Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
Not content with his idea to cull the elderly to save fiscal creep, Dr Strangebart now wants to blow up the entire country.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
And if Putin benefits in any way from using a nuke, and the taboo is not remade by what the rest of the world does in response, then the lives of all of us are very probably doomed through rampant proliferation and normalisation of nuclear warfare.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
I am afraid that is dangerous talk and it is never a good idea to leave a country "comprehensively defeated" - even in the non nuclear age it was the recipe for WW2 with Verseilles Treaty etc. When we are wanting to totally defeat a country with the highest amount of nukes on the planet it is absurd to have that as an aim 2
Germany was defeated far more comprehensively in WW2 than in WW1.
I'm not sure it was defeated in WW1, hence the term armistice.
Not sure there was much wrong with the Versailles Treaty either. Seemed pretty damned reasonable to me.
Germans called for the Armistice when they had clearly lost the war. They just quit at an almost rational point, rather than waiting for the Allies to turn up in Berlin.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
He has not said that at all. Listen carefully to the words - he will use weapons systems available to him - but he has said nothing about attacking NATO.
I’m astonished at the lack of discipline in Tory ranks. Including at cabinet level.
Since the election of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, British public life has become increasingly deranged, it is now in full syphillitic raving mode.
I suspect that the Tories have never really become settled as to their leader since Cameron. Finding a new leader under pressing circumstances hasn't ever worked out very well for them.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
I’m glad there are still a few sane people on here. If there is a full scale nuclear war we all die. Every single person posting here will be dead (with a tiny number of exceptions) and everything will be gone. I’m sorry but that isn’t anything that can happen in the Ukraine that makes a full nuclear war a preferable outcome. Of course that doesn’t mean everyone should just roll over to Russian aggression but if there comes a moment where the choice is real and clear between nuclear Armageddon and non intervention then I sincerely hope our leaders choose non intervention. You can bleat all you want about appeasement and talk about Hitler but it’s not the same equation. The choice in 1939 wasn’t between appeasement or suicide.
You are wrong. @BartholemewRoberts looks at his daughter and thinks. "For the sake of the Oblast".
And no one is to say he is wrong in thinking that but I'm not sure he has thought it through. It is a particularly perverse "moral maze" thought experiment. The point about MAD (the literal meaning of which @Bart hasn't really considered) is that it is or has been a bluff. And everyone knew it. What do we do if Putin now calls the bluff. I am not sure I know.
I do know, however, that it is not as simple as @Bart makes out.
Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt tells me #TimesRadio benefits SHOULD rise with inflation: “I’ve always supported - whether it’s pensions, whether it’s our welfare system - keeping pace with inflation. It makes sense to do so. That’s what I voted for before.” 1/4
Supposedly they need to find £20bn of spending cuts - I just don’t see any at all.
The easiest way to fill that £20bn gap is going to be reversing their corporation tax cut - I just don’t see any other solution that works…
So everything the state spends money on is necessary and implemented in the best possible way?
After 12 years of Conservative leadership, how much low-hanging fruit do you imagine is left?
That’s exactly the point.
It’s not fruitful to try and squeeze generally. The state needs to zero base it’s budget:
- what should the state do - How can it be delivered most efficiently - What is the cost - How can that be raised
Way too radical, of course. But if you believe that (a) there is a limit to the percentage of GDP the state can take in tax; (b) demographics are pushing costs up faster than we are growing; and (c) there is no easy and quick solution to our productivity challenges then “once you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”
At least Liz Truss’s “growth” approach is a genuine attempt at 3. Its poorly executed and mid conceived, but the objective is reasonable as a way to square the circle
Belatedly: I'm sure that's correct, and I'm also sure that the most important long-term element of that is to ensure that everyone has properly saved for their own retirement.
Australia, which their compulsory savings, seems by far the best example of this.
The problem is that (a) people who are in the transition group feel cheated, because they are expected to save and to pay for retirees, and (b) forcing everyone to save more when the economy is already spluttering is a difficult sell.
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
And if Putin benefits in any way from using a nuke, and the taboo is not remade by what the rest of the world does in response, then the lives of all of us are very probably doomed through rampant proliferation and normalisation of nuclear warfare.
yes , i agree it is game over if he does in all probability - thats why i am urging some diplomacy now and negotiation - there has to be at some point unless the world is going to end in a nuclear war - The world will be a lot safer if Putin has a get out clause and a little win somewhere even if just in his mind- he can then go and retire and the rest of us can breath a little easier
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Justine Roberts (Mumsnet founder) had armed police at her door at 3am because someone had called claiming to be her & that there was a gunman prowling around the house back in 2015. That’s swatting.
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
True and maybe it will take off maybe it won't. And I see the danger. But atm it's not a thing in the UK. And no one said that the Mumsnet founder was armed themselves.
You appear to not understand how this works.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone says the Mumsnet founder was armed (taking this case). You spin a yarn that gets the police to turn up fully armed, knowing that if the target does anything wrong they risk getting shot. What do you think it feels like if this happens to you?
Remember the guy in Liverpool who was carrying a chair leg & the police shot him, thinking it was a sawn off shotgun in a bag? Yes, the guy was a career criminal (IIRC), so the suspicion wasn’t unwarranted, but he was shot without warning in the street. Same thing could have happened to the Justine Roberts’ au pair if she’d turned up at the door in the wrong clothes holding something that, in the dark by a stressed police officer, might have been misconstrued to be a gun.
That’s the threat of swatting & so far no one has died here, but they have absolutely died in the US, because they opened their front doors and walked out into their own garden & stressed police officers who were already primed to think them a threat opened fire on them.
Yes I understand that quite clearly. As I said, maybe it will become a thing here, maybe not. It at the moment is a bit like people dying trying to put their trousers on. It happens but is thankfully rare.
Plus are we not assuming that she was even doing this. Which sounds pretty illegal but they didn't charge her with anything. Was not perhaps someone doing something similar to her in fact?
I guess my position is that the kind of "immediate danger" threshold discussed here seems to believe that only in person harassment has that risk - if you're harassing someone online and they're already at risk, suffer depression, etc. then yeah, someone could be in "immediate danger" from that harassment. And if they have reason to believe she is involved in harassment campaigns, the organising of them online via Kiwifarms or 4chan etc, then that could also add to the idea of immediacy.
Trouble with that is is that while it is eminently reasonable as you write it, where do you draw the line.
It is an offence to cause someone harassment, alarm or distress in the real world, however the hell that is determined. If you apply that to the internet then PB might as well close down tomorrow morning.
There is an official method of saying to someone "stop harassing me", from what I remember, that does include telling the local police that you believe you're being harassed. I guess something similar happens for reporting online? It just becomes more difficult when taking into account anonymous posting and such.
The difference with PB might be, for instance, that there is moderation here and that no one has done that step. Someone could take that step - I could maybe post "TOPPING please stop replying to me in this manner as it causes me distress" and then I imagine it would depend on if you continued to reply to me in a way that reasonably could be considered harassing?
I'm not saying these are easy things to define, and there is always a line between free speech and harassment and other illegitimate speech (hate speech, libel / slander, etc), but to the core issue of the severity of police response, again, it seems pretty run of the mill in my view.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
I am afraid that is dangerous talk and it is never a good idea to leave a country "comprehensively defeated" - even in the non nuclear age it was the recipe for WW2 with Verseilles Treaty etc. When we are wanting to totally defeat a country with the highest amount of nukes on the planet it is absurd to have that as an aim 2
Germany was defeated far more comprehensively in WW2 than in WW1.
I'm not sure it was defeated in WW1, hence the term armistice.
Not sure there was much wrong with the Versailles Treaty either. Seemed pretty damned reasonable to me.
I wrote an essay at University about the Versailles Treaty which posited that the question of whether or not Germany paid any net reparations after WW1 involved utilising "formulae of Byzantine complexity". I was very proud of that and it is the only thing I remember about my studies. Although I still think reparations managed to piss off the Germans to an extent that far outweighed the utility of the money they recouped.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
It may not be state go away's intention, im sure it isnt, but the way you put it is exactly the Russian stance. Fighting back is unreasonable to them as it means more deaths.
The war is not escalating, it's just more contested.
In many respects the war has de-escalated considerably, thanks to the victories of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Missile attacks on Kyiv are now rare. Artillery has been pushed out of range of Kharkiv. The rate of Russian artillery fire is much reduced since HIMARS did so much damage to Russian logistics. Large numbers of Ukrainian settlements are no longer occupied by the Russians, and so their inhabitants are no longer at risk of torture or death at the hands of occupying soldiers.
These are real tangible results to be set against the phantom of nuclear terror.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
MAD is a defensive doctrine, not a suicide pact.
Both Russia and "Russia" have already been attacked in Belgorod and Crimea without him laying a finger on any NATO territory, never mind with nuclear weapons.
Attacked but not yet defeated and before Putin raised the stakes last week.
If Russia looks set to be driven completely out of the 4 regions it has now claimed there is at least a 50% chance Putin uses a tactical nuke rather than face complete defeat
Explain how using a tactical nuke avoids defeat.
As it is a warning shot he is prepared to use more nukes to avoid complete defeat
Which is why we need to warn him we will use the full force of our strategic weaponry to ensure a complete defeat if he escalated to nuclear war.
America was humiliated when it lost the Vietnam War, but America survived and just over a decade later won the Cold War.
Russia needs to accept its defeat in Ukraine with grace and repeat back to Russia. Russia will survive, even if Putin like Nixon ends up humiliated and out of office.
'Russia needs to accept its defeat in Ukraine with grace and repeat back to Russia.'
I am sure Putin will do exactly as you say and be a very good loser
Since Putin is getting his arse well and truly kicked by Ukraine, I'd regard any threats that he makes as hollow.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
And if Putin benefits in any way from using a nuke, and the taboo is not remade by what the rest of the world does in response, then the lives of all of us are very probably doomed through rampant proliferation and normalisation of nuclear warfare.
I think it is possible to draw a line around, say, NATO. Which as luck would have it we have done. We have said that an attack on a NATO member, etc...
We have not said an attack on Ukraine. Or South Sudan. Or even as I understand it Pakistan or India. But you and @BartholomewRoberts want assured destruction over Ukraine. It is a wholly legitimate position to hold. I am not so sure, however, that I hold it.
Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
That would be a fun referendum. Would you hold it before it after a tactical nuke by Putin?
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
I’m astonished at the lack of discipline in Tory ranks. Including at cabinet level.
Since the election of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, British public life has become increasingly deranged, it is now in full syphillitic raving mode.
I suspect that the Tories have never really become settled as to their leader since Cameron. Finding a new leader under pressing circumstances hasn't ever worked out very well for them.
Yes, I wouldn't refer to Corbyn as the timing for this - hasn't it always been Europe that started this? Thatcher was brought down partly due to Europe, and the Blue on Blue of the Brexit campaign I feel opened this can of worms more than Corbyn/ism.
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
He has not said that at all. Listen carefully to the words - he will use weapons systems available to him - but he has said nothing about attacking NATO.
He has made clear he will defend Russian territory whether it is Ukraine or NATO that attacks it
I don't believe the Russian leadership really, truly believes that the annexed territories are part of Russia. They know that's not the case yet even if it's an aspiration in a few years after some school propaganda and a bit of ethnic cleansing. I very much doubt they are feeling the visceral fear that comes from a true attack on the motherland either. After all they've been bombing the shit out of those so called new territories over the last 6 months.
Take UK experience in the Falklands. Now that was land to which we had a long standing legal claim, settled by loyal British subjects. It was invaded by Argentina, and recovered after a conventional battle which many didn't believe we could win. There was never any hint or prospect of Britain using nuclear weapons on Argentina. Even if the expeditionary force had been humiliatingly routed by the Argentinians in the South Atlantic the nukes would have stayed firmly in the drawer. Russia is fighting a colonial war of conquest in someone else's land and deep down it knows it.
This Tory conference is so amazingly messy I still can't believe it's real. Ministers going completely rogue, MPs barely here but still throwing shade left, right & centre, Tory members downing champagne while half laughing/half crying "we're all f***ed". It's WILD https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1577303194224529408
I’m astonished at the lack of discipline in Tory ranks. Including at cabinet level.
Since the election of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, British public life has become increasingly deranged, it is now in full syphillitic raving mode.
I suspect that the Tories have never really become settled as to their leader since Cameron. Finding a new leader under pressing circumstances hasn't ever worked out very well for them.
Yes, I wouldn't refer to Corbyn as the timing for this - hasn't it always been Europe that started this? Thatcher was brought down partly due to Europe, and the Blue on Blue of the Brexit campaign I feel opened this can of worms more than Corbyn/ism.
I noted Corbyn because that was the moment one of the two main parties went mad.
Of course the Tories had been incubating their own virus for a lot longer.
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
She’s a fxcking lunatic . Notwithstanding the ECHR that’s not even allowed under international law . And the government has removed almost all legal avenues to claim asylum .
Patel was dreadful and Truss has managed to appoint someone whose even worse .
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Justine Roberts (Mumsnet founder) had armed police at her door at 3am because someone had called claiming to be her & that there was a gunman prowling around the house back in 2015. That’s swatting.
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
True and maybe it will take off maybe it won't. And I see the danger. But atm it's not a thing in the UK. And no one said that the Mumsnet founder was armed themselves.
You appear to not understand how this works.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone says the Mumsnet founder was armed (taking this case). You spin a yarn that gets the police to turn up fully armed, knowing that if the target does anything wrong they risk getting shot. What do you think it feels like if this happens to you?
Remember the guy in Liverpool who was carrying a chair leg & the police shot him, thinking it was a sawn off shotgun in a bag? Yes, the guy was a career criminal (IIRC), so the suspicion wasn’t unwarranted, but he was shot without warning in the street. Same thing could have happened to the Justine Roberts’ au pair if she’d turned up at the door in the wrong clothes holding something that, in the dark by a stressed police officer, might have been misconstrued to be a gun.
That’s the threat of swatting & so far no one has died here, but they have absolutely died in the US, because they opened their front doors and walked out into their own garden & stressed police officers who were already primed to think them a threat opened fire on them.
Yes I understand that quite clearly. As I said, maybe it will become a thing here, maybe not. It at the moment is a bit like people dying trying to put their trousers on. It happens but is thankfully rare.
Plus are we not assuming that she was even doing this. Which sounds pretty illegal but they didn't charge her with anything. Was not perhaps someone doing something similar to her in fact?
I guess my position is that the kind of "immediate danger" threshold discussed here seems to believe that only in person harassment has that risk - if you're harassing someone online and they're already at risk, suffer depression, etc. then yeah, someone could be in "immediate danger" from that harassment. And if they have reason to believe she is involved in harassment campaigns, the organising of them online via Kiwifarms or 4chan etc, then that could also add to the idea of immediacy.
Trouble with that is is that while it is eminently reasonable as you write it, where do you draw the line.
It is an offence to cause someone harassment, alarm or distress in the real world, however the hell that is determined. If you apply that to the internet then PB might as well close down tomorrow morning.
There is an official method of saying to someone "stop harassing me", from what I remember, that does include telling the local police that you believe you're being harassed. I guess something similar happens for reporting online? It just becomes more difficult when taking into account anonymous posting and such.
The difference with PB might be, for instance, that there is moderation here and that no one has done that step. Someone could take that step - I could maybe post "TOPPING please stop replying to me in this manner as it causes me distress" and then I imagine it would depend on if you continued to reply to me in a way that reasonably could be considered harassing?
I'm not saying these are easy things to define, and there is always a line between free speech and harassment and other illegitimate speech (hate speech, libel / slander, etc), but to the core issue of the severity of police response, again, it seems pretty run of the mill in my view.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1998 defines harassment as being ""a course of conduct" which "amounts to harassment of another" and which "he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other" and a person is taken to know that conduct is harassment if "a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other".
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
He has not said that at all. Listen carefully to the words - he will use weapons systems available to him - but he has said nothing about attacking NATO.
He has made clear he will defend Russian territory whether it is Ukraine or NATO that attacks it
I don't believe the Russian leadership really, truly believes that the annexed territories are part of Russia. They know that's not the case yet even if it's an aspiration in a few years after some school propaganda and a bit of ethnic cleansing. I very much doubt they are feeling the visceral fear that comes from a true attack on the motherland either. After all they've been bombing the shit out of those so called new territories over the last 6 months.
Take UK experience in the Falklands. Now that was land to which we had a long standing legal claim, settled by loyal British subjects. It was invaded by Argentina, and recovered after a conventional battle which many didn't believe we could win. There was never any hint or prospect of Britain using nuclear weapons on Argentina. Even if the expeditionary force had been humiliatingly routed by the Argentinians in the South Atlantic the nukes would have stayed firmly in the drawer. Russia is fighting a colonial war of conquest in someone else's land and deep down it knows it.
so why are you researching safe countries in the even of nuclear war?
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
So, your alternative is what? That whenever someone even mentions the word 'nuke', we all say 'sorry sir, my apologies sir'?
And if we do that, don't you think there's just the tiniest chance that this increases the chance that the word 'nuke' is mentioned more in future?
This is all fairly simple game theory stuff. And is exactly the reason why British troops would have had to have gone to Estonia in the event that Russia had invaded. (Something you were incredibly reticent to do, IIRC.)
If you want to minimise the possibility of Armageddon, you need to be willing to accept Armageddon as an outcome.
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
And if Putin benefits in any way from using a nuke, and the taboo is not remade by what the rest of the world does in response, then the lives of all of us are very probably doomed through rampant proliferation and normalisation of nuclear warfare.
I think it is possible to draw a line around, say, NATO. Which as luck would have it we have done. We have said that an attack on a NATO member, etc...
We have not said an attack on Ukraine. Or South Sudan. Or even as I understand it Pakistan or India. But you and @BartholomewRoberts want assured destruction over Ukraine. It is a wholly legitimate position to hold. I am not so sure, however, that I hold it.
No, it's about the nuclear taboo and the ability of a non-nuclear state to not be threatened with nuclear blackmail, or for nuclear warfare to become normalised.
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Portugal is in NATO, therefore Lisbon and Porto would likely be nuked by Putin, you would need to be in very rural Portugal to have a chance
Putin really doesn't have that many nukes, and many (perhaps most) of them won't work. So, I think Portugal is a good call.
(Plus, the global cooling effect of a nuclear winter means you'd probably want to be somewhere reasonably warm, all other things being equal.)
There's no point particularly worrying about nuclear war. If you survive the initial strikes (By not being near a capital for instance) then it's very much a worry.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
I quite like that Braverman said she was proud of the British Empire.
I mean, I still think she’s a dangerous loon-bag, but this opinion has become too controversial to be voiced aloud in the past ten years, and that is a shame.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
So, your alternative is what? That whenever someone even mentions the word 'nuke', we all say 'sorry sir, my apologies sir'?
And if we do that, don't you think there's just the tiniest chance that this increases the chance that the word 'nuke' is mentioned more in future?
This is all fairly simple game theory stuff. And is exactly the reason why British troops would have had to have gone to Estonia in the event that Russia had invaded. (Something you were incredibly reticent to do, IIRC.)
If you want to minimise the possibility of Armageddon, you need to be willing to accept Armageddon as an outcome.
I am looking forward to a world in which threatening to use nukes gets you whatever you want.
Irish border - "We are taking the whole of Ireland" Immigration - "Pale of Calais is ours now" Gas imports - "We now own the UAE"
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
He has not said that at all. Listen carefully to the words - he will use weapons systems available to him - but he has said nothing about attacking NATO.
He has made clear he will defend Russian territory whether it is Ukraine or NATO that attacks it
I don't believe the Russian leadership really, truly believes that the annexed territories are part of Russia. They know that's not the case yet even if it's an aspiration in a few years after some school propaganda and a bit of ethnic cleansing. I very much doubt they are feeling the visceral fear that comes from a true attack on the motherland either. After all they've been bombing the shit out of those so called new territories over the last 6 months.
Take UK experience in the Falklands. Now that was land to which we had a long standing legal claim, settled by loyal British subjects. It was invaded by Argentina, and recovered after a conventional battle which many didn't believe we could win. There was never any hint or prospect of Britain using nuclear weapons on Argentina. Even if the expeditionary force had been humiliatingly routed by the Argentinians in the South Atlantic the nukes would have stayed firmly in the drawer. Russia is fighting a colonial war of conquest in someone else's land and deep down it knows it.
so why are you researching safe countries in the even of nuclear war?
Because I might be wrong. It's always best to make provision for any eventuality.
This Tory conference is so amazingly messy I still can't believe it's real. Ministers going completely rogue, MPs barely here but still throwing shade left, right & centre, Tory members downing champagne while half laughing/half crying "we're all f***ed". It's WILD https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1577303194224529408
Sounds like Leon would love it. Weeping and drunk as LT straps him to her milking table.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
So, your alternative is what? That whenever someone even mentions the word 'nuke', we all say 'sorry sir, my apologies sir'?
And if we do that, don't you think there's just the tiniest chance that this increases the chance that the word 'nuke' is mentioned more in future?
This is all fairly simple game theory stuff. And is exactly the reason why British troops would have had to have gone to Estonia in the event that Russia had invaded. (Something you were incredibly reticent to do, IIRC.)
If you want to minimise the possibility of Armageddon, you need to be willing to accept Armageddon as an outcome.
For the sake of Ukraine. That is what this is about right now.
How many wars are there in the world. Plenty. Nukes is just a big bomb. Plenty of ways not limited to machetes, small arms, and bows and arrows to kill people. Lots of people.
I am none too sure about asssured destruction of the UK for the sake of Ukraine. We didn't care eight years ago at all. I think I barely noticed the annexation of the Crimea, shameful current affairs hound as I am.
I’m astonished at the lack of discipline in Tory ranks. Including at cabinet level.
Since the election of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, British public life has become increasingly deranged, it is now in full syphillitic raving mode.
I suspect that the Tories have never really become settled as to their leader since Cameron. Finding a new leader under pressing circumstances hasn't ever worked out very well for them.
Yes, I wouldn't refer to Corbyn as the timing for this - hasn't it always been Europe that started this? Thatcher was brought down partly due to Europe, and the Blue on Blue of the Brexit campaign I feel opened this can of worms more than Corbyn/ism.
I noted Corbyn because that was the moment one of the two main parties went mad.
Of course the Tories had been incubating their own virus for a lot longer.
This is where subjective stuff comes in - I think Thatcherism was pretty mad, and because it won most people just think it's grand. That's what happens when you win.
But the Tory party discipline does seem to have really been shot since the Brexit campaign. May never really got it under control, and lost a GE. Johnson expelled a load of MPs and then won a GE to get a majority to get it back, but there was still a lot of infighting, it was just subsumed by the crisis that was (is) covid. This leadership campaign opened up a lot of bad blood, and not just between Truss supporters and Sunak supporters, but between Johnson loyalists and those who thought he had to go.
That Dorries is saying a GE is needed, when she backed Truss quite loudly, is strange to me. Sure, she's mad, but why turn that quickly? Does she want to quit without being seen to quit? Buyers remorse? Or was this the hope all along - pick someone useless, then demand a GE and have them ousted and "get back the party" by proving only Johnsonism works?
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
And if Putin benefits in any way from using a nuke, and the taboo is not remade by what the rest of the world does in response, then the lives of all of us are very probably doomed through rampant proliferation and normalisation of nuclear warfare.
I think it is possible to draw a line around, say, NATO. Which as luck would have it we have done. We have said that an attack on a NATO member, etc...
We have not said an attack on Ukraine. Or South Sudan. Or even as I understand it Pakistan or India. But you and @BartholomewRoberts want assured destruction over Ukraine. It is a wholly legitimate position to hold. I am not so sure, however, that I hold it.
No, it's about the nuclear taboo and the ability of a non-nuclear state to not be threatened with nuclear blackmail, or for nuclear warfare to become normalised.
There's no point particularly worrying about nuclear war. If you survive the initial strikes (By not being near a capital for instance) then it's very much a worry.
It depends. Using modern weapons, the burnt and blasted bits might actually be quite confined. Radiation would be the big killer.
So rather than the burnt out cities of Threads, much of the UK would be awfully quiet, and after a few weeks for the radiation to decline and the bodies to rot an acceptable level, quite inhabitable.
So after 6 weeks in your bunker, pop upstairs to inherit....
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
These channel crossings are something to be stopped. Stopping them and then worrying about any misfortune that has been created doesn't seem such a bad plan to me. They are after all choosing to come from France, and I know it's been long regarded in the UK with some suspiscion it is really rather a nice place.
I would love to have sight of the US/Nato planned response in the event of a Russian tactical nuke.
Also, what their assessment of the 'real' Russian nuclear capability is.
Didn't someone on here recently idly ponder out loud where was our nuclear fleet at the moment - in case anyone on PB happened to know and could tell him.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Portugal is in NATO, therefore Lisbon and Porto would likely be nuked by Putin, you would need to be in very rural Portugal to have a chance
Putin really doesn't have that many nukes, and many (perhaps most) of them won't work. So, I think Portugal is a good call.
(Plus, the global cooling effect of a nuclear winter means you'd probably want to be somewhere reasonably warm, all other things being equal.)
Indeed, we would fly to Porto and then settle down in an airbnb somewhere nice and rural, perhaps up the Douro river. Likewise Ireland - fly to Cork then stay somewhere like Waterford.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
I am afraid that is dangerous talk and it is never a good idea to leave a country "comprehensively defeated" - even in the non nuclear age it was the recipe for WW2 with Verseilles Treaty etc. When we are wanting to totally defeat a country with the highest amount of nukes on the planet it is absurd to have that as an aim 2
No, when a nation is seeking to change borders by wars of aggression on our continent, it is absurd not to have that as an aim.
If Russia didn't want to be defeated, they shouldn't have started this war. They began this war, they can and must lose it.
The "off ramp" is for them to withdraw to their own territory, which is bloody generous to be frank, in the past we would have partitioned some of their land after they were defeated as the price they had to pay for recompense for their aggression.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
So, your alternative is what? That whenever someone even mentions the word 'nuke', we all say 'sorry sir, my apologies sir'?
And if we do that, don't you think there's just the tiniest chance that this increases the chance that the word 'nuke' is mentioned more in future?
This is all fairly simple game theory stuff. And is exactly the reason why British troops would have had to have gone to Estonia in the event that Russia had invaded. (Something you were incredibly reticent to do, IIRC.)
If you want to minimise the possibility of Armageddon, you need to be willing to accept Armageddon as an outcome.
For the sake of Ukraine. That is what this is about right now.
How many wars are there in the world. Plenty. Nukes is just a big bomb. Plenty of ways not limited to machetes, small arms, and bows and arrows to kill people. Lots of people.
I am none too sure about asssured destruction of the UK for the sake of Ukraine. We didn't care eight years ago at all. I think I barely noticed the annexation of the Crimea, shameful current affairs hound as I am.
The latest theory in Russia is that the whole thing was an elaborate trap set by the West. Let them take a small bite without too much fuss knowing that it would eventually draw them in to a situation where they are doomed whatever they do.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Madeira?
Probably not self sufficient in food.
Yes but a thoroughly pleasant way to ameliorate your long, lingering death.
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
These channel crossings are something to be stopped. Stopping them and then worrying about any misfortune that has been created doesn't seem such a bad plan to me. They are after all choosing to come from France, and I know it's been long regarded in the UK with some suspiscion it is really rather a nice place.
The only way to stop the crossings is to make safe passage and application of asylum possible, not making them more illegal.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
I am afraid that is dangerous talk and it is never a good idea to leave a country "comprehensively defeated" - even in the non nuclear age it was the recipe for WW2 with Verseilles Treaty etc. When we are wanting to totally defeat a country with the highest amount of nukes on the planet it is absurd to have that as an aim 2
Germany was defeated far more comprehensively in WW2 than in WW1.
I'm not sure it was defeated in WW1, hence the term armistice.
Not sure there was much wrong with the Versailles Treaty either. Seemed pretty damned reasonable to me.
Totally incorrect. Germany was on its knees in Nov 1918, just that the army was still on foreign soil. Two or three more months of the 'hundred days' would have reached the Rhine and possibly beyond. The idea that Germany didn't lose is a myth promulgated in the 20's and 30's and is utterly laughable.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
And if Putin benefits in any way from using a nuke, and the taboo is not remade by what the rest of the world does in response, then the lives of all of us are very probably doomed through rampant proliferation and normalisation of nuclear warfare.
I think it is possible to draw a line around, say, NATO. Which as luck would have it we have done. We have said that an attack on a NATO member, etc...
We have not said an attack on Ukraine. Or South Sudan. Or even as I understand it Pakistan or India. But you and @BartholomewRoberts want assured destruction over Ukraine. It is a wholly legitimate position to hold. I am not so sure, however, that I hold it.
No, it's about the nuclear taboo and the ability of a non-nuclear state to not be threatened with nuclear blackmail, or for nuclear warfare to become normalised.
Your ascribed position is incorrect.
Where is this nuclear taboo encoded?
In the reality that they have never been used in warfare in 77 years, despite nuclear powers engaging in conflict with non-nuclear states many times in the interim.
A very quick search finds many uses of the term throughout the literature.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
Fair enough, you just have to take the now significant chance we will then be drawn into a nuclear war with Russia too.
Putin sees avoiding defeat in Ukraine as vital now to the survival of himself and his nation. On no count did President Ford see loss in Vietnam as threatening the survival of him and the USA
That's what we pay billions for Trident for.
I hope it doesn't come to it, but if it does, then we must retaliate. No nuclear first strikes allowed without retaliation.
So you now want to deploy Trident to attack Moscow if Putin launches a tactical nuclear weapon in the disputed regions of Ukraine.
When not even a NATO state let alone the UK is directly at risk of Russia invasion or nuclear attack. Trident is a defence of last resort for us, not a method of first attack!
If Putin launches nuclear weapons then we would be retaliating, not making a first attack. Yes, if they use nukes we should field our full range of weaponry including Trident in response, there is no point dicking around with half measures at that point and allowing them to do tit-for-tat escalations.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
You (as the police), first look at what’s been written online, and ask a magistrate for a warrant to discover the identity of the person posting the messages if they also consider them to be harrasment.
Then approach the platform on which the alleged harrasment took place, and ask for their logs.
What you don’t do, is arrest someone without due process, for a non-violent crime where there is no immediate danger to anyone.
Yeah, that kind of thing will work on Google, or Facebook, or any firm located in the UK (or the EU). It won’t work on KiwiFarms.
It’s entirely plausible to me that the only way to connect this woman with her KF accounts (if they exist) is to grab her devices & go through them to look for digital forensic evidence.
This /is/ the appropriate due process.
That sort of thing should need to be signed off by a judge, based on the available evidence from the complainant that the person in question is actually responsible for the messages in question, and that the messages themselves exceed the standard of illegality.
Otherwise it’s simply middle-class swatting, using the police to harass someone who’s upset you. Police should *always* need warrants, where there is no immediate risk of physical harm.
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
I’m astonished at the lack of discipline in Tory ranks. Including at cabinet level.
Since the election of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, British public life has become increasingly deranged, it is now in full syphillitic raving mode.
I suspect that the Tories have never really become settled as to their leader since Cameron. Finding a new leader under pressing circumstances hasn't ever worked out very well for them.
Yes, I wouldn't refer to Corbyn as the timing for this - hasn't it always been Europe that started this? Thatcher was brought down partly due to Europe, and the Blue on Blue of the Brexit campaign I feel opened this can of worms more than Corbyn/ism.
I noted Corbyn because that was the moment one of the two main parties went mad.
Of course the Tories had been incubating their own virus for a lot longer.
This is where subjective stuff comes in - I think Thatcherism was pretty mad, and because it won most people just think it's grand. That's what happens when you win.
But the Tory party discipline does seem to have really been shot since the Brexit campaign. May never really got it under control, and lost a GE. Johnson expelled a load of MPs and then won a GE to get a majority to get it back, but there was still a lot of infighting, it was just subsumed by the crisis that was (is) covid. This leadership campaign opened up a lot of bad blood, and not just between Truss supporters and Sunak supporters, but between Johnson loyalists and those who thought he had to go.
That Dorries is saying a GE is needed, when she backed Truss quite loudly, is strange to me. Sure, she's mad, but why turn that quickly? Does she want to quit without being seen to quit? Buyers remorse? Or was this the hope all along - pick someone useless, then demand a GE and have them ousted and "get back the party" by proving only Johnsonism works?
Corbyn was far outside the “window” of standard British political discourse.
He was further left than Michael Foot, and significantly further away from the centre ground than Margaret Thatcher.
Anyway, the main point was not his ideological eccentricity, but the meltdown it caused in the Labour Party, including mass resignations from the front bench, leadership challenges and defections.
This kind of mass hysteria then repeated itself for May, then for Boris, and now for Liz.
I don’t blame the MPs especially. There has been a structural shift which is delivering extreme instability into British politics.
It looks like a North Atlantic Italy, no wonder investors want a risk premium.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Madeira?
Probably not self sufficient in food.
Yes but a thoroughly pleasant way to ameliorate your long, lingering death.
Self sufficient in sweet, warming fortified wine too.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Portugal is in NATO, therefore Lisbon and Porto would likely be nuked by Putin, you would need to be in very rural Portugal to have a chance
Putin really doesn't have that many nukes, and many (perhaps most) of them won't work. So, I think Portugal is a good call.
(Plus, the global cooling effect of a nuclear winter means you'd probably want to be somewhere reasonably warm, all other things being equal.)
If he doesn’t have many nukes how many would he spare for the UK? I mean he does seem to hate us so I’m not holding out any hope!
So, if truss is kicked out, Sunak caretakes but doesn't win (or get coronated) then we will have had 4 Prime Ministers in a year. Like the Year of the 4 Emperors. How likely is that?
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
I am afraid that is dangerous talk and it is never a good idea to leave a country "comprehensively defeated" - even in the non nuclear age it was the recipe for WW2 with Verseilles Treaty etc. When we are wanting to totally defeat a country with the highest amount of nukes on the planet it is absurd to have that as an aim 2
Germany was defeated far more comprehensively in WW2 than in WW1.
I'm not sure it was defeated in WW1, hence the term armistice.
Not sure there was much wrong with the Versailles Treaty either. Seemed pretty damned reasonable to me.
Totally incorrect. Germany was on its knees in Nov 1918, just that the army was still on foreign soil. Two or three more months of the 'hundred days' would have reached the Rhine and possibly beyond. The idea that Germany didn't lose is a myth promulgated in the 20's and 30's and is utterly laughable.
Ludendorff told the Kaiser that the war was lost and that he couldn't guarantee that the front wouldn't collapse completely, if he didn't get a ceasefire that day.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
Fair enough, you just have to take the now significant chance we will then be drawn into a nuclear war with Russia too.
Putin sees avoiding defeat in Ukraine as vital now to the survival of himself and his nation. On no count did President Ford see loss in Vietnam as threatening the survival of him and the USA
That's what we pay billions for Trident for.
I hope it doesn't come to it, but if it does, then we must retaliate. No nuclear first strikes allowed without retaliation.
So you now want to deploy Trident to attack Moscow if Putin launches a tactical nuclear weapon in the disputed regions of Ukraine.
When not even a NATO state let alone the UK is directly at risk of Russia invasion or nuclear attack. Trident is a defence of last resort for us, not a method of first attack!
If Putin launches nuclear weapons then we would be retaliating, not making a first attack. Yes, if they use nukes we should field our full range of weaponry including Trident in response, there is no point dicking around with half measures at that point and allowing them to do tit-for-tat escalations.
OK that's a cool and consistent position to hold. If Russia uses a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine then your entire family dies shortly thereafter.
That how you see it? That is what you want as I understand your posts. Because not to have a global nuclear war which would kill your family on account of a nuclear warhead used in Ukraine would be giving in to Putin.
Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
Not content with his idea to cull the elderly to save fiscal creep, Dr Strangebart now wants to blow up the entire country.
I don't want to, I want us to convince Russia not to engage in a first strike.
But if they do engage in a first strike, then we absolutely should have Trident and the full range of our weaponry for retaliation in response.
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
These channel crossings are something to be stopped. Stopping them and then worrying about any misfortune that has been created doesn't seem such a bad plan to me. They are after all choosing to come from France, and I know it's been long regarded in the UK with some suspiscion it is really rather a nice place.
The only way to stop the crossings is to make safe passage and application of asylum possible, not making them more illegal.
Well I agree that it is the primary plank in the scheme. Making any channel migrant forever ineligible for asylum in the UK would also be helpful I imagine.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
And if Putin benefits in any way from using a nuke, and the taboo is not remade by what the rest of the world does in response, then the lives of all of us are very probably doomed through rampant proliferation and normalisation of nuclear warfare.
I think it is possible to draw a line around, say, NATO. Which as luck would have it we have done. We have said that an attack on a NATO member, etc...
We have not said an attack on Ukraine. Or South Sudan. Or even as I understand it Pakistan or India. But you and @BartholomewRoberts want assured destruction over Ukraine. It is a wholly legitimate position to hold. I am not so sure, however, that I hold it.
No, it's about the nuclear taboo and the ability of a non-nuclear state to not be threatened with nuclear blackmail, or for nuclear warfare to become normalised.
Your ascribed position is incorrect.
Where is this nuclear taboo encoded?
In the reality that they have never been used in warfare in 77 years, despite nuclear powers engaging in conflict with non-nuclear states many times in the interim.
A very quick search finds many uses of the term throughout the literature.
Throughout literature. Not "the literature". A book by Nina Tannenwald published in 2007 AFAICS.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Portugal is in NATO, therefore Lisbon and Porto would likely be nuked by Putin, you would need to be in very rural Portugal to have a chance
Putin really doesn't have that many nukes, and many (perhaps most) of them won't work. So, I think Portugal is a good call.
(Plus, the global cooling effect of a nuclear winter means you'd probably want to be somewhere reasonably warm, all other things being equal.)
Indeed, we would fly to Porto and then settle down in an airbnb somewhere nice and rural, perhaps up the Douro river. Likewise Ireland - fly to Cork then stay somewhere like Waterford.
In the case of a world-changing nuclear war are you sure you’re going to be able to wait it out in an AirBNB?
Strikes me that those properties are likely to get requisitioned pretty quickly!
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Portugal is in NATO, therefore Lisbon and Porto would likely be nuked by Putin, you would need to be in very rural Portugal to have a chance
Putin really doesn't have that many nukes, and many (perhaps most) of them won't work. So, I think Portugal is a good call.
(Plus, the global cooling effect of a nuclear winter means you'd probably want to be somewhere reasonably warm, all other things being equal.)
Indeed, we would fly to Porto and then settle down in an airbnb somewhere nice and rural, perhaps up the Douro river. Likewise Ireland - fly to Cork then stay somewhere like Waterford.
In the case of a world-changing nuclear war are you sure you’re going to be able to wait it out in an AirBNB?
Strikes me that those properties are likely to get requisitioned pretty quickly!
The threat of a scathing review on TripAdvisor would sort that out. Totally fucking rinse them. It's the only language tyrants understand.
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
Not content with his idea to cull the elderly to save fiscal creep, Dr Strangebart now wants to blow up the entire country.
I don't want to, I want us to convince Russia not to engage in a first strike.
But if they do engage in a first strike, then we absolutely should have Trident and the full range of our weaponry for retaliation in response.
Bart it would cement your credibility if you wrote the words "I want my wife and daughter to die if Russia uses a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine".
Then your position would be entirely consistent. As it usually is.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
And if Putin benefits in any way from using a nuke, and the taboo is not remade by what the rest of the world does in response, then the lives of all of us are very probably doomed through rampant proliferation and normalisation of nuclear warfare.
I think it is possible to draw a line around, say, NATO. Which as luck would have it we have done. We have said that an attack on a NATO member, etc...
We have not said an attack on Ukraine. Or South Sudan. Or even as I understand it Pakistan or India. But you and @BartholomewRoberts want assured destruction over Ukraine. It is a wholly legitimate position to hold. I am not so sure, however, that I hold it.
No, I don't want assured destruction. I want to prevent nuclear Armageddon by preventing nuclear escalation in the first place.
Yes we've drawn a line around NATO for attacks, which is why we haven't directly responded in this war. But that is only part of it, there is also a line against nuclear aggression.
If Russia crosses the line and fires nukes, which nobody has done in anger since WWII, then that line is crossed.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Justine Roberts (Mumsnet founder) had armed police at her door at 3am because someone had called claiming to be her & that there was a gunman prowling around the house back in 2015. That’s swatting.
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
True and maybe it will take off maybe it won't. And I see the danger. But atm it's not a thing in the UK. And no one said that the Mumsnet founder was armed themselves.
You appear to not understand how this works.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone says the Mumsnet founder was armed (taking this case). You spin a yarn that gets the police to turn up fully armed, knowing that if the target does anything wrong they risk getting shot. What do you think it feels like if this happens to you?
Remember the guy in Liverpool who was carrying a chair leg & the police shot him, thinking it was a sawn off shotgun in a bag? Yes, the guy was a career criminal (IIRC), so the suspicion wasn’t unwarranted, but he was shot without warning in the street. Same thing could have happened to the Justine Roberts’ au pair if she’d turned up at the door in the wrong clothes holding something that, in the dark by a stressed police officer, might have been misconstrued to be a gun.
That’s the threat of swatting & so far no one has died here, but they have absolutely died in the US, because they opened their front doors and walked out into their own garden & stressed police officers who were already primed to think them a threat opened fire on them.
Yes I understand that quite clearly. As I said, maybe it will become a thing here, maybe not. It at the moment is a bit like people dying trying to put their trousers on. It happens but is thankfully rare.
Plus are we not assuming that she was even doing this. Which sounds pretty illegal but they didn't charge her with anything. Was not perhaps someone doing something similar to her in fact?
I guess my position is that the kind of "immediate danger" threshold discussed here seems to believe that only in person harassment has that risk - if you're harassing someone online and they're already at risk, suffer depression, etc. then yeah, someone could be in "immediate danger" from that harassment. And if they have reason to believe she is involved in harassment campaigns, the organising of them online via Kiwifarms or 4chan etc, then that could also add to the idea of immediacy.
Trouble with that is is that while it is eminently reasonable as you write it, where do you draw the line.
It is an offence to cause someone harassment, alarm or distress in the real world, however the hell that is determined. If you apply that to the internet then PB might as well close down tomorrow morning.
I guess this is what we have laws & courts for? To settle law on these questions.
In this particular case we only have half the story - we have no idea what the woman in question is even accused of. Her testimony on the matter is, inevitably, going to be partial & from her point of view.
It seems to me that there is a line between saying something in general (e.g. in this case the woman clearly has strong GC beliefs) and going after individuals that you don’t like (individual trans people in this instance). Having GC beliefs is fine in law, but going after individual trans people is not. A stage beyond that would be encouraging others to target a particular individual as well, with the severity depending on the level of harrassment.
This woman has a history of anti trans political campaigning, which of course she is entitled to carry out in this free country of ours. If that campaigning has crossed the line into harrassing individuals, then she should rightly be held to account for it. I suggest we wait & see if she is charged & if so what the charges are before leaping to our pre-prepared social justice barricades.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Portugal is in NATO, therefore Lisbon and Porto would likely be nuked by Putin, you would need to be in very rural Portugal to have a chance
Putin really doesn't have that many nukes, and many (perhaps most) of them won't work. So, I think Portugal is a good call.
(Plus, the global cooling effect of a nuclear winter means you'd probably want to be somewhere reasonably warm, all other things being equal.)
If he doesn’t have many nukes how many would he spare for the UK? I mean he does seem to hate us so I’m not holding out any hope!
Top targets:
Strategic - London Naval - Barrow; Portsmouth; Plymouth; Glasgow. Intelligence - Cheltenham; Menwith Hill There's loads of army and airforce bases so I think those would be lower prio, Putin would surely be targetting many other european and US infrastructure past those lot.
A PM needs to inspire respect (and maybe a little fear). Truss doesn’t.
No MP, not a single one, is currently feeling they need to butter up Truss to develop their career.
Unless something happens soon , she is toast.
Maybe she can use her human hand grenade status to pioneer a new style of leadership:
- Spot a policy area that needs addressing - Announce a wildly unpopular solution supported by nobody - Force everyone else to come up with an alternative
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
So, your alternative is what? That whenever someone even mentions the word 'nuke', we all say 'sorry sir, my apologies sir'?
And if we do that, don't you think there's just the tiniest chance that this increases the chance that the word 'nuke' is mentioned more in future?
This is all fairly simple game theory stuff. And is exactly the reason why British troops would have had to have gone to Estonia in the event that Russia had invaded. (Something you were incredibly reticent to do, IIRC.)
If you want to minimise the possibility of Armageddon, you need to be willing to accept Armageddon as an outcome.
It's not clear why anyone should be afraid of Russian military capability any more. They've proved that they are pathetically weak and incompetent, and quite incapable of standing up to an enemy who can shoot back.
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
These channel crossings are something to be stopped. Stopping them and then worrying about any misfortune that has been created doesn't seem such a bad plan to me. They are after all choosing to come from France, and I know it's been long regarded in the UK with some suspiscion it is really rather a nice place.
The only way to stop the crossings is to make safe passage and application of asylum possible, not making them more illegal.
Well I agree that it is the primary plank in the scheme. Making any channel migrant forever ineligible for asylum in the UK would also be helpful I imagine.
Why would that help? They would just be more incentivised to never interact with state apparatus and, if they did succeed in getting here, become an underclass who are easier to exploit.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Portugal is in NATO, therefore Lisbon and Porto would likely be nuked by Putin, you would need to be in very rural Portugal to have a chance
Putin really doesn't have that many nukes, and many (perhaps most) of them won't work. So, I think Portugal is a good call.
(Plus, the global cooling effect of a nuclear winter means you'd probably want to be somewhere reasonably warm, all other things being equal.)
If he doesn’t have many nukes how many would he spare for the UK? I mean he does seem to hate us so I’m not holding out any hope!
yes Johnson acting like a wannabe Churchill probably has pointed a few more at us. Truss did not help with her stupid call for UK citizens to fight for Ukraine back in March
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Justine Roberts (Mumsnet founder) had armed police at her door at 3am because someone had called claiming to be her & that there was a gunman prowling around the house back in 2015. That’s swatting.
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
True and maybe it will take off maybe it won't. And I see the danger. But atm it's not a thing in the UK. And no one said that the Mumsnet founder was armed themselves.
You appear to not understand how this works.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone says the Mumsnet founder was armed (taking this case). You spin a yarn that gets the police to turn up fully armed, knowing that if the target does anything wrong they risk getting shot. What do you think it feels like if this happens to you?
Remember the guy in Liverpool who was carrying a chair leg & the police shot him, thinking it was a sawn off shotgun in a bag? Yes, the guy was a career criminal (IIRC), so the suspicion wasn’t unwarranted, but he was shot without warning in the street. Same thing could have happened to the Justine Roberts’ au pair if she’d turned up at the door in the wrong clothes holding something that, in the dark by a stressed police officer, might have been misconstrued to be a gun.
That’s the threat of swatting & so far no one has died here, but they have absolutely died in the US, because they opened their front doors and walked out into their own garden & stressed police officers who were already primed to think them a threat opened fire on them.
Yes I understand that quite clearly. As I said, maybe it will become a thing here, maybe not. It at the moment is a bit like people dying trying to put their trousers on. It happens but is thankfully rare.
Plus are we not assuming that she was even doing this. Which sounds pretty illegal but they didn't charge her with anything. Was not perhaps someone doing something similar to her in fact?
I guess my position is that the kind of "immediate danger" threshold discussed here seems to believe that only in person harassment has that risk - if you're harassing someone online and they're already at risk, suffer depression, etc. then yeah, someone could be in "immediate danger" from that harassment. And if they have reason to believe she is involved in harassment campaigns, the organising of them online via Kiwifarms or 4chan etc, then that could also add to the idea of immediacy.
Trouble with that is is that while it is eminently reasonable as you write it, where do you draw the line.
It is an offence to cause someone harassment, alarm or distress in the real world, however the hell that is determined. If you apply that to the internet then PB might as well close down tomorrow morning.
I guess this is what we have laws & courts for? To settle law on these questions.
In this particular case we only have half the story - we have no idea what the woman in question is even accused of. Her testimony on the matter is, inevitably, going to be partial & from her point of view.
It seems to me that there is a line between saying something in general (e.g. in this case the woman clearly has strong GC beliefs) and going after individuals that you don’t like (individual trans people in this instance). Having GC beliefs is fine in law, but going after individual trans people is not. A stage beyond that would be encouraging others to target a particular individual as well, with the severity depending on the level of harrassment.
This woman has a history of anti trans political campaigning, which of course she is entitled to carry out in this free country of ours. If that campaigning has crossed the line into harrassing individuals, then she should rightly be held to account for it. I suggest we wait & see if she is charged & if so what the charges are before leaping to our pre-prepared social justice barricades.
Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
Not content with his idea to cull the elderly to save fiscal creep, Dr Strangebart now wants to blow up the entire country.
I don't want to, I want us to convince Russia not to engage in a first strike.
But if they do engage in a first strike, then we absolutely should have Trident and the full range of our weaponry for retaliation in response.
Bart it would cement your credibility if you wrote the words "I want my wife and daughter to die if Russia uses a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine".
Then your position would be entirely consistent. As it usually is.
So tia.
No I don't want them to die. If it comes to that I'd want Russia's weaponry to fail, or to be intercepted. But I would want to take and accept the risk that my family and I would die if it comes to that. The risk of that is better than nuclear aggression being the norm in the world.
Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
Not content with his idea to cull the elderly to save fiscal creep, Dr Strangebart now wants to blow up the entire country.
I don't want to, I want us to convince Russia not to engage in a first strike.
But if they do engage in a first strike, then we absolutely should have Trident and the full range of our weaponry for retaliation in response.
Bart it would cement your credibility if you wrote the words "I want my wife and daughter to die if Russia uses a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine".
Then your position would be entirely consistent. As it usually is.
So tia.
No I don't want them to die. If it comes to that I'd want Russia's weaponry to fail, or to be intercepted. But I would want to take and accept the risk that my family and I would die if it comes to that. The risk of that is better than nuclear aggression being the norm in the world.
Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
Not content with his idea to cull the elderly to save fiscal creep, Dr Strangebart now wants to blow up the entire country.
I don't want to, I want us to convince Russia not to engage in a first strike.
But if they do engage in a first strike, then we absolutely should have Trident and the full range of our weaponry for retaliation in response.
Bart it would cement your credibility if you wrote the words "I want my wife and daughter to die if Russia uses a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine".
Then your position would be entirely consistent. As it usually is.
So tia.
No I don't want them to die. If it comes to that I'd want Russia's weaponry to fail, or to be intercepted. But I would want to take and accept the risk that my family and I would die if it comes to that. The risk of that is better than nuclear aggression being the norm in the world.
I hope your family accept that is a good trade . Their life for a concept . Great .i woudl suggest taking a walk this afternoon and looking at the normality and innocence of life and all its varieties . It may make you think different
I note that the govt has decided to abandon Human Rights.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
These channel crossings are something to be stopped. Stopping them and then worrying about any misfortune that has been created doesn't seem such a bad plan to me. They are after all choosing to come from France, and I know it's been long regarded in the UK with some suspiscion it is really rather a nice place.
The only way to stop the crossings is to make safe passage and application of asylum possible, not making them more illegal.
Well I agree that it is the primary plank in the scheme. Making any channel migrant forever ineligible for asylum in the UK would also be helpful I imagine.
Why would that help? They would just be more incentivised to never interact with state apparatus and, if they did succeed in getting here, become an underclass who are easier to exploit.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Portugal is in NATO, therefore Lisbon and Porto would likely be nuked by Putin, you would need to be in very rural Portugal to have a chance
Putin really doesn't have that many nukes, and many (perhaps most) of them won't work. So, I think Portugal is a good call.
(Plus, the global cooling effect of a nuclear winter means you'd probably want to be somewhere reasonably warm, all other things being equal.)
If he doesn’t have many nukes how many would he spare for the UK? I mean he does seem to hate us so I’m not holding out any hope!
yes Johnson acting like a wannabe Churchill probably has pointed a few more at us. Truss did not help with her stupid call for UK citizens to fight for Ukraine back in March
But, standing up to Russia has paid off. Its army has been beaten, and its nuclear threats are hollow.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
So, your alternative is what? That whenever someone even mentions the word 'nuke', we all say 'sorry sir, my apologies sir'?
And if we do that, don't you think there's just the tiniest chance that this increases the chance that the word 'nuke' is mentioned more in future?
This is all fairly simple game theory stuff. And is exactly the reason why British troops would have had to have gone to Estonia in the event that Russia had invaded. (Something you were incredibly reticent to do, IIRC.)
If you want to minimise the possibility of Armageddon, you need to be willing to accept Armageddon as an outcome.
Bingo!
This is what our appeaser crowd don't get. Appeasement doesn't work.
Being willing to accept being killed in a nuclear Armageddon doesn't mean you want it to happen, it means you're prepared to take that risk - and being prepared to take that risk, makes it less likely, and makes you safer.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
I am afraid that is dangerous talk and it is never a good idea to leave a country "comprehensively defeated" - even in the non nuclear age it was the recipe for WW2 with Verseilles Treaty etc. When we are wanting to totally defeat a country with the highest amount of nukes on the planet it is absurd to have that as an aim 2
No, when a nation is seeking to change borders by wars of aggression on our continent, it is absurd not to have that as an aim.
If Russia didn't want to be defeated, they shouldn't have started this war. They began this war, they can and must lose it.
The "off ramp" is for them to withdraw to their own territory, which is bloody generous to be frank, in the past we would have partitioned some of their land after they were defeated as the price they had to pay for recompense for their aggression.
I think given the nuke situation it is legitimate to worry about what may practically achieved when an irrational actor is at the helm.
But that doesnt mean an aim of the status quo ante bellum, ie restoration on internationally recognised borders, is itself unreasonable. Whether it gets achieved because of the nuke issue is another thing, but fundamentally 'put it back as it was before invasion in 2014' would not be an unfair starting point, or the line between humiliation and not humiliation.
Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
Not content with his idea to cull the elderly to save fiscal creep, Dr Strangebart now wants to blow up the entire country.
I don't want to, I want us to convince Russia not to engage in a first strike.
But if they do engage in a first strike, then we absolutely should have Trident and the full range of our weaponry for retaliation in response.
Bart it would cement your credibility if you wrote the words "I want my wife and daughter to die if Russia uses a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine".
Then your position would be entirely consistent. As it usually is.
So tia.
No I don't want them to die. If it comes to that I'd want Russia's weaponry to fail, or to be intercepted. But I would want to take and accept the risk that my family and I would die if it comes to that. The risk of that is better than nuclear aggression being the norm in the world.
I hope your family accept that is a good trade . Their life for a concept . Great .i woudl suggest taking a walk this afternoon and looking at the normality and innocence of life and all its varieties . It may make you think different
Yes, its a fantastic trade, and helps ensure that my children will grow up in a world not blighted by continual nuclear wars.
I would suggest you take a walk and think what purpose your desired appeasement actually achieves and where it would end?
Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
Not content with his idea to cull the elderly to save fiscal creep, Dr Strangebart now wants to blow up the entire country.
I don't want to, I want us to convince Russia not to engage in a first strike.
But if they do engage in a first strike, then we absolutely should have Trident and the full range of our weaponry for retaliation in response.
Bart it would cement your credibility if you wrote the words "I want my wife and daughter to die if Russia uses a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine".
Then your position would be entirely consistent. As it usually is.
So tia.
No I don't want them to die. If it comes to that I'd want Russia's weaponry to fail, or to be intercepted. But I would want to take and accept the risk that my family and I would die if it comes to that. The risk of that is better than nuclear aggression being the norm in the world.
So write the words.
However, both Bart and I believe that it is your stance which would imperil or even doom our families and ourselves.
That trying to hide under the bed does not actually protect us but makes that fate far more likely. So it seems we are at an impasse - but one that is not assisted by you trying to make him or anyone else write down what you have concluded to be the effect. Anymore than it would be assisted by us insisting that you write down "I want to hide under the bedsheets and ensure my loved ones live in a world where they are far more likely to die in nuclear fire if Russia uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine."
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Portugal is in NATO, therefore Lisbon and Porto would likely be nuked by Putin, you would need to be in very rural Portugal to have a chance
Putin really doesn't have that many nukes, and many (perhaps most) of them won't work. So, I think Portugal is a good call.
(Plus, the global cooling effect of a nuclear winter means you'd probably want to be somewhere reasonably warm, all other things being equal.)
If he doesn’t have many nukes how many would he spare for the UK? I mean he does seem to hate us so I’m not holding out any hope!
yes Johnson acting like a wannabe Churchill probably has pointed a few more at us. Truss did not help with her stupid call for UK citizens to fight for Ukraine back in March
Boris made some speeches and has provided material support like most other western leaders have. I think criticising him for an irrational russian response is a bit unfair - whatever his motivations someone with less churchillian pretensions would have done the same.
We know that as the stance taken is supported across both main parties
Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
Not content with his idea to cull the elderly to save fiscal creep, Dr Strangebart now wants to blow up the entire country.
I don't want to, I want us to convince Russia not to engage in a first strike.
But if they do engage in a first strike, then we absolutely should have Trident and the full range of our weaponry for retaliation in response.
Bart it would cement your credibility if you wrote the words "I want my wife and daughter to die if Russia uses a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine".
Then your position would be entirely consistent. As it usually is.
So tia.
No I don't want them to die. If it comes to that I'd want Russia's weaponry to fail, or to be intercepted. But I would want to take and accept the risk that my family and I would die if it comes to that. The risk of that is better than nuclear aggression being the norm in the world.
So write the words.
However, both Bart and I believe that it is your stance which would imperil or even doom our families and ourselves.
That trying to hide under the bed does not actually protect us but makes that fate far more likely. So it seems we are at an impasse - but one that is not assisted by you trying to make him or anyone else write down what you have concluded to be the effect. Anymore than it would be assisted by us insisting that you write down "I want to hide under the bedsheets and ensure my loved ones live in a world where they are far more likely to die in nuclear fire if Russia uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine."
Comments
Braverman seems to be coming out with some quite sensible ideas.
Truss should start sacking ministers for disloyalty, starting with Mordaunt.
Our look at why the Truss u-turns are unlikely to be enough to turn things around.
https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-is-for-turning-but-it-may-be-too-late/
And no one is to say he is wrong in thinking that but I'm not sure he has thought it through. It is a particularly perverse "moral maze" thought experiment. The point about MAD (the literal meaning of which @Bart hasn't really considered) is that it is or has been a bluff. And everyone knew it. What do we do if Putin now calls the bluff. I am not sure I know.
I do know, however, that it is not as simple as @Bart makes out.
Australia, which their compulsory savings, seems by far the best example of this.
The problem is that (a) people who are in the transition group feel cheated, because they are expected to save and to pay for retirees, and (b) forcing everyone to save more when the economy is already spluttering is a difficult sell.
So now we are on the same moral level as Yemen, Afghansitan, Myanmar, Somalia, etc etc.
Suella Braverman will on Tuesday pledge to prevent human rights laws "interfering" with the UK's ability to deport illegal migrants by introducing a new law barring anyone who crosses the Channel from claiming asylum in Britain. "
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/suella-braverman-time-has-come-to-take-on-european-court-interfering-with-migrant-deportations/ar-AA12yyZd
@agnesfrim Carry On up The Purge
There are occasional suspicions that it is used to protect the well-connected, but by and large I think it works.
The difference with PB might be, for instance, that there is moderation here and that no one has done that step. Someone could take that step - I could maybe post "TOPPING please stop replying to me in this manner as it causes me distress" and then I imagine it would depend on if you continued to reply to me in a way that reasonably could be considered harassing?
I'm not saying these are easy things to define, and there is always a line between free speech and harassment and other illegitimate speech (hate speech, libel / slander, etc), but to the core issue of the severity of police response, again, it seems pretty run of the mill in my view.
These are real tangible results to be set against the phantom of nuclear terror.
We have not said an attack on Ukraine. Or South Sudan. Or even as I understand it Pakistan or India. But you and @BartholomewRoberts want assured destruction over Ukraine. It is a wholly legitimate position to hold. I am not so sure, however, that I hold it.
Take UK experience in the Falklands. Now that was land to which we had a long standing legal claim, settled by loyal British subjects. It was invaded by Argentina, and recovered after a conventional battle which many didn't believe we could win. There was never any hint or prospect of Britain using nuclear weapons on Argentina. Even if the expeditionary force had been humiliatingly routed by the Argentinians in the South Atlantic the nukes would have stayed firmly in the drawer. Russia is fighting a colonial war of conquest in someone else's land and deep down it knows it.
https://twitter.com/PennyRed/status/1576968370611970050
https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1577303194224529408
Of course the Tories had been incubating their own virus for a lot longer.
Patel was dreadful and Truss has managed to appoint someone whose even worse .
And if we do that, don't you think there's just the tiniest chance that this increases the chance that the word 'nuke' is mentioned more in future?
This is all fairly simple game theory stuff. And is exactly the reason why British troops would have had to have gone to Estonia in the event that Russia had invaded. (Something you were incredibly reticent to do, IIRC.)
If you want to minimise the possibility of Armageddon, you need to be willing to accept Armageddon as an outcome.
There is nothing new in what she is saying.
Your ascribed position is incorrect.
Also, what their assessment of the 'real' Russian nuclear capability is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/26/italy-meloni-right-wing-migration/
(Plus, the global cooling effect of a nuclear winter means you'd probably want to be somewhere reasonably warm, all other things being equal.)
I mean, I still think she’s a dangerous loon-bag, but this opinion has become too controversial to be voiced aloud in the past ten years, and that is a shame.
Irish border - "We are taking the whole of Ireland"
Immigration - "Pale of Calais is ours now"
Gas imports - "We now own the UAE"
Can't see any downsides, really.
How many wars are there in the world. Plenty. Nukes is just a big bomb. Plenty of ways not limited to machetes, small arms, and bows and arrows to kill people. Lots of people.
I am none too sure about asssured destruction of the UK for the sake of Ukraine. We didn't care eight years ago at all. I think I barely noticed the annexation of the Crimea, shameful current affairs hound as I am.
But the Tory party discipline does seem to have really been shot since the Brexit campaign. May never really got it under control, and lost a GE. Johnson expelled a load of MPs and then won a GE to get a majority to get it back, but there was still a lot of infighting, it was just subsumed by the crisis that was (is) covid. This leadership campaign opened up a lot of bad blood, and not just between Truss supporters and Sunak supporters, but between Johnson loyalists and those who thought he had to go.
That Dorries is saying a GE is needed, when she backed Truss quite loudly, is strange to me. Sure, she's mad, but why turn that quickly? Does she want to quit without being seen to quit? Buyers remorse? Or was this the hope all along - pick someone useless, then demand a GE and have them ousted and "get back the party" by proving only Johnsonism works?
So rather than the burnt out cities of Threads, much of the UK would be awfully quiet, and after a few weeks for the radiation to decline and the bodies to rot an acceptable level, quite inhabitable.
So after 6 weeks in your bunker, pop upstairs to inherit....
If Russia didn't want to be defeated, they shouldn't have started this war. They began this war, they can and must lose it.
The "off ramp" is for them to withdraw to their own territory, which is bloody generous to be frank, in the past we would have partitioned some of their land after they were defeated as the price they had to pay for recompense for their aggression.
A very quick search finds many uses of the term throughout the literature.
Otherwise it’s simply middle-class swatting, using the police to harass someone who’s upset you. Police should *always* need warrants, where there is no immediate risk of physical harm.
He was further left than Michael Foot, and significantly further away from the centre ground than Margaret Thatcher.
Anyway, the main point was not his ideological eccentricity, but the meltdown it caused in the Labour Party, including mass resignations from the front bench, leadership challenges and defections.
This kind of mass hysteria then repeated itself for May, then for Boris, and now for Liz.
I don’t blame the MPs especially. There has been a structural shift which is delivering extreme instability into British politics.
It looks like a North Atlantic Italy, no wonder investors want a risk premium.
That how you see it? That is what you want as I understand your posts. Because not to have a global nuclear war which would kill your family on account of a nuclear warhead used in Ukraine would be giving in to Putin.
But if they do engage in a first strike, then we absolutely should have Trident and the full range of our weaponry for retaliation in response.
Ukraine advance in the last 48 hours:
https://twitter.com/Ira_Korn_Aex/status/1577311906678935554
Strikes me that those properties are likely to get requisitioned pretty quickly!
No MP, not a single one, is currently feeling they need to butter up Truss to develop their career.
Unless something happens soon , she is toast.
Then your position would be entirely consistent. As it usually is.
So tia.
Yes we've drawn a line around NATO for attacks, which is why we haven't directly responded in this war. But that is only part of it, there is also a line against nuclear aggression.
If Russia crosses the line and fires nukes, which nobody has done in anger since WWII, then that line is crossed.
In this particular case we only have half the story - we have no idea what the woman in question is even accused of. Her testimony on the matter is, inevitably, going to be partial & from her point of view.
It seems to me that there is a line between saying something in general (e.g. in this case the woman clearly has strong GC beliefs) and going after individuals that you don’t like (individual trans people in this instance). Having GC beliefs is fine in law, but going after individual trans people is not. A stage beyond that would be encouraging others to target a particular individual as well, with the severity depending on the level of harrassment.
This woman has a history of anti trans political campaigning, which of course she is entitled to carry out in this free country of ours. If that campaigning has crossed the line into harrassing individuals, then she should rightly be held to account for it. I suggest we wait & see if she is charged & if so what the charges are before leaping to our pre-prepared social justice barricades.
(She is heavily involved with this bunch I believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CitizenGo - she’s holding their logo on her Twitter banner.)
Strategic - London
Naval - Barrow; Portsmouth; Plymouth; Glasgow.
Intelligence - Cheltenham; Menwith Hill
There's loads of army and airforce bases so I think those would be lower prio, Putin would surely be targetting many other european and US infrastructure past those lot.
- Spot a policy area that needs addressing
- Announce a wildly unpopular solution supported by nobody
- Force everyone else to come up with an alternative
This is what our appeaser crowd don't get. Appeasement doesn't work.
Being willing to accept being killed in a nuclear Armageddon doesn't mean you want it to happen, it means you're prepared to take that risk - and being prepared to take that risk, makes it less likely, and makes you safer.
But that doesnt mean an aim of the status quo ante bellum, ie restoration on internationally recognised borders, is itself unreasonable. Whether it gets achieved because of the nuke issue is another thing, but fundamentally 'put it back as it was before invasion in 2014' would not be an unfair starting point, or the line between humiliation and not humiliation.
I would suggest you take a walk and think what purpose your desired appeasement actually achieves and where it would end?
That trying to hide under the bed does not actually protect us but makes that fate far more likely. So it seems we are at an impasse - but one that is not assisted by you trying to make him or anyone else write down what you have concluded to be the effect. Anymore than it would be assisted by us insisting that you write down "I want to hide under the bedsheets and ensure my loved ones live in a world where they are far more likely to die in nuclear fire if Russia uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine."
We know that as the stance taken is supported across both main parties
If you want peace, prepare for war