunately. I just saw fear
One hopes there is a Zhukov-like character hanging around the Kreml somewhere
@lewis_goodall
·
1h
NEW: I understand “multiple” Conservative MPs are in talks with Labour in Parliament to defeat elements of the “mini-budget. Particular focus on 45p rate. Focus is on sending a signal to markets.
Edit: One of the MPs is Liz Truss (probably)
Sadly there is no other option than he bangs his head against a nuclear NATO wall about 20% of the way in to Ukraine and gets humiliated in front of the rest of the world.
No one buys his bizarre rantings about fighting western colonialism with his own colonial war.
I guess it is all for a domestic consumption anyway.
"The same people who engineered and financed World Wars 1 and 2 are now trying to start World War 3 - and for the same reasons. The only difference this time is that a lot more of us are wise to their game."
https://twitter.com/JamesDelingpole/status/1575404258505138181
(hat-tip to Tim, once of this parish)
The public clearly hate the removal of the bankers bonus cap and scrapping of the 45% tax rate.
Will any vote be for the whole package or will this be on the separate measures .
iii) Lack of cogent justification during a Parliamentary debate does not count against the legislation on issues of proportionality. The court evaluates the proportionality of the legislation, not the adequacy of a minister's exploration of policy options or his explanations to Parliament:
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-718618
"A column of heavy #Russian equipment carrying nuclear warheads was spotted in #Rostov ,#Putin #PutinWarCriminal #UkraineWar #Ukraine️ #UkraineWillWin #SlavaUkrainii #SlavaUkraïni #StandWithUkraine #Russia #nuclearwar"
https://twitter.com/Feher_Junior/status/1575916429634830336?s=20&t=3c7bpfc_6GwUvIpPBYw8ww
I may have to bring forward my Doomsday Finger Buffet
NB: I have no idea if that video is genuine. The trees look suspiciously springlike, not autumnal, tho the weather matches the forecast for today in Rostov: clear and 24C
(By the way, after World War I, the United States, under the leadership of Herbert Hoover, gave immense amounts of food aid to the Soviet Union. "At its peak, the ARA employed 300 Americans, more than 120,000 Russians and fed 10.5 million people daily." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Relief_Administration )
I am reasonably sure Putin didn't mention that in his speech.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/29/arm_founder_uk_tech_sovereignty/
A really big issue IMO, for a number of reasons.
As for unity, well, the JRM gang were already ranting about traitors, so they won't unify with anyone who isn't them, and there's a hard core on the other side who are opposed to a JRM type (which unfortunately it turns out Truss is).
Maybe someone like Wallace could have, he seems a bit of a blank slate, but he went all in on how great Truss was going to be.
Cargo is of course marine, or included in the "marine" umbrella. However "war" can of course be written on non-marine policies. As can terrorism. Property, Energy and PA all have such coverage wordings for a start - Christ even liability policies can buy these covers. In fact in the US offering TRIPRA cover is mandatory for property risks, and Lloyd's must comply. Why anyone would buy TRIPRA is another matter, but it is a (shit) terrorism cover nevertheless.
Nonetheless I reckon the vid is bogus. The trees are coming into leaf, like something almost being said. It's April or May, not Sept