There are many problems with immigration to the US, legal and illegal. But it appears to be a net benefit, economically:
'Consider a few numbers: Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released updated 10-year economic and budget forecasts. The numbers look significantly better than they did a year earlier, and immigration is a key reason. . . . This will in turn lead to better economic growth. As CBO Director Phill Swagel wrote in a note accompanying the forecasts: As a result of these immigration-driven revisions to the size of the labor force, “we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.' source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/13/immigration-economy-jobs-cbo-report/
The same was said about EU membership and essentially unlimited immigration to the UK.
The fact is that if you separate skilled from unskilled immigration, and legal from illegal immigration, the numbers look a whole load better, and don’t upset the native population who see competition for jobs and housing way more than they see an increase in GDP.
And he's not the first person I know who's had significant delays waiting for an ambulance.
How long before someone sets up a private ‘ambulance service’, which is little more than a paramedic in a taxi with a big first aid kit, who charges £100 to patch you up and give you a ride to the hospital?
That’s not the same as a ‘private amblulance’ service, which is something slightly different.
And how long before it gets Uberised with surge pricing?
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
I don't know. My gut instinct is it depends on China. If they do something stupid like sink a US carrier, then the US will, for vengeance's sake, if nothing else. And China's military often does aggressively dumb stuff.
e.g. "The U.S. Department of Defense says there have been more than 180 instances of Chinese military aircraft flying dangerously close to U.S. aircraft since the fall of 2021."
The ideal scenario is that Taiwan is able to deter Chinese aggression with its own means, so the question doesn't arise. Are Taiwan's military capabilities sufficient to defeat an attempted Chinese blockade or invasion?
The bill recently passed by the Senate would perhaps shift the dial on this a bit in Taiwan's favour, increasing the uncertainty for China.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
It’s the one war that even Trump would want. China has been his enemy for nearly a decade - and not without good cause either. Way too little attention is being paid to what China is doing in Africa at the moment.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
I don't know. My gut instinct is it depends on China. If they do something stupid like sink a US carrier, then the US will, for vengeance's sake, if nothing else. And China's military often does aggressively dumb stuff.
e.g. "The U.S. Department of Defense says there have been more than 180 instances of Chinese military aircraft flying dangerously close to U.S. aircraft since the fall of 2021."
The ideal scenario is that Taiwan is able to deter Chinese aggression with its own means, so the question doesn't arise. Are Taiwan's military capabilities sufficient to defeat an attempted Chinese blockade or invasion?
The bill recently passed by the Senate would perhaps shift the dial on this a bit in Taiwan's favour, increasing the uncertainty for China.
It won't pass the House. There are enough Reps in the pay of sympathetic to Xi and Putin to block it.
OT. Russell Brand on the Putin-Carlson interview. After our clustering around Israel -the country that can do no wrong -I found his perspective on our automatic assumptions interesting
OT. Russell Brand on the Putin-Carlson interview. After our clustering around Israel -the country that can do no wrong -I found his perspective on our automatic assumptions interesting
If my comedy career was in the toilet I might look at an alternative means of income. Becoming a right wing shock- jock is probably as good a call as any. Plenty of gullible people around.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
I don't know. My gut instinct is it depends on China. If they do something stupid like sink a US carrier, then the US will, for vengeance's sake, if nothing else. And China's military often does aggressively dumb stuff.
e.g. "The U.S. Department of Defense says there have been more than 180 instances of Chinese military aircraft flying dangerously close to U.S. aircraft since the fall of 2021."
The ideal scenario is that Taiwan is able to deter Chinese aggression with its own means, so the question doesn't arise. Are Taiwan's military capabilities sufficient to defeat an attempted Chinese blockade or invasion?
The bill recently passed by the Senate would perhaps shift the dial on this a bit in Taiwan's favour, increasing the uncertainty for China.
It won't pass the House. There are enough Reps in the pay of sympathetic to Xi and Putin to block it.
This is the point at which those sympathetic to Trump need to realise that he is inviting aggression from the authoritarian dictatorships who are enemies of the US, by opposing the steps that would deter that aggression.
OT. Russell Brand on the Putin-Carlson interview. After our clustering around Israel -the country that can do no wrong -I found his perspective on our automatic assumptions interesting
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
Doing some digging it does seem a very live debate. Some say it is the end of the aircraft carrier, some say the missiles are hyped and not THAT dangerous
I am not a ballistic missile engineer/strategic defence analyst, I dunno
The importance of this CNN report (if it is acccurate) is that they, and the Ukes, are claiming this is the first time a "hypersonic" missile has been used in actual warfare, rather than just a test or a wargame. DYOR!
"CNN — Ukraine claims it has evidence Russia fired an advanced hypersonic missile – one that experts say is almost impossible to shoot down – for the first time in the almost 2-year-old war.
The government-run Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise said in a Telegram post that debris recovered after a February 7 attack on the Ukrainian capital pointed to the use of a Zircon hypersonic cruise missile by the Russian military."
There’s a difference between an ICBM (a rocket-launched from the ground), a rocket-powered missile launched from an aircraft, and a revolutionary mach 5 jet-powered missile. The first two are old technology, can be seen from space, and aren’t going to do much in modern warfare.
The third is an interesting innovation if it works to lock a target, rather than simply heading for a fixed co-ordinate. It would need air defence elements to be positioned along the trajectory to anticipate its arrival, as it goes faster than the defence missiles. There’s no evidence that Russia, China, or North Korea actually have any of these, despite several demonstrations they claim to have given.
I suspect he doesn't know the difference between a rocket and a jet.
Further - to get true hypersonic air breathing missiles to work, you need a scramjet. A scramjet is where the combustion inside the engine is with supersonic flow . All existing air breathing engines slow the incoming air down to subsonic velocities. See the enormous cone things in the inlets of the SR71.
To date, claims of actually getting net thrust out of a scram jet are debated. Some experiments may have worked. For seconds.
Even if you get that all to work, you have to fly in a perfectly straight line. Otherwise the shock wave in the intake tears your whole plane/missile apart. Which is the usual fate of scram jet tests, by the way.
The Russian hypersonic missiles are all rocket powered. Ballistic weapons fired from aircraft, mainly.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
I thought holding nuclear arsenals are supposed to stop proper wars?
There have been no direct wars in recent years between any of: UK, France, USA, China, Russia, North Korea. This is a good start. Also no-one has tried to gain an inch of NATO territory. Also a plus.
USA policy on Taiwan is to hold the ring by not stating whether or not it will go to war to defend it.
Like all the above, this works until the moment it doesn't.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
I thought holding nuclear arsenals are supposed to stop proper wars?
There have been no direct wars in recent years between any of: UK, France, USA, China, Russia, North Korea. This is a good start. Also no-one has tried to gain an inch of NATO territory. Also a plus.
USA policy on Taiwan is to hold the ring by not stating whether or not it will go to war to defend it.
Like all the above, this works until the moment it doesn't.
If the US had deployed one of its rapid response brigades to Kyiv in the weeks before Russia invaded, would it have prevented the invasion, or precipitated a direct conflict between the world's two largest nuclear powers?
By the time you account that Labour did not stand candidates in 2 wards covering about 12% of the constituency, plus a generous LLG share which Labour will drink from to an extent, then I expect Labour to be home with some comfort. (Con and LD managed full coverage, and the Independent stood where Labour didn't).
Also RefUK stood in a ward only a small part of which is in Kingswood, so covered only 0.4% of the electorate - it wasn't an unusually terrible result for them.
I'll look at Rochdale for any insights that might give when I have a few minutes, as they had a 2023 round.
The issue I have with Labour in Kingswood is the your certainty “generous LLG share which Labour will drink from to an extent”. Labour really need to drink it, yet it’s so close to where Greens are exploding with such popularity they have scrapped a Labour mayor and will knock a popular Labour front bencher out of parliament at the next general election. those LD and green votes you identify might be green on the day, and Tory’s pip Labour in Kingswood.
MoonRabbit ramping Greens in Bristol again, I see. Convenient to have a by-election to test his theory.
Yes bring it on, test my theory.
Scrapped a Labour mayor - already happened. Unseat Thangham Debonaire - almost certain to happen Strong green showing in Kingswood by election making it squeaky bum time for Labour - let’s see if I’m right.
These votes I claim green will get are Lib Dem transfers to Green, not to Labour. It’s not that crazy you know Nick.
Now now. You know that Labour believes it has a divine right to all left-of-centre voters and anyone considering voting Green or LibDem is an apostate who deserves condemnation.
What they get and when is both geographical and narrational. Geographically Bristol is the UKs Green Bastion right now, and all the former Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem voters there who have switched green seem to be very happy with it. On the ‘get Sunak out’ narration of general election day these same voters thwarting Labour this week would probably go Labour to give Labour Kingswood, (and possibly Uxbridge too). Whilst at same time, a bus ride away, green votes unseat Thangham Debonaire.
Are you sure about Thangam Debbonaire? Seems somewhat unlikely.
Bristol West 2019 GE: Labour 47,028 (62.3%); Greens 18,809 (24.9%). And I believe 2019 was a very poor GE for Labour.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
I thought holding nuclear arsenals are supposed to stop proper wars?
There have been no direct wars in recent years between any of: UK, France, USA, China, Russia, North Korea. This is a good start. Also no-one has tried to gain an inch of NATO territory. Also a plus.
USA policy on Taiwan is to hold the ring by not stating whether or not it will go to war to defend it.
Like all the above, this works until the moment it doesn't.
There's a slight Catch22 with NATO, isn't there? Membership is the best guarantee against Russian invasion. But you can't join if you're at risk of being invaded by Russia.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
I thought holding nuclear arsenals are supposed to stop proper wars?
There have been no direct wars in recent years between any of: UK, France, USA, China, Russia, North Korea. This is a good start. Also no-one has tried to gain an inch of NATO territory. Also a plus.
USA policy on Taiwan is to hold the ring by not stating whether or not it will go to war to defend it.
Like all the above, this works until the moment it doesn't.
If the US had deployed one of its rapid response brigades to Kyiv in the weeks before Russia invaded, would it have prevented the invasion, or precipitated a direct conflict between the world's two largest nuclear powers?
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
I don't know. My gut instinct is it depends on China. If they do something stupid like sink a US carrier, then the US will, for vengeance's sake, if nothing else. And China's military often does aggressively dumb stuff.
e.g. "The U.S. Department of Defense says there have been more than 180 instances of Chinese military aircraft flying dangerously close to U.S. aircraft since the fall of 2021."
The ideal scenario is that Taiwan is able to deter Chinese aggression with its own means, so the question doesn't arise. Are Taiwan's military capabilities sufficient to defeat an attempted Chinese blockade or invasion?
The bill recently passed by the Senate would perhaps shift the dial on this a bit in Taiwan's favour, increasing the uncertainty for China.
It won't pass the House. There are enough Reps in the pay of sympathetic to Xi and Putin to block it.
Then Dems need to step up. Enough of them did in the Senate.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
I thought holding nuclear arsenals are supposed to stop proper wars?
There have been no direct wars in recent years between any of: UK, France, USA, China, Russia, North Korea. This is a good start. Also no-one has tried to gain an inch of NATO territory. Also a plus.
USA policy on Taiwan is to hold the ring by not stating whether or not it will go to war to defend it.
Like all the above, this works until the moment it doesn't.
There's a slight Catch22 with NATO, isn't there? Membership is the best guarantee against Russian invasion. But you can't join if you're at risk of being invaded by Russia.
Yes. It has elements of an insurance scheme. Like the Baltic states you have to pick your moment. Imagine how they would be if they had no cover from NATO. Finland and Sweden have been given free passes as 'one of us'. If Ireland is invaded by Russia, we will of course stand idly by.....
I saw Guido was asking several Labour MPs whether they were at that meeting; he must have known there was more to come
Then again, Sir Keir only gave AA the Spanish Archer because he discovered further unsavoury comments, so maybe what GJ said isn’t enough
Mind you, Jones isn’t an MP, just a PPC
When you let Mccarthyism out of it's box there is no known way to put it back. Starmer of all people should have been aware of that. I'm starting to think he's hopeless
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
The Russian navy has been destroyed by drones, its flagships now lying on the sea floor, so I'm not sure "hypersonic missiles" are the future.
Drones can theoretically be fended off, albeit it is complicated, and tiresome
If these hypersonic missiles are real (and I am relying on Woke Mad CNN here, so veracity is an issue) then that to me says the era of the aircraft carrier and the trad navy is over. It's not just more difficult to operate enormous ships, it is pointless, they will be zapped
It's great we just spent £6bn on two of these things. I guess we can use them for "humanitarian" purposes
Indeed I have a feeling that is the only way we will ever use them, they will never be risked in battle, for the reasons I have cited
Hypersonic missiles are real. Have existed for some time (the US has some). But have a number of very large disadvantages, the biggest one of which is that they cause the air in front of them to heat up massively (because that's what happens when you push something through the air at very high speeds).
This means that you cannot put normal targeting (laser, camera, IR, radar) on the front of them, because all you see is superheated air.
Which means if you want to hit a city, they're great. As you know exactly where it is, and it's not moving.
But it kinda sucks for hitting a ship, because you don't know exactly where it is.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
Doing some digging it does seem a very live debate. Some say it is the end of the aircraft carrier, some say the missiles are hyped and not THAT dangerous
I am not a ballistic missile engineer/strategic defence analyst, I dunno
The importance of this CNN report (if it is acccurate) is that they, and the Ukes, are claiming this is the first time a "hypersonic" missile has been used in actual warfare, rather than just a test or a wargame. DYOR!
"CNN — Ukraine claims it has evidence Russia fired an advanced hypersonic missile – one that experts say is almost impossible to shoot down – for the first time in the almost 2-year-old war.
The government-run Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise said in a Telegram post that debris recovered after a February 7 attack on the Ukrainian capital pointed to the use of a Zircon hypersonic cruise missile by the Russian military."
There’s a difference between an ICBM (a rocket-launched from the ground), a rocket-powered missile launched from an aircraft, and a revolutionary mach 5 jet-powered missile. The first two are old technology, can be seen from space, and aren’t going to do much in modern warfare.
The third is an interesting innovation if it works to lock a target, rather than simply heading for a fixed co-ordinate. It would need air defence elements to be positioned along the trajectory to anticipate its arrival, as it goes faster than the defence missiles. There’s no evidence that Russia, China, or North Korea actually have any of these, despite several demonstrations they claim to have given.
I suspect he doesn't know the difference between a rocket and a jet.
Further - to get true hypersonic air breathing missiles to work, you need a scramjet. A scramjet is where the combustion inside the engine is with supersonic flow . All existing air breathing engines slow the incoming air down to subsonic velocities. See the enormous cone things in the inlets of the SR71.
To date, claims of actually getting net thrust out of a scram jet are debated. Some experiments may have worked. For seconds.
Even if you get that all to work, you have to fly in a perfectly straight line. Otherwise the shock wave in the intake tears your whole plane/missile apart. Which is the usual fate of scram jet tests, by the way.
The Russian hypersonic missiles are all rocket powered. Ballistic weapons fired from aircraft, mainly.
Indeed - as this article explains, it is highly unlikely that the Russians are anywhere near getting a hypersonic weapon.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
Doing some digging it does seem a very live debate. Some say it is the end of the aircraft carrier, some say the missiles are hyped and not THAT dangerous
I am not a ballistic missile engineer/strategic defence analyst, I dunno
The importance of this CNN report (if it is acccurate) is that they, and the Ukes, are claiming this is the first time a "hypersonic" missile has been used in actual warfare, rather than just a test or a wargame. DYOR!
"CNN — Ukraine claims it has evidence Russia fired an advanced hypersonic missile – one that experts say is almost impossible to shoot down – for the first time in the almost 2-year-old war.
The government-run Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise said in a Telegram post that debris recovered after a February 7 attack on the Ukrainian capital pointed to the use of a Zircon hypersonic cruise missile by the Russian military."
There’s a difference between an ICBM (a rocket-launched from the ground), a rocket-powered missile launched from an aircraft, and a revolutionary mach 5 jet-powered missile. The first two are old technology, can be seen from space, and aren’t going to do much in modern warfare.
The third is an interesting innovation if it works to lock a target, rather than simply heading for a fixed co-ordinate. It would need air defence elements to be positioned along the trajectory to anticipate its arrival, as it goes faster than the defence missiles. There’s no evidence that Russia, China, or North Korea actually have any of these, despite several demonstrations they claim to have given.
I suspect he doesn't know the difference between a rocket and a jet.
Further - to get true hypersonic air breathing missiles to work, you need a scramjet. A scramjet is where the combustion inside the engine is with supersonic flow . All existing air breathing engines slow the incoming air down to subsonic velocities. See the enormous cone things in the inlets of the SR71.
To date, claims of actually getting net thrust out of a scram jet are debated. Some experiments may have worked. For seconds.
Even if you get that all to work, you have to fly in a perfectly straight line. Otherwise the shock wave in the intake tears your whole plane/missile apart. Which is the usual fate of scram jet tests, by the way.
The Russian hypersonic missiles are all rocket powered. Ballistic weapons fired from aircraft, mainly.
Indeed - as this article explains, it is highly unlikely that the Russians are anywhere near getting a hypersonic weapon.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
My current view is that a conflict between China and Taiwan would not involve a landing - at least, not at first. It would involve a military blockade of the island, and a "come and get us if you think you're hard enough" attitude from the PRC towards the US and Taiwan's allies. They will also try to control the airspace around, and probably over, the island as well.
With a total blockade, how long would Taiwan be able to hold out? What can Taiwan's allies do to prevent it?
This is much less risky for the PRC than a land invasion.
Don't disagree. The obvious question is will the US go to war (proper war) to save Taiwan.
I thought holding nuclear arsenals are supposed to stop proper wars?
There have been no direct wars in recent years between any of: UK, France, USA, China, Russia, North Korea. This is a good start. Also no-one has tried to gain an inch of NATO territory. Also a plus.
USA policy on Taiwan is to hold the ring by not stating whether or not it will go to war to defend it.
Like all the above, this works until the moment it doesn't.
There's a slight Catch22 with NATO, isn't there? Membership is the best guarantee against Russian invasion. But you can't join if you're at risk of being invaded by Russia.
Yes. It has elements of an insurance scheme. Like the Baltic states you have to pick your moment. Imagine how they would be if they had no cover from NATO. Finland and Sweden have been given free passes as 'one of us'. If Ireland is invaded by Russia, we will of course stand idly by.....
Good comparison. If you are deemed high risk (of Russian invasion) you'll be turned down. Just like insurance companies turn down risks outside their parameters. The best customers are those who'll never claim.
Unfortunately this is a by-election dominated by a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know far, far too much.
There are conflicts all around the world that don't get a fraction of the spotlight or attention that this one has had. I wonder what is so unique about this one conflict, that every moment becomes headline news unlike all the others?
The physical carnage, the huge civilian casualties, the mass displacement of people, the resulting humanitarian disaster, the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west - these do make for a big story.
"the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west".
I think you might need to understand that this awful conflict was blatantly started by Hamas who "inflicted" rape torture and murder on innocent people.
There is a reasonable argument that the Israeli response has been disproportionate, but the "infliction" was initiated by Hamas terrorists.
As you have been an occasional apologist for Corbyn (and probably indirectly voted for him to be PM) I guess this is hard to recognise?
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
It’s like UKIP 2015!
Except these PPC’s are a former MP, & a current councillor/twice defeated PPC. Known quantities rather than punters who’d never been involved in politics before
Pro-Palestinian protesters have held a demonstration outside the home of Bournemouth East MP Tobias Ellwood, with signs accusing him of being "complicit in genocide" in Gaza.
I don't see how the drip of anti-semitic revelations will necessarily play badly for Lab. Sympathy for Israel and therefore the Jews must be at an all-time low in the UK (and elsewhere throughout Europe and the world) and people have shown that sympathy for Hamas and the Gazans is very strong.
I don't see that Lab will suffer all that much. The Jewish Labour Movement may bleat on about this or that but overall I would say it would at best/worst be neutral for Lab, perhaps a slight positive.
I don't see how the drip of anti-semitic revelations will necessarily play badly for Lab. Sympathy for Israel and therefore the Jews must be at an all-time low in the UK (and elsewhere throughout Europe and the world) and people have shown that sympathy for Hamas and the Gazans is very strong.
I don't see that Lab will suffer all that much. The Jewish Labour Movement may bleat on about this or that but overall I would say it would at best/worst be neutral for Lab, perhaps a slight positive.
Wouldn’t be so bad if St Keir hadn’t been bragging non stop about how he’d got rid of anyone who thought this way
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
There are probably hundreds of Labour MPs and PPCs desperately checking their twitter feeds and facebook pages wondering if they had suggested that "they" (Jews) don't understand irony or have endorsed an obviously anti-Semitic artwork/propaganda like their erstwhile leader.
If they are not, I bet there are a load of Tories and Lib Dems doing it for them!
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
The Russian navy has been destroyed by drones, its flagships now lying on the sea floor, so I'm not sure "hypersonic missiles" are the future.
Drones can theoretically be fended off, albeit it is complicated, and tiresome
If these hypersonic missiles are real (and I am relying on Woke Mad CNN here, so veracity is an issue) then that to me says the era of the aircraft carrier and the trad navy is over. It's not just more difficult to operate enormous ships, it is pointless, they will be zapped
It's great we just spent £6bn on two of these things. I guess we can use them for "humanitarian" purposes
Indeed I have a feeling that is the only way we will ever use them, they will never be risked in battle, for the reasons I have cited
Hypersonic missiles are real. Have existed for some time (the US has some). But have a number of very large disadvantages, the biggest one of which is that they cause the air in front of them to heat up massively (because that's what happens when you push something through the air at very high speeds).
This means that you cannot put normal targeting (laser, camera, IR, radar) on the front of them, because all you see is superheated air.
Which means if you want to hit a city, they're great. As you know exactly where it is, and it's not moving.
But it kinda sucks for hitting a ship, because you don't know exactly where it is.
Then it all depends how much a hypersonic missile costs
If you can send 50 of them into the area where a carrier is likely to be, with a high chance one will hit and destroy the carrier, then it’s worth it. If a carrier costs £3bn, and a missile costs £30m each - then you can afford to fire 100 missiles
Bring the cost of the missiles down to £3m, and it’s game over for the carriers
The whole thrust of war seems to be towards cheaper mobile attacking platforms, drones, AI, missiles, and against massive lumbering objects, tanks, destroyers, carriers
Also mines are now much cheaper than men
I think traditional navies are in their last days, like cavalry forces in WW1. Cf the Russian Black Sea fleet
Unfortunately this is a by-election dominated by a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know far, far too much.
There are conflicts all around the world that don't get a fraction of the spotlight or attention that this one has had. I wonder what is so unique about this one conflict, that every moment becomes headline news unlike all the others?
The physical carnage, the huge civilian casualties, the mass displacement of people, the resulting humanitarian disaster, the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west - these do make for a big story.
"the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west".
I think you might need to understand that this awful conflict was blatantly started by Hamas who "inflicted" rape torture and murder on innocent people.
There is a reasonable argument that the Israeli response has been disproportionate, but the "infliction" was initiated by Hamas terrorists.
As you have been an occasional apologist for Corbyn (and probably indirectly voted for him to be PM) I guess this is hard to recognise?
I know who started the fire. Hamas did. Oct 7th was unspeakable. It's now 13th February and Israel has wreaked a mighty vengeance for it.
Justifiable response to a threat deemed existential? Or barbaric collective punishment of the population of Gaza?
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
The Russian navy has been destroyed by drones, its flagships now lying on the sea floor, so I'm not sure "hypersonic missiles" are the future.
Drones can theoretically be fended off, albeit it is complicated, and tiresome
If these hypersonic missiles are real (and I am relying on Woke Mad CNN here, so veracity is an issue) then that to me says the era of the aircraft carrier and the trad navy is over. It's not just more difficult to operate enormous ships, it is pointless, they will be zapped
It's great we just spent £6bn on two of these things. I guess we can use them for "humanitarian" purposes
Indeed I have a feeling that is the only way we will ever use them, they will never be risked in battle, for the reasons I have cited
Hypersonic missiles are real. Have existed for some time (the US has some). But have a number of very large disadvantages, the biggest one of which is that they cause the air in front of them to heat up massively (because that's what happens when you push something through the air at very high speeds).
This means that you cannot put normal targeting (laser, camera, IR, radar) on the front of them, because all you see is superheated air.
Which means if you want to hit a city, they're great. As you know exactly where it is, and it's not moving.
But it kinda sucks for hitting a ship, because you don't know exactly where it is.
I don't see how the drip of anti-semitic revelations will necessarily play badly for Lab. Sympathy for Israel and therefore the Jews must be at an all-time low in the UK (and elsewhere throughout Europe and the world) and people have shown that sympathy for Hamas and the Gazans is very strong.
I don't see that Lab will suffer all that much. The Jewish Labour Movement may bleat on about this or that but overall I would say it would at best/worst be neutral for Lab, perhaps a slight positive.
It is certainly possible or even likely, that there are people in the Labour Party that think there are votes in maligning Jews.
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
There are probably hundreds of Labour MPs and PPCs desperately checking their twitter feeds and facebook pages wondering if they had suggested that "they" (Jews) don't understand irony or have endorsed an obviously anti-Semitic artwork/propaganda like their erstwhile leader.
If they are not, I bet there are a load of Tories and Lib Dems doing it for them!
I am sure there are. But there are probably roughly as many Conservatives checking (and being checked) that they haven't done an offensive racism as well.
As with the expenses scandal, parties don't get to choose which cans of worms to leave closed.
That poll is fascinating. If they all had a 10-15 point Labour lead, and a Reform score of 10, the whole narrative would be different.
Of course, they don’t, and the large leads “feel” more real. But one can imagine a moment before the election where a few Labour supporters have a squeaky bum.
There are many problems with immigration to the US, legal and illegal. But it appears to be a net benefit, economically:
'Consider a few numbers: Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released updated 10-year economic and budget forecasts. The numbers look significantly better than they did a year earlier, and immigration is a key reason. . . . This will in turn lead to better economic growth. As CBO Director Phill Swagel wrote in a note accompanying the forecasts: As a result of these immigration-driven revisions to the size of the labor force, “we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.' source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/13/immigration-economy-jobs-cbo-report/
The same was said about EU membership and essentially unlimited immigration to the UK.
The fact is that if you separate skilled from unskilled immigration, and legal from illegal immigration, the numbers look a whole load better, and don’t upset the native population who see competition for jobs and housing way more than they see an increase in GDP.
You talk of "essentially unlimited immigration" with EU membership, but immigration post-Brexit has been higher than when we were in the EU.
I said. Labour is infested with this fungus. This is going to be painful for them
It's only, what, four or five years since the entire Lab conference was taken over for the day by wild scenes of Palestine protest with tons of flags etc etc.
So probably not surprising there is still work to be done.
Sue Gray is the new Dominic Cummings, by the sound of it. She will soon be frogmarching SpAds out of Downing Street. Rachel Reeves will resign and Wes Streeting will be the new Chancellor.
I don't see how the drip of anti-semitic revelations will necessarily play badly for Lab. Sympathy for Israel and therefore the Jews must be at an all-time low in the UK (and elsewhere throughout Europe and the world) and people have shown that sympathy for Hamas and the Gazans is very strong.
I don't see that Lab will suffer all that much. The Jewish Labour Movement may bleat on about this or that but overall I would say it would at best/worst be neutral for Lab, perhaps a slight positive.
This may be right - we shall find out - but my guess is you are underestimating the significance. The issue is the votes Labour needs. Shoring up the left and centre left is no use. They need millions (literally 2 or 3 million) Tory voters, from the centre right to vote for them. These voters are predominantly people who all their lives have respected and regarded Jewish people in this country as admirable and talented. They are historically pro Jewish. (Which does not mean they support the current Israel regime).
Some of them will not vote for a party which does not, from the heart, share this attitude. It is supposed to have been purged. But now we wonder.
Unfortunately this is a by-election dominated by a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know far, far too much.
There are conflicts all around the world that don't get a fraction of the spotlight or attention that this one has had. I wonder what is so unique about this one conflict, that every moment becomes headline news unlike all the others?
The physical carnage, the huge civilian casualties, the mass displacement of people, the resulting humanitarian disaster, the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west - these do make for a big story.
"the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west".
I think you might need to understand that this awful conflict was blatantly started by Hamas who "inflicted" rape torture and murder on innocent people.
There is a reasonable argument that the Israeli response has been disproportionate, but the "infliction" was initiated by Hamas terrorists.
As you have been an occasional apologist for Corbyn (and probably indirectly voted for him to be PM) I guess this is hard to recognise?
I know who started the fire. Hamas did. Oct 7th was unspeakable. It's now 13th February and Israel has wreaked a mighty vengeance for it.
Justifiable response to a threat deemed existential? Or barbaric collective punishment of the population of Gaza?
I think the latter.
I think you'll find that war does involve what useful idiots such as yourself would call "collective punishment".
Unfortunately this is a by-election dominated by a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know far, far too much.
There are conflicts all around the world that don't get a fraction of the spotlight or attention that this one has had. I wonder what is so unique about this one conflict, that every moment becomes headline news unlike all the others?
The physical carnage, the huge civilian casualties, the mass displacement of people, the resulting humanitarian disaster, the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west - these do make for a big story.
"the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west".
I think you might need to understand that this awful conflict was blatantly started by Hamas who "inflicted" rape torture and murder on innocent people.
There is a reasonable argument that the Israeli response has been disproportionate, but the "infliction" was initiated by Hamas terrorists.
As you have been an occasional apologist for Corbyn (and probably indirectly voted for him to be PM) I guess this is hard to recognise?
I know who started the fire. Hamas did. Oct 7th was unspeakable. It's now 13th February and Israel has wreaked a mighty vengeance for it.
Justifiable response to a threat deemed existential? Or barbaric collective punishment of the population of Gaza?
I think the latter.
I am not Jewish, but it is worth reading the history of the pogroms and the holocaust to understand as to why they might respond in a way that might be considered by non-Jews as "disproportionate". Hamas and their paymasters in Iran and possibly the Kremlin, knew what would result.
The reality is that Hamas still holds the hostages. That is barbaric. It is terrorism. It is the collective punishment of Jews for being Jews.
I don't see how the drip of anti-semitic revelations will necessarily play badly for Lab. Sympathy for Israel and therefore the Jews must be at an all-time low in the UK (and elsewhere throughout Europe and the world) and people have shown that sympathy for Hamas and the Gazans is very strong.
I don't see that Lab will suffer all that much. The Jewish Labour Movement may bleat on about this or that but overall I would say it would at best/worst be neutral for Lab, perhaps a slight positive.
This may be right - we shall find out - but my guess is you are underestimating the significance. The issue is the votes Labour needs. Shoring up the left and centre left is no use. They need millions (literally 2 or 3 million) Tory voters, from the centre right to vote for them. These voters are predominantly people who all their lives have respected and regarded Jewish people in this country as admirable and talented. They are historically pro Jewish. (Which does not mean they support the current Israel regime).
Some of them will not vote for a party which does not, from the heart, share this attitude. It is supposed to have been purged. But now we wonder.
It is absolutely not purged. Labour is rancid with this stuff. Starmer is doing a good job just to keep it reasonably invisible until the election. Then the mask will fall
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
What is our official position on mercenaries? Mercenaries bad, foreign volunteer soldiers good, is that it?
If they have dual nationalities then they are not mercenaries. But then I guess you knew that already. Apologists for Corbyn generally like to overlook the facts, particularly if it involves Jews.
The Tory media are febrile. A feeding frenzy on Starmer's nuts. May election?
A May 2nd election has to be called by about March 26th. On balance I think it won't happen, but if the bad stuff for Labour keeps piling up, this may be the turning point to make an early election happen.
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
There are probably hundreds of Labour MPs and PPCs desperately checking their twitter feeds and facebook pages wondering if they had suggested that "they" (Jews) don't understand irony or have endorsed an obviously anti-Semitic artwork/propaganda like their erstwhile leader.
If they are not, I bet there are a load of Tories and Lib Dems doing it for them!
I am sure there are. But there are probably roughly as many Conservatives checking (and being checked) that they haven't done an offensive racism as well.
As with the expenses scandal, parties don't get to choose which cans of worms to leave closed.
Yes, but I suspect that the anti-Semitism can that is in a Labour Party cupboard somewhere is rather large
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
What is our official position on mercenaries? Mercenaries bad, foreign volunteer soldiers good, is that it?
Given the number of “private military companies” based in the U.K., and the number of British operators guarding ships around the Horn of Africa, I don’t think this country can have a principled view other than “ok within the law”.
And he's not the first person I know who's had significant delays waiting for an ambulance.
My sister broke her hip yesterday at the Gym (competing with me with my broken legs two years ago while just walking out of the door for the most stupid way to have an accident) and is going to have a hip replacement tomorrow. Five and a half hours wait for the ambulance.
On the other hand: on Friday a man collapsed in the changing room of the swimming pool. CPR was performed by the staff, and an ambulance arrived very promptly. I chatted to the staff on Monday, and he survived.
(Friday was a very bad day for me. After witnessing the CPR, I came home to discover on FB that an old schoolfriend had died. Fortunately bad luck did not happen in threes.)
That's good news (the first bit anyway). That is the difference between life threatening and not which a hip isn't, although I think for a broken hip (although I guess they didn't know that at that stage) leaving someone in pain for 5.5 hours is just far too long. When I broke my legs I think it was 3 hours. Again that is really too long, although in my case I was comfortable and not in pain and the treatment I got once picked up was excellent and I was seen almost immediately on arrival in hospital.
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
What is our official position on mercenaries? Mercenaries bad, foreign volunteer soldiers good, is that it?
As far as I can tell, the latest position is: Volunteering to fight the military dictatorship of Franco - good. Volunteering to fight the military dictatorship of Assad - bad.
I don't see how the drip of anti-semitic revelations will necessarily play badly for Lab. Sympathy for Israel and therefore the Jews must be at an all-time low in the UK (and elsewhere throughout Europe and the world) and people have shown that sympathy for Hamas and the Gazans is very strong.
I don't see that Lab will suffer all that much. The Jewish Labour Movement may bleat on about this or that but overall I would say it would at best/worst be neutral for Lab, perhaps a slight positive.
This may be right - we shall find out - but my guess is you are underestimating the significance. The issue is the votes Labour needs. Shoring up the left and centre left is no use. They need millions (literally 2 or 3 million) Tory voters, from the centre right to vote for them. These voters are predominantly people who all their lives have respected and regarded Jewish people in this country as admirable and talented. They are historically pro Jewish. (Which does not mean they support the current Israel regime).
Some of them will not vote for a party which does not, from the heart, share this attitude. It is supposed to have been purged. But now we wonder.
Hmm maybe. Could be. I mean let's not misunderestimate some on the right's dislike of Jews either (the old Etonians/Estonian dynamic). I don't think it is inevitable that those on the (centre) right will naturally be anti-anti-semitic. They, like all of us, should have other fish to fry.
At the margin I think more left wingers will be not put off by the Lab candidates' pronouncements than centre right wingers will take umbrage.
By the time you account that Labour did not stand candidates in 2 wards covering about 12% of the constituency, plus a generous LLG share which Labour will drink from to an extent, then I expect Labour to be home with some comfort. (Con and LD managed full coverage, and the Independent stood where Labour didn't).
Also RefUK stood in a ward only a small part of which is in Kingswood, so covered only 0.4% of the electorate - it wasn't an unusually terrible result for them.
I'll look at Rochdale for any insights that might give when I have a few minutes, as they had a 2023 round.
The issue I have with Labour in Kingswood is the your certainty “generous LLG share which Labour will drink from to an extent”. Labour really need to drink it, yet it’s so close to where Greens are exploding with such popularity they have scrapped a Labour mayor and will knock a popular Labour front bencher out of parliament at the next general election. those LD and green votes you identify might be green on the day, and Tory’s pip Labour in Kingswood.
MoonRabbit ramping Greens in Bristol again, I see. Convenient to have a by-election to test his theory.
Yes bring it on, test my theory.
Scrapped a Labour mayor - already happened. Unseat Thangham Debonaire - almost certain to happen Strong green showing in Kingswood by election making it squeaky bum time for Labour - let’s see if I’m right.
These votes I claim green will get are Lib Dem transfers to Green, not to Labour. It’s not that crazy you know Nick.
Now now. You know that Labour believes it has a divine right to all left-of-centre voters and anyone considering voting Green or LibDem is an apostate who deserves condemnation.
What they get and when is both geographical and narrational. Geographically Bristol is the UKs Green Bastion right now, and all the former Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem voters there who have switched green seem to be very happy with it. On the ‘get Sunak out’ narration of general election day these same voters thwarting Labour this week would probably go Labour to give Labour Kingswood, (and possibly Uxbridge too). Whilst at same time, a bus ride away, green votes unseat Thangham Debonaire.
Are you sure about Thangam Debbonaire? Seems somewhat unlikely.
Bristol West 2019 GE: Labour 47,028 (62.3%); Greens 18,809 (24.9%). And I believe 2019 was a very poor GE for Labour.
Yes. Absolutely certain she is at risk.
Political Betting Post
1. boundary changes, she is now central, not West 2. Green strength since 2019 gives the seat comfortably to them on how council wards have voted. Though still a tight battle, nothing certain. Great betting opportunity to get on early if you are not aware of info I just gave you
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
What is our official position on mercenaries? Mercenaries bad, foreign volunteer soldiers good, is that it?
If they have dual nationalities then they are not mercenaries. But then I guess you knew that already. Apologists for Corbyn generally like to overlook the facts, particularly if it involves Jews.
What are you talking about? Has Corbyn been seen lurking round Tel Aviv with a rifle over his shoulder?
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
Plenty of analysts believe that this is what an invasion of Taiwan might look like - hypersonic missiles in case the US fleet was thinking of getting involved.
Doing some digging it does seem a very live debate. Some say it is the end of the aircraft carrier, some say the missiles are hyped and not THAT dangerous
I am not a ballistic missile engineer/strategic defence analyst, I dunno
The importance of this CNN report (if it is acccurate) is that they, and the Ukes, are claiming this is the first time a "hypersonic" missile has been used in actual warfare, rather than just a test or a wargame. DYOR!
"CNN — Ukraine claims it has evidence Russia fired an advanced hypersonic missile – one that experts say is almost impossible to shoot down – for the first time in the almost 2-year-old war.
The government-run Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise said in a Telegram post that debris recovered after a February 7 attack on the Ukrainian capital pointed to the use of a Zircon hypersonic cruise missile by the Russian military."
There’s a difference between an ICBM (a rocket-launched from the ground), a rocket-powered missile launched from an aircraft, and a revolutionary mach 5 jet-powered missile. The first two are old technology, can be seen from space, and aren’t going to do much in modern warfare.
The third is an interesting innovation if it works to lock a target, rather than simply heading for a fixed co-ordinate. It would need air defence elements to be positioned along the trajectory to anticipate its arrival, as it goes faster than the defence missiles. There’s no evidence that Russia, China, or North Korea actually have any of these, despite several demonstrations they claim to have given.
I suspect he doesn't know the difference between a rocket and a jet.
Further - to get true hypersonic air breathing missiles to work, you need a scramjet. A scramjet is where the combustion inside the engine is with supersonic flow . All existing air breathing engines slow the incoming air down to subsonic velocities. See the enormous cone things in the inlets of the SR71.
To date, claims of actually getting net thrust out of a scram jet are debated. Some experiments may have worked. For seconds.
Even if you get that all to work, you have to fly in a perfectly straight line. Otherwise the shock wave in the intake tears your whole plane/missile apart. Which is the usual fate of scram jet tests, by the way.
The Russian hypersonic missiles are all rocket powered. Ballistic weapons fired from aircraft, mainly.
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
What is our official position on mercenaries? Mercenaries bad, foreign volunteer soldiers good, is that it?
If they have dual nationalities then they are not mercenaries. But then I guess you knew that already. Apologists for Corbyn generally like to overlook the facts, particularly if it involves Jews.
What are you talking about? Has Corbyn been seen lurking round Tel Aviv with a rifle over his shoulder?
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
What is our official position on mercenaries? Mercenaries bad, foreign volunteer soldiers good, is that it?
A very good question. Can anyone in take up arms for a country to which they are not a citizen? Plenty of wars going on at the moment. Liverpool must be bursting with young lads wanting to try a bit of human target practice with an Uzi.
By the time you account that Labour did not stand candidates in 2 wards covering about 12% of the constituency, plus a generous LLG share which Labour will drink from to an extent, then I expect Labour to be home with some comfort. (Con and LD managed full coverage, and the Independent stood where Labour didn't).
Also RefUK stood in a ward only a small part of which is in Kingswood, so covered only 0.4% of the electorate - it wasn't an unusually terrible result for them.
I'll look at Rochdale for any insights that might give when I have a few minutes, as they had a 2023 round.
The issue I have with Labour in Kingswood is the your certainty “generous LLG share which Labour will drink from to an extent”. Labour really need to drink it, yet it’s so close to where Greens are exploding with such popularity they have scrapped a Labour mayor and will knock a popular Labour front bencher out of parliament at the next general election. those LD and green votes you identify might be green on the day, and Tory’s pip Labour in Kingswood.
MoonRabbit ramping Greens in Bristol again, I see. Convenient to have a by-election to test his theory.
Yes bring it on, test my theory.
Scrapped a Labour mayor - already happened. Unseat Thangham Debonaire - almost certain to happen Strong green showing in Kingswood by election making it squeaky bum time for Labour - let’s see if I’m right.
These votes I claim green will get are Lib Dem transfers to Green, not to Labour. It’s not that crazy you know Nick.
Now now. You know that Labour believes it has a divine right to all left-of-centre voters and anyone considering voting Green or LibDem is an apostate who deserves condemnation.
What they get and when is both geographical and narrational. Geographically Bristol is the UKs Green Bastion right now, and all the former Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem voters there who have switched green seem to be very happy with it. On the ‘get Sunak out’ narration of general election day these same voters thwarting Labour this week would probably go Labour to give Labour Kingswood, (and possibly Uxbridge too). Whilst at same time, a bus ride away, green votes unseat Thangham Debonaire.
Are you sure about Thangam Debbonaire? Seems somewhat unlikely.
Bristol West 2019 GE: Labour 47,028 (62.3%); Greens 18,809 (24.9%). And I believe 2019 was a very poor GE for Labour.
Yes. Absolutely certain she is at risk.
Political Betting Post
1. boundary changes, she is now central, not West 2. Green strength since 2019 gives the seat comfortably to them on how council wards have voted. Though still a tight battle, nothing certain. Great betting opportunity to get on early if you are not aware of info I just gave you
Boundary changes are noted but it's still not happening. More chance of Watford winning the Premier League this season (ok roughly the same chance).
By the time you account that Labour did not stand candidates in 2 wards covering about 12% of the constituency, plus a generous LLG share which Labour will drink from to an extent, then I expect Labour to be home with some comfort. (Con and LD managed full coverage, and the Independent stood where Labour didn't).
Also RefUK stood in a ward only a small part of which is in Kingswood, so covered only 0.4% of the electorate - it wasn't an unusually terrible result for them.
I'll look at Rochdale for any insights that might give when I have a few minutes, as they had a 2023 round.
The issue I have with Labour in Kingswood is the your certainty “generous LLG share which Labour will drink from to an extent”. Labour really need to drink it, yet it’s so close to where Greens are exploding with such popularity they have scrapped a Labour mayor and will knock a popular Labour front bencher out of parliament at the next general election. those LD and green votes you identify might be green on the day, and Tory’s pip Labour in Kingswood.
MoonRabbit ramping Greens in Bristol again, I see. Convenient to have a by-election to test his theory.
Yes bring it on, test my theory.
Scrapped a Labour mayor - already happened. Unseat Thangham Debonaire - almost certain to happen Strong green showing in Kingswood by election making it squeaky bum time for Labour - let’s see if I’m right.
These votes I claim green will get are Lib Dem transfers to Green, not to Labour. It’s not that crazy you know Nick.
Now now. You know that Labour believes it has a divine right to all left-of-centre voters and anyone considering voting Green or LibDem is an apostate who deserves condemnation.
What they get and when is both geographical and narrational. Geographically Bristol is the UKs Green Bastion right now, and all the former Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem voters there who have switched green seem to be very happy with it. On the ‘get Sunak out’ narration of general election day these same voters thwarting Labour this week would probably go Labour to give Labour Kingswood, (and possibly Uxbridge too). Whilst at same time, a bus ride away, green votes unseat Thangham Debonaire.
Are you sure about Thangam Debbonaire? Seems somewhat unlikely.
Bristol West 2019 GE: Labour 47,028 (62.3%); Greens 18,809 (24.9%). And I believe 2019 was a very poor GE for Labour.
Yes. Absolutely certain she is at risk.
Political Betting Post
1. boundary changes, she is now central, not West 2. Green strength since 2019 gives the seat comfortably to them on how council wards have voted. Though still a tight battle, nothing certain. Great betting opportunity to get on early if you are not aware of info I just gave you
Boundary changes are noted but it's still not happening. More chance of Watford winning the Premier League this season (ok roughly the same chance).
No GRN MPs in GE 2024.
You might be right. But Bristol Centre will be close.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
The Russian navy has been destroyed by drones, its flagships now lying on the sea floor, so I'm not sure "hypersonic missiles" are the future.
Drones can theoretically be fended off, albeit it is complicated, and tiresome
If these hypersonic missiles are real (and I am relying on Woke Mad CNN here, so veracity is an issue) then that to me says the era of the aircraft carrier and the trad navy is over. It's not just more difficult to operate enormous ships, it is pointless, they will be zapped
It's great we just spent £6bn on two of these things. I guess we can use them for "humanitarian" purposes
Indeed I have a feeling that is the only way we will ever use them, they will never be risked in battle, for the reasons I have cited
Hypersonic missiles are real. Have existed for some time (the US has some). But have a number of very large disadvantages, the biggest one of which is that they cause the air in front of them to heat up massively (because that's what happens when you push something through the air at very high speeds).
This means that you cannot put normal targeting (laser, camera, IR, radar) on the front of them, because all you see is superheated air.
Which means if you want to hit a city, they're great. As you know exactly where it is, and it's not moving.
But it kinda sucks for hitting a ship, because you don't know exactly where it is.
Then it all depends how much a hypersonic missile costs
If you can send 50 of them into the area where a carrier is likely to be, with a high chance one will hit and destroy the carrier, then it’s worth it. If a carrier costs £3bn, and a missile costs £30m each - then you can afford to fire 100 missiles
Bring the cost of the missiles down to £3m, and it’s game over for the carriers
The whole thrust of war seems to be towards cheaper mobile attacking platforms, drones, AI, missiles, and against massive lumbering objects, tanks, destroyers, carriers
Also mines are now much cheaper than men
I think traditional navies are in their last days, like cavalry forces in WW1. Cf the Russian Black Sea fleet
Well, I'd be staggered if they just cost $3m - given that they involve highly complex new engines. And don't forget that they tend to have fairly small warheads.
That said, I agree traditional carrier based navies are over. But I think they are replaced by 20 drone carrying ships rather than navies disappearing altogether. If you are able to launch 400 drones at a time, each of which carries munitions, then you will be able to absolutely overwhelm targets. And because those drones don't require people, they can be smaller, cheap, more maueverable, etc.
Edit to add: Russia does an amazing job custom producing one off new tanks and aircraft. What's it done a terrible job with is mass production.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
The Russian navy has been destroyed by drones, its flagships now lying on the sea floor, so I'm not sure "hypersonic missiles" are the future.
Drones can theoretically be fended off, albeit it is complicated, and tiresome
If these hypersonic missiles are real (and I am relying on Woke Mad CNN here, so veracity is an issue) then that to me says the era of the aircraft carrier and the trad navy is over. It's not just more difficult to operate enormous ships, it is pointless, they will be zapped
It's great we just spent £6bn on two of these things. I guess we can use them for "humanitarian" purposes
Indeed I have a feeling that is the only way we will ever use them, they will never be risked in battle, for the reasons I have cited
Hypersonic missiles are real. Have existed for some time (the US has some). But have a number of very large disadvantages, the biggest one of which is that they cause the air in front of them to heat up massively (because that's what happens when you push something through the air at very high speeds).
This means that you cannot put normal targeting (laser, camera, IR, radar) on the front of them, because all you see is superheated air.
Which means if you want to hit a city, they're great. As you know exactly where it is, and it's not moving.
But it kinda sucks for hitting a ship, because you don't know exactly where it is.
Then it all depends how much a hypersonic missile costs
If you can send 50 of them into the area where a carrier is likely to be, with a high chance one will hit and destroy the carrier, then it’s worth it. If a carrier costs £3bn, and a missile costs £30m each - then you can afford to fire 100 missiles
Bring the cost of the missiles down to £3m, and it’s game over for the carriers
The whole thrust of war seems to be towards cheaper mobile attacking platforms, drones, AI, missiles, and against massive lumbering objects, tanks, destroyers, carriers
Also mines are now much cheaper than men
I think traditional navies are in their last days, like cavalry forces in WW1. Cf the Russian Black Sea fleet
The sea is a very, very big place and ships are moving all the time so even if your satellite found the target carrier and gave the coordinates to the hypersonic missile base, the ship will be somewhere else in a matter of seconds.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
The Russian navy has been destroyed by drones, its flagships now lying on the sea floor, so I'm not sure "hypersonic missiles" are the future.
Drones can theoretically be fended off, albeit it is complicated, and tiresome
If these hypersonic missiles are real (and I am relying on Woke Mad CNN here, so veracity is an issue) then that to me says the era of the aircraft carrier and the trad navy is over. It's not just more difficult to operate enormous ships, it is pointless, they will be zapped
It's great we just spent £6bn on two of these things. I guess we can use them for "humanitarian" purposes
Indeed I have a feeling that is the only way we will ever use them, they will never be risked in battle, for the reasons I have cited
Hypersonic missiles are real. Have existed for some time (the US has some). But have a number of very large disadvantages, the biggest one of which is that they cause the air in front of them to heat up massively (because that's what happens when you push something through the air at very high speeds).
This means that you cannot put normal targeting (laser, camera, IR, radar) on the front of them, because all you see is superheated air.
Which means if you want to hit a city, they're great. As you know exactly where it is, and it's not moving.
But it kinda sucks for hitting a ship, because you don't know exactly where it is.
Well you can if you slow them down in the terminal phase. The plasma effects make them quite tough to track with conventional radar, apparently.
The U.S. has reportedly finally got some of the tech working, after many failures, but I think it's work in progress for all of the countries developing them as far as reliable systems are concerned.
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Have you suddenly become a bit stupid, like the rest of PB? This is quite depressing
I wasn't even commenting on the impact this might have on the outcome of the present Ukraine war. I thought that was fairly clear
I was commenting on how this will influence war-making from here on, just as the advent of the V2 - which led to the ICBM - massively impacted geopolitics - and warfare - from the end of WW2 onwards
If hypersonic missiles, which cannot be shot down, are a thing (and this is what CNN are claiming) then I do not see how traditonal navies can operate. How do you defend a £3bn capital ship like an aircraft carrier against a £3m hypersonic missile which cannot be shot down? If it cannot be shot down, or deflected, then you can't defend the ship. So that's the end of the carrier, the carrier group, the navy as we htave known it, they make no sense, they are merely very expensive and easy targets
No?
Of course CNN might have got this wrong, maybe the Ukes are lying for propaganda purposes - I have no idea, on that front
The Russian navy has been destroyed by drones, its flagships now lying on the sea floor, so I'm not sure "hypersonic missiles" are the future.
Drones can theoretically be fended off, albeit it is complicated, and tiresome
If these hypersonic missiles are real (and I am relying on Woke Mad CNN here, so veracity is an issue) then that to me says the era of the aircraft carrier and the trad navy is over. It's not just more difficult to operate enormous ships, it is pointless, they will be zapped
It's great we just spent £6bn on two of these things. I guess we can use them for "humanitarian" purposes
Indeed I have a feeling that is the only way we will ever use them, they will never be risked in battle, for the reasons I have cited
Hypersonic missiles are real. Have existed for some time (the US has some). But have a number of very large disadvantages, the biggest one of which is that they cause the air in front of them to heat up massively (because that's what happens when you push something through the air at very high speeds).
This means that you cannot put normal targeting (laser, camera, IR, radar) on the front of them, because all you see is superheated air.
Which means if you want to hit a city, they're great. As you know exactly where it is, and it's not moving.
But it kinda sucks for hitting a ship, because you don't know exactly where it is.
Then it all depends how much a hypersonic missile costs
If you can send 50 of them into the area where a carrier is likely to be, with a high chance one will hit and destroy the carrier, then it’s worth it. If a carrier costs £3bn, and a missile costs £30m each - then you can afford to fire 100 missiles
Bring the cost of the missiles down to £3m, and it’s game over for the carriers
The whole thrust of war seems to be towards cheaper mobile attacking platforms, drones, AI, missiles, and against massive lumbering objects, tanks, destroyers, carriers
Also mines are now much cheaper than men
I think traditional navies are in their last days, like cavalry forces in WW1. Cf the Russian Black Sea fleet
Well, I'd be staggered if they just cost $3m - given that they involve highly complex new engines. And don't forget that they tend to have fairly small warheads.
That said, I agree traditional carrier based navies are over. But I think they are replaced by 20 drone carrying ships rather than navies disappearing altogether. If you are able to launch 400 drones at a time, each of which carries munitions, then you will be able to absolutely overwhelm targets. And because those drones don't require people, they can be smaller, cheap, more maueverable, etc.
Then you discover the issue, that if your drones are not just throw away vehicles, that you need maintenance, fuel etc.
And you need to defend your drone carrier.
Before you know it, you are back at a... carrier.
Laser weapons are just getting going, by the way. Especially for point defence. Shoot until you run out of electricity. Which on a nuclear powered ship may be a while.
I said. Labour is infested with this fungus. This is going to be painful for them
It's only, what, four or five years since the entire Lab conference was taken over for the day by wild scenes of Palestine protest with tons of flags etc etc.
So probably not surprising there is still work to be done.
To be slightly fair to them, that was before Hamas launched a terrorist attack that killed more than a thousand targeted civilians. How anyone still defends Hamas after the events of October 7th 2023, is a different question.
Unfortunately this is a by-election dominated by a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know far, far too much.
There are conflicts all around the world that don't get a fraction of the spotlight or attention that this one has had. I wonder what is so unique about this one conflict, that every moment becomes headline news unlike all the others?
The physical carnage, the huge civilian casualties, the mass displacement of people, the resulting humanitarian disaster, the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west - these do make for a big story.
"the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west".
I think you might need to understand that this awful conflict was blatantly started by Hamas who "inflicted" rape torture and murder on innocent people.
There is a reasonable argument that the Israeli response has been disproportionate, but the "infliction" was initiated by Hamas terrorists.
As you have been an occasional apologist for Corbyn (and probably indirectly voted for him to be PM) I guess this is hard to recognise?
I know who started the fire. Hamas did. Oct 7th was unspeakable. It's now 13th February and Israel has wreaked a mighty vengeance for it.
Justifiable response to a threat deemed existential? Or barbaric collective punishment of the population of Gaza?
I think the latter.
I think you'll find that war does involve what useful idiots such as yourself would call "collective punishment".
Bad things do indeed happen in War. Any more pearls?
Comments
The fact is that if you separate skilled from unskilled immigration, and legal from illegal immigration, the numbers look a whole load better, and don’t upset the native population who see competition for jobs and housing way more than they see an increase in GDP.
The bill recently passed by the Senate would perhaps shift the dial on this a bit in Taiwan's favour, increasing the uncertainty for China.
in the pay ofsympathetic to Xi and Putin to block it.Jewish Labour demands party stands down second candidate after 'appalling' comments reported
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-rishi-sunak-general-election-keir-starmer-12593360?postid=7222050#liveblog-body
To date, claims of actually getting net thrust out of a scram jet are debated. Some experiments may have worked. For seconds.
Even if you get that all to work, you have to fly in a perfectly straight line. Otherwise the shock wave in the intake tears your whole plane/missile apart. Which is the usual fate of scram jet tests, by the way.
The Russian hypersonic missiles are all rocket powered. Ballistic weapons fired from aircraft, mainly.
Though some young ginger cats do channel individuals quite well - imo.
And I'll stop there ... for today.
(There's nearly another 3 weeks to go yet.
USA policy on Taiwan is to hold the ring by not stating whether or not it will go to war to defend it.
Like all the above, this works until the moment it doesn't.
Kingswood - LAB to win well
Wellingborough - LAB to win HUGE, hideous result coming for CON, possibly biggest CON - LAB swing in by election history
Rochdale - anything is possible. Most likely Galloway or Ali. CON gain unlikely but not impossible!
DYOR I have no specific info.
I thought Lab were a bet at 2/1, but didn’t back them. Story of my life
Bristol West 2019 GE: Labour 47,028 (62.3%); Greens 18,809 (24.9%).
And I believe 2019 was a very poor GE for Labour.
Then again, Sir Keir only gave AA the Spanish Archer because he discovered further unsavoury comments, so maybe what GJ said isn’t enough
Mind you, Jones isn’t an MP, just a PPC
Tories worse than expected in Kingswood.
George, and hat, to win Rochdale.
As brilliantly recreated in Waterloo...
"A teenage transgender girl was rushed to hospital after being stabbed 14 times, a court has heard.
The victim, 18, was attending a roller-skating party with friends when she was allegedly attacked by a group and subjected to slurs, it is said.
Summer Betts-Ramsey, 19, appeared in the dock at Willesden magistrates court on Tuesday, accused of being involved in the stabbing.
She has been charged with attempted murder and possession of an offensive weapon in public.
Prosecutor Bunsri Bhuwa confirmed to the court that “the victim is a transgender female.”"
RIP, Steve.
This means that you cannot put normal targeting (laser, camera, IR, radar) on the front of them, because all you see is superheated air.
Which means if you want to hit a city, they're great. As you know exactly where it is, and it's not moving.
But it kinda sucks for hitting a ship, because you don't know exactly where it is.
https://news.yahoo.com/russias-zircon-hypersonic-super-weapon-122715731.html
It also explains why ships will be safe as these missiles are unable to hit a moving object!
I think you might need to understand that this awful conflict was blatantly started by Hamas who "inflicted" rape torture and murder on innocent people.
There is a reasonable argument that the Israeli response has been disproportionate, but the "infliction" was initiated by Hamas terrorists.
As you have been an occasional apologist for Corbyn (and probably indirectly voted for him to be PM) I guess this is hard to recognise?
🚨 BREAKING: Graham Jones has been suspended by the Labour Party after saying Britons who volunteer to fight for Israel should be "locked up"
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1757453634403524787
All Starmer can do at this point. But it sets a threshold for other parties.
Except these PPC’s are a former MP, & a current councillor/twice defeated PPC. Known quantities rather than punters who’d never been involved in politics before
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1757392751237136811
I don't see that Lab will suffer all that much. The Jewish Labour Movement may bleat on about this or that but overall I would say it would at best/worst be neutral for Lab, perhaps a slight positive.
If they are not, I bet there are a load of Tories and Lib Dems doing it for them!
If you can send 50 of them into the area where a carrier is likely to be, with a high chance one will hit and destroy the carrier, then it’s worth it. If a carrier costs £3bn, and a missile costs £30m each - then you can afford to fire 100 missiles
Bring the cost of the missiles down to £3m, and it’s game over for the carriers
The whole thrust of war seems to be towards cheaper mobile attacking platforms, drones, AI, missiles, and against massive lumbering objects, tanks, destroyers, carriers
Also mines are now much cheaper than men
I think traditional navies are in their last days, like cavalry forces in WW1. Cf the Russian Black Sea fleet
Justifiable response to a threat deemed existential? Or barbaric collective punishment of the population of Gaza?
I think the latter.
Labour staff have filed a complaint over Sue Gray's handling of a leak inquiry
They claim that Starmer's chief of staff inspected phones and interviewed them without union reps during party probe into story on £28bn U-turn
https://x.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1757454177649799596?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
As with the expenses scandal, parties don't get to choose which cans of worms to leave closed.
Of course, they don’t, and the large leads “feel” more real. But one can imagine a moment before the election where a few Labour supporters have a squeaky bum.
So probably not surprising there is still work to be done.
Some of them will not vote for a party which does not, from the heart, share this attitude. It is supposed to have been purged. But now we wonder.
The reality is that Hamas still holds the hostages. That is barbaric. It is terrorism. It is the collective punishment of Jews for being Jews.
Labour lead at 11pts
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 40% (-3)
CON: 29% (-)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
REF: 10% (+2)
GRN: 6% (-)
via @MoreinCommon_
Fully expect them to win the by elections but longer terms this is bad for,them,if they don’t sort it.
Volunteering to fight the military dictatorship of Franco - good.
Volunteering to fight the military dictatorship of Assad - bad.
At the margin I think more left wingers will be not put off by the Lab candidates' pronouncements than centre right wingers will take umbrage.
Political Betting Post
1. boundary changes, she is now central, not West 2. Green strength since 2019 gives the seat comfortably to them on how council wards have voted. Though still a tight battle, nothing certain. Great betting opportunity to get on early if you are not aware of info I just gave you
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
They are going to be quite tough to counter, if functioning as claimed.
No GRN MPs in GE 2024.
That said, I agree traditional carrier based navies are over. But I think they are replaced by 20 drone carrying ships rather than navies disappearing altogether. If you are able to launch 400 drones at a time, each of which carries munitions, then you will be able to absolutely overwhelm targets. And because those drones don't require people, they can be smaller, cheap, more maueverable, etc.
Edit to add: Russia does an amazing job custom producing one off new tanks and aircraft. What's it done a terrible job with is mass production.
I remember listening to his show on Radio 1 in the 80s .
The plasma effects make them quite tough to track with conventional radar, apparently.
The U.S. has reportedly finally got some of the tech working, after many failures, but I think it's work in progress for all of the countries developing them as far as reliable systems are concerned.
And you need to defend your drone carrier.
Before you know it, you are back at a... carrier.
Laser weapons are just getting going, by the way. Especially for point defence. Shoot until you run out of electricity. Which on a nuclear powered ship may be a while.
Unusual.